Super Bowl LIX saw the Philadelphia Eagles beat the Kansas City Chiefs 40-22 for the ultimate trophy win. But those teams weren't the only adversaries present at New Orleans’ Caesars Superdome. President Donald Trump and musician Taylor Swift were also in attendance, as was expected. Trump, the 2024 TIME Person of the Year, and Swift, who received TIME’s Person of the Year title in 2023, have a complicated past. Both parties have called one another out over opposing political views and actions. After staying away from publicly commenting on politics during the beginning of her career, Swift endorsed a Democratic candidate in the U.S. Senate election in Tennessee in 2018. Trump publicly responded to Swift’s endorsement, and various comments have been made by both sides since. Indeed, this tense relationship became a focus of the night, as a moment when Swift appeared to be booed—perhaps by Eagles fans opposing her boyfriend Travis Kelce's Chiefs—was widely shared by Trump supporters online, and even by Trump himself on his social media platform Truth Social. In light of both Trump and Swift attending the Super Bowl, here’s a look back at their tense history. October 2018: Trump responds to Swift’s endorsement of Democratic candidate Though Swift had, prior to this, stayed away from political endorsements, she decided in 2018 to voice her support for Democratic senatorial candidate Phil Bredesen over Republican candidate Blackburn. Swift said Blackburn's voting record in Congress “appalls and terrifies" her. At the White House a few days later, Trump was asked about the endorsement by reporters. August 2019: Swift says Trump thinks he’s in an “autocracy” In an interview with the Guardian, Swift publicly criticized Trump after not endorsing a candidate during the 2016 election. When asked about the Trump Administration by the publication, she said: “We’re a democracy—at least, we’re supposed to be—where you’re allowed to disagree, dissent, debate. I really think that he thinks this is an autocracy." She also told the outlet that she felt “really remorseful for not saying anything” during the 2016 election between Trump and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. January 2020: Swift reveals more in her Miss Americana documentary In her 2020 Netflix documentary, Miss Americana, Swift took fans behind the scenes of her decision to endorse Tennessee Democratic candidate Bredesen in his Senate race against Republican candidate Blackburn, which was ultimately won by Blackburn. In the documentary, Swift refers to Blackburn as “Trump in a wig.” May 29, 2020: Swift tells Trump “we will vote you out” Swift took a strong stand against the President in the midst of the protests after the killing of George Floyd. Trump posted on X (formerly Twitter), warning protesters in Minnesota that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Trump’s post was then flagged by Twitter—two years before the platform was bought by Trump supporter and DOGE leader Elon Musk—for “glorifying violence.” Swift then took to the same social media platform to address Trump directly. “After stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism your entire presidency, you have the nerve to feign moral superiority before threatening violence?” she wrote. “‘When the looting starts the shooting starts’??? We will vote you out in November. @realdonaldtrump.”

Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show was filled with symbolism—from Uncle Sam(uel L. Jackson) to a crip walking Serena Williams—but perhaps the most powerful symbol on stage was not even planned, according to the producers of the performance. Standing on the hood of a Buick Grand National GNX (after which Lamar named his most recent album, “GNX”), in a sea of dancers, a man clad in black sweats unfurled the Palestinian and Sudanese flags. He then jumped down from the car and ran along the perimeter of the stage, waving the flags, which had the words “Sudan” and “Gaza” written on them with a heart and a solidarity fist, before being tackled by security staff. The NFL said the protester, who was detained by security, was part of the 400-member field cast for the show but said that he had hidden the flags on him. “No one involved with the production was aware of the individual’s intent,” the league said in a statement. Roc Nation, the entertainment company behind the halftime show, said that the act was “neither planned nor part of the production and was never in any rehearsal.” The man, who later identified himself as Zül-Qarnain Nantambu, will not face charges, New Orleans police said on Monday. He has been banned from future NFL events, according to the league and the New Orleans Police Department. The game, attended by President Donald Trump, took place amid a weekslong ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, pausing the war in Gaza that has killed more than 47,000 Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Sudanese civil war between the paramilitary group RSF and the Sudanese military rages on, having killed more than 28,000 people and displacing millions more since April 2023. The moment has gained significant attention on social media. Critics labeled the protester a “Hamas supporter” and “terror supporter,” but many more were supportive of the act. One X user wrote: “Do you understand how wild it is that people are breaking down the symbolism in Kendrick’s performance while a Black man literally got arrested for unfurling Palestine’s and Sudan’s flag during it?! The display of solidarity was clearly the more powerful piece of art!” Some Lamar fans, despite clarification from the NFL and Roc Nation, assumed the artist endorsed the move by one of his performers. “KENDRICK WENT ON THE BIGGEST STAGE ARGUABLY IN WESTERN MUSIC AND PUT UP THE PALESTINE FLAG WHILE SOMEONE ELSE IS IN THE BUILDING AND THATS HOW I KNOW WE MADE THE RIGHT ONE FAMOUS,” one X user said. “I know the NFL will rake him over the coals for this but I really appreciate the gesture. Thank you Kendrick Lamar,” another wrote. Others, however, noted that Lamar has not publicly spoken about the wars in Gaza and Sudan. “This should have been part of Kendrick’s performance but he’s not brave enough. His silence on Palestine/Sudan makes his ‘conscious about issues on the world’ music lose a lot of value,” sports journalist Leyla Hamed posted. But whether or not Lamar was on board, many celebrated the protest for bringing attention to the humanitarian crises in Palestine and Sudan. One wrote: “either way if someone snuck in during the performance and held the sudan and palestine flag up, or it was planned by Kendrick and his backup dancers they were incredibly brave for this and its a reminder to not be distracted from the genocides taking place.”

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. Judges are starting to restrain Donald Trump and Elon Musk, doing the work the legislative branch and activists seem unable to muster. The number of rulings pushing back against the President’s barrage of executive actions keeps climbing, as courts have halted plans to shut down congressionally authorized agencies, transfer transgender women in the prison system to male-only prisons, and offer unfunded buyouts to millions of federal employees. Judges were even working on it over the weekend, with one issuing an emergency order early Saturday to temporarily restrict Elon Musk’s team from access to the highly sensitive Treasury Department’s payment system. At least 40 lawsuits are rushing the legal system to oppose some aspects of the administration's efforts. Brian Schatz was counting on all of this. The senior Senator from Hawaii has emerged as one of Democrats’ standout fighters in the first three weeks of the second Trump era, thanks in part to his meeting the moment with hair-on-fire passion while still stressing a steady-as-she-goes long view. Schatz is working off a playbook that assumes the courts, remade over the last two decades to be decidedly right-of-center, will stick to the law as the mainstream legal community has long interpreted it. “I’m not here to suggest that people shouldn’t be alarmed,” he told The New Yorker. “I think they should be alarmed, but I also think that one of Trump’s great advantages is that he’s a very effective bluffer. And most of this stuff is going to cause a ton of damage, but will eventually be found to be illegal.” It’s lost on few in Washington that Schatz is having a moment. As many Democrats in Congress have struggled to respond to the fire hose of disruption—at times seeming downright doddering in response to the White House’s potential upending of the constitutional order—the 53-year-old Schatz has helped his party find their footing. Yet even Schatz understands his form of The Resistance is only nibbling at the edges. “There’s very little we can do but to scream about it and cause delays at the margins,” Schatz told New York last week. He pointed to Senate Democrats recently refusing to give Republicans a unanimous go-ahead on a procedural vote. The net cost: “all of 12 minutes” of delay. “So people need to understand there is no magic button called ‘courageously obstruct,’” he said. Schatz’s background as a former aid worker in Africa is proving especially apt for this moment, making him possibly the most effective spokesman for the pushback against Trump’s assault on foreign aid, despite some prominent Democrats arguing it’s a fight their party should concede. Even then, Schatz is stressing that the center will hold thanks to the resiliency of the courts. "A stable world means a stable America,” Schatz said a week ago in front of the headquarters of the U.S. Agency for International Development, doing his level best to buck-up soon-to-be-fired employees who at that point had only been abruptly locked out of their office. “They are counting on some sense of inevitability. This is a bluff. It is a harmful, dangerous, killer bluff. But they don't have the law on their side." That was last Monday. On Friday, workers riding a cherry-picker removed the signage outside of U.S. AID at the precise spot where Schatz had delivered his pep talk. They also put wide black tape over U.S. AID’s name on signposts around the headquarters, effectively vanishing it from the map. And then that very afternoon, a district judge nominated by Trump in 2019, blocked the administration’s plan to put 2,200 U.S. AID employees on administrative leave and withdraw nearly all of the agency’s workers from overseas. The ruling was to allow the court to hear arguments from the administration and unions representing many of the agency’s workers about the legality of shutting down an agency authorized by Congress. Yet even if Trump doesn’t get to, as Musk crowed, feed “U.S.A.I.D. into the wood chipper,” the agency’s work and reputation has still been damaged. And the fact that desperately needed food and medicine has been made into a political football says as much about this moment as anything. And of course, it’s worth remembering, it’s only been three weeks. Which is why so much of Washington is looking to the courts as the bulwark against Trumpism’s total domination. But assuming the judiciary knocks down the administration’s most disruptive efforts—no sure thing—there’s still the fear that Trump might barrel forward with what a judge expressly told him he could not do. At that point, the debate over whether we’re in the midst of a constitutional crisis will be over. So, for now, plugged-in players in D.C watch as a far-flung coalition of anti-Trump forces look to obstruction as a tool but not an answer, and hold to the belief that judges can curb most of the President’s overreach.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is an independent, 162-year-old nongovernmental agency tasked with investigating and reporting on a wide range of subjects. In recent years, diversity, equity and inclusion — collectively known as D.E.I. — have been central to its agenda. But the Academies’ priorities changed abruptly on Jan. 31. Shortly after receiving a “stop work” order from the Trump administration, the institute closed its Office of Diversity and Inclusion, removed prominent links to its work on D.E.I. from its website’s homepage and paused projects on related themes. Now the website highlights the Academies’ interest in artificial intelligence and “our work to build a robust economy.” The quick about-face reflects the widespread impact that President Trump’s executive order on D.E.I. is having on scientific institutions across the nation, both governmental and private. The crackdown is altering scientific exploration and research agendas across a broad swath of fields. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT NASA cut requirements for inclusivity from several of its programs. The National Institutes of Health removed the application for its new Environmental Justice Scholars Program. National laboratories under the Department of Energy took down web pages that had expressed a commitment to diversity, while the department suspended its promotion of inclusive and equitable research. None of these federal agencies responded to requests for comment. Many organizations initiated D.E.I. programs as a way to correct historical underrepresentation in the sciences. According to one report, in 2021, just 35 percent of STEM employees were women, 9 percent were Black and less than 1 percent were Indigenous. “If we want to be the best country for the world in terms of science, we need to leverage our entire population to do so,” said Julie Posselt, an associate dean at the University of Southern California. D.E.I. programs, she added, “have ensured that the diverse population we have can make its way into the scientific work force.”Federal frenzy One NASA program affected is FarmFlux, a research initiative on agricultural emissions that redacted plans to recruit from “diverse student groups” for its team. Mentions of another, called Here to Observe, which partners with smaller academic institutions to expose historically underrepresented students to planetary science, have been removed from the space agency’s website. Peter Eley, a dean at Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University who, in 2023, worked as a liaison for minority-serving institutions in NASA’s Office of STEM, noted that such programs often support students from lower-income rural communities, regardless of their racial background.Many of these students “don’t know what’s out there,” Dr. Eley said. “They don’t have the opportunity to see what is possible.” At the National Science Foundation, or N.S.F., an agencywide review of current awards supporting D.E.I. initiatives is underway. Part of the agency’s grant criteria includes “broader impacts,” defined as the potential to benefit society. That encompasses, but is not limited to, efforts to broaden participation of underrepresented groups in science.According to a program director at the foundation, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, a software algorithm flagged grants that included words and phrases often associated with D.E.I., including “activism” and “equal opportunity.” Other words it searched for were more nebulous — “institutional,” “underappreciated” and “women” — or can mean something else in scientific research, like “bias” and “polarization.” N.S.F. officials were instructed to manually review grants flagged by the algorithm. Some staff members, including the N.S.F. program director, made a point of removing the flag from most awards. “I’ll probably get in trouble for doing that,” she said. “But I’m not in the business of McCarthyism.” The N.S.F. did not answer questions sent by The New York Times regarding its ongoing review of awards. Scientists funded by the agency whose research has D.E.I. components said that they had not received enough information about how to comply with the executive order. “Do you drop what you’re supposed to do as part of your N.S.F. proposal, or do you risk being noncompliant with this very vague guidance?” asked Adrian Fraser, a physicist at the University of Colorado Boulder. Diana Macias, an N.S.F.-funded forest ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, worried that her involvement in recruiting people from tribal communities to manage the local environment would end. Threats to the forest “require a broad coalition of people” to mitigate, she said, adding that the executive order would have ramifications on the landscape. ‘Obeying in advance’ Several scientists expressed concern that organizations within the federal sphere seem to be overcomplying, prompting confusion and resentment. “They’re obeying in advance, they’re going beyond what the executive order says,” said Christine Nattrass, a physicist at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who conducts research at Brookhaven National Laboratory and emphasized that she was not speaking on behalf of her institutions. According to Dr. Nattrass, internal documents at the lab are being scrubbed of references related to D.E.I. efforts. At least one code of conduct, which outlines expected professional behavior within research collaborations — such as treating others with respect and being mindful of cultural differences — has been taken down. The community of people involved with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory — a worldwide group that includes independent scientists, data managers and other workers — noticed last week that private Slack channels set up for L.G.B.T.Q. members were quietly being retired. At Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, researchers noticed that a prominent rainbow Pride flag had been removed from inside the lab’s main building. Scientists at all three federal facilities were left uncertain whether the executive order actually extended to internal documents, internal communication channels or flags. “It was devastating,” said Samantha Abbott, a physics graduate student who conducts research at Fermilab. To Ms. Abbott, who is transgender, the flag represented years’ worth of advocacy efforts at the lab. “And it’s just all gone in a matter of days.” Neither the observatory nor the labs responded to requests for comment.That sense of compliance appeared to extend beyond federal institutions. Two decades ago, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, or NASEM, helped to highlight the issue of racial disparities in health care, with a landmark report recommending that minorities be better represented in health professions. More recently, NASEM participated in an ambitious effort to root out the use of race in clinical algorithms that guide medical treatment. The quick retreat this week from a core mission stunned many NASEM employees. “D.E.I. has been at the center of what the institution has focused on for the last decade,” said one staff member, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. “It shows up in everything we do.” The Academies are privately operated, but they receive a majority of their support from government contracts. Fifty-eight percent of their program expenditures came from federal government contracts last year, according to Dana Korsen, a spokesperson for the institute. The independent Howard Hughes Medical Institute, one of the largest basic biomedical research philanthropies in the world, recently canceled a $60 million program called Inclusive Excellence that aimed to boost inclusivity in STEM education. A spokeswoman for the institute, Alyssa Tomlinson, said the institute “remains committed to supporting outstanding scientists and talented students training to become scientists” through other programs. Ms. Tomlinson declined to explain why the institution had cut off the funding. Scientists abroad also worried about the D.E.I. rollbacks. One American working in Canada was concerned how his grant applications, which describe research that will be conducted on U.S. soil, would be received by Canadian funding agencies in light of the federal changes. “With tariff threats, America first and no more D.E.I., there’s a lot less incentive for the Canadian feds to fund anything in the U.S.,” said the scientist, who asked not to be identified. “And then there goes 95 percent of my research program.” Johan Bonilla Castro, a nonbinary Latinx physicist at Northeastern University who emphasized that they were not speaking for their employer, has decided to continue their D.E.I. initiatives, which involve promoting particle physics research in Costa Rica. They also have chosen to continue writing about their racial and gender identity in grant proposals, even if it ultimately results in being denied funding. “I will continue to say it and have it rejected,” Dr. Bonilla Castro said. “I can sterilize my research, sure. But that impacts my dignity.”

Karma is the guy on the Chiefs. At least, that's the vibe Taylor Swift was hoping for at Super Bowl 59. The Eras superstar showed up to Sunday's big game between the Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles ready to cheer on her boyfriend, Travis Kelce, as he vied for a third straight NFL championship—though the Eagles ultimately dominated, besting the Chiefs with a final score of 40-22. Swift arrived at New Orleans' Caesars Superdome ahead of kickoff accompanied by Ice Spice, whom she sat next to in the stadium. Early in the action, the cameras panned to Swift and the crowd appeared to boo at the pop star's appearance on the jumbotron, capturing her apparently baffled reaction. While cameras didn't show the star too much during the game, another image of her during the second quarter summed up how Chiefs fans were feeling. What she wore Photos of Swift arriving at the Super Bowl showed her in an off-white blazer, sparkly silver shorts, and over-the-knee boots. She was also wearing a red T charm around her neck that looked a lot like the one she wore to the Grammys earlier this month. Who she brought Ice Spice joined Swift for the second year in a row and the pop star was also spotted with all three members of Haim and her friend Ashley Avignone. Travis Kelce's parents and BFF Ross Travis were also watching the game in Swift's orbit. A round of "boos" At one point early in the game, Swift was shown on the jumbotron as members of the crowd emitted a loud round of boos, presumably led by Eagles fans. She responded with a side eye and a laugh. Later, President Donald Trump, who attended the Super Bowl, shared a video of Swift getting booed alongside a video of him and his daughter, Ivanka, at the Super Bowl. Friends and fans, of course, came to her defense, including Serena Williams, who advised her to shake it off. A disappointing outcome While the cameras found Swift more often during the first half, she was barely seen after (or during) Kendrick Lamar's halftime show. In many ways, she was spared, as her section was likely filled with increasingly dashed hopes as the night wore on and the Eagles' relentless trouncing of the Chiefs never let up. Whereas last year, millions watched her on the field as Kelce and his teammates celebrated in the confetti-fueled post-game euphoria, this year saw a much quieter end to Swift's attendance at football's biggest night of the year.

For the second year in a row, Taylor Swift was in attendance at the Super Bowl to cheer on her boyfriend, Travis Kelce, as the Kansas City Chiefs took on the Philadelphia Eagles in hopes of securing a NFL championship three-peat. Although, this time around, she didn't have to rush back from a four-day leg of her Eras Tour in Tokyo, Japan, to make the game. As per usual, photos and videos of Swift quickly began circulating online shortly after she arrived at the venue on Sunday, revealing she had a few different famous friends in tow for her big entrance at New Orleans' Caesars Superdome. Last year, Swift brought Blake Lively, Ice Spice, stylist Ashley Avignone, and her mom, Andrea Swift, with her to the game. This time around, Taylor was first spotted once again with Ice Spice as well as all three sisters from the band Haim, with whom she collaborated on the evermore song "No Body, No Crime." Seated behind her in the Superdome was her friend Ashley Avignone, a celebrity stylist. Photos later in the night also showed Swift cheering near Kelce's parents, Donna and Ed, and Travis' best friend and former NFL tight end, Ross Travis. The night before the game, Swift dined out in New Orleans with pals and family members including Kelce, his sister-in-law Kylie Kelce, Alana and Danielle Haim; her parents were also photographed at the Italian restaurant Gianna, according to People. On game night, Swift wore an off-white blazer and over-the-knee boots, a scoop-neck tank and sparkly silver shorts as she walked through the stadium to take her perch for the big game. Meanwhile, the evening kicked off with the R&B singer Ledisi's rendition of "Lift Every Voice and Sing," a performance of “Hold My Hand” from Lady Gaga filmed on Bourbon Street, and a celebration of New Orleans music featuring Harry Connick, Jr., horn players clad in purple velvet, dancers, and a marching band. Early on in the game, Swift was shown on the jumbo screen and many in the crowd appeared to "boo" collectively. She was shown looking toward Ice Spice with a half-smile and appeared to say, "What's going on?" (Eagles fans, we presume.) Later in the evening, President Donald Trump shared a side-by-side post on Truth Social of him receiving cheers from the crowd and Swift being booed. While Swift was spotted more frequently during the first half, the camera gave her more space as Kelce and the Chiefs fell further behind the Eagles as the game wore on, ultimately ending with an Eagles victory and a score of 40-22. It may not have been her or Kelce's night, but Swift's not known for retreating into the shadows for long. As Yahoo's Kelsey Weekman shared late in the game, we have been waiting on Reputation (Taylor's Version) for quite a while now.

The giant, 40-ft. space telescope resting in the airtight, climate-controlled clean-room at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., wants nothing to do with the microscopic dust particles clinging to your clothing. So before you enter the room, you first must stand in a chamber that blows high-powered, compressed air at you from head to toe, sweeping you clean. Next you dress up in surgical scrubs—booties, head covering, mask, blouse, and pants—and pass through a series of doors that take you into successively more-sterile ante rooms. Only then, when your dust can pose no danger to the delicate machine in the center of the room, can you join the Nancy Grace Roman Space telescope on the factory floor. There, technicians are busy completing its assembly in preparation for its launch in May 2027 to a spot in space close to 1 million miles from Earth. From there it may transform our understanding of the cosmos. “The vast discovery power of this telescope is going to expand our window of knowledge by orders of magnitude,” says Jamie Dunn, the Roman telescope’s project manager. “You’re going to have a tremendous amount of data available to tens of thousands of scientists. It’s just mind-boggling.” “We [will be able to] move quickly and map out very large areas of the sky,” adds Josh Schlieder, the telescope’s wide-field instrument scientist. “We [will] detect hundreds of millions of galaxies to very high accuracy with very deep imaging.” Roman will indeed do all that and more. The telescope will be able to look at a patch of sky 100 times larger than both the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope can. It will be able to peer up to 13.2 billion light years away, collecting images of the 13.8-billion year old universe when it was just 600 million years old. The 18 detectors in its wide-field infrared imaging camera are equipped with 16 million pixels each, providing exquisite image resolution. And its 5.6 ft. (1.7 m) high-gain antenna will be able to send a firehose of pictures and data back to Earth at unprecedented speed. What’s more, all of this data will be open-source—available to the world. “Roman will deliver one terabyte of data a day,” says Rob Zellem, deputy project scientist for communications. “That’s the equivalent of one gaming computer a day.” That gusher of findings will include new observations of exoplanets—or planets orbiting other stars; new surveys of the structure of the Milky Way; and new studies of dark energy, the mysterious, invisible force that causes the universe to expand continuously at an ever-accelerating rate. “Part of our core science for Roman is to do surveys that allow us to measure the properties of very large numbers of galaxies throughout cosmic history,” says Schlieder, standing just feet from the Roman telescope on the clean-room floor as bunny-suited technicians tend to it. “By measuring their positions, their velocity, how fast they're moving toward or away from us and their shapes, we'll be able to place new constraints on the properties of dark energy.” The telescope has a lot of assembly and other work ahead of it before it finally takes to space atop a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket two years down the line and begins to perform that work. It may be getting pampered today but it will be punished before long as it goes through testing—set to begin late this spring—to ensure that it can tolerate the harsh conditions of deep space and the violent, high-energy shaking that the Falcon will subject it to as its 27 engines light, putting out 5 million pounds of thrust. “The testing includes electrical testing; vibration testing; acoustical testing, to simulate the sound of a launch; and a thermal vacuum test, [in which] we take it in a big chamber, pump out all the air, and go through warm to cold temperatures, to test out all of its components in a real space-like operating environment,” says Schlieder. Only if the $4 billion telescope survives that pounding will it get its chance to leave the planet. In keeping with the potentially epochal science Roman will perform once it’s in space, NASA has decided to fling its findings and discoveries open to the world. Typically, the data returned and the discoveries made by space observatories like Hubble and the Webb have a period of 6 to 12 months during which they are available only to the astronomers who did the work. Roman’s findings will be made immediately available to the public—lay people and scientists alike—on a universally accessible website. That’s because Roman’s huge field of view will allow many astronomers—and non-astronomers—at once to gather data from uncounted regions of the sky, with no single principal investigator directing the observation. “We will not have individual teams that get proprietary access to the data,” says Schlieder. “The data will be obtained, it'll be downloaded to the Earth, it'll be processed, and it will be posted in an archive for anyone to go grab and do what they want.” “Every single Roman observation will have huge and broad science return,” adds Julie McEnery, Roman’s senior project scientist. “The Roman surveys are defined collaboratively by the science community and collectively owned by the science community.”

Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes. Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady. When one considers the dominant NFL conversation-starters of the past quarter century, these names rise to the top. Brady with his record seven Super Bowls and Greatest of All Time (GOAT) status. Mahomes, the Kansas City Chiefs superstar, is chasing history on Super Bowl Sunday, trying to become the first signal-caller to win three straight Super Bowls titles. A win against the Philadelphia Eagles would already give Mahomes four championships, at age 29, leaving him plenty of time to threaten Brady’s supremacy. Quarterbacks, quarterbacks, quarterbacks. Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre, Lamar Jackson, on and on. Fans obsess about the arms. Teams pay astronomical sums for the good ones. No question, there have been outstanding players at other positions that demand our attention: J.J. Watt, Terrell Owens, Troy Polamalu, to name a few. But there was once a time, from the ‘70s to the ‘90s, when runners weren’t just game-changing players, but bonafide mainstream stars. Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Bo Jackson, Walter “Sweetness” Payton, Marcus Allen, O.J. Simpson. Everyone knew the big running backs (RBs). That hasn’t really been the case in recent years. Until now, thanks to Philadelphia Eagles running back Saquon Barkley, the key player of Super Bowl 59. Especially if Barkley and his Eagles can pull off the win, knocking Mahomes off his quarterback (QB) perch. With his monster 2024 regular season and postseason, Barkley brought some shine back to the running backs. Barkley has scored five rushing touchdowns (TDs) this postseason: if he were to achieve three more at the Super Bowl, he’d tie Terrell Davis for the most rushing scores in a single playoffs (eight, in the playoffs following the 1997 season). In the 1998 season and postseason, Davis rushed for 2,476 yards, an all-time high, as the Broncos repeated as Super Bowl champs. With just 30 rushing yards on Sunday, Barkley—who will turn 28 on Super Bowl Sunday—will break Davis’ record for most total rushing yards in a regular season and playoffs. Three of Barkley’s TD runs during Philadelphia’s playoff run have been for 60 or more yards; he ran for 62 and 78-yard scores against the Los Angeles Rams in the divisional round, and added a 60-yard TD rush in the NFC Championship Game, against the Washington Commanders. In short, Barkley’s been a thrill ride all year. He’s a threat to break free, on any handoff. He could will the Eagles to victory, almost solely on the deftness of his footsteps. Between 1990 and 2000, five running backs were named NFL MVP. Since then, only three RBs have won the award, and none since Adrian Peterson, in 2012. Buffalo Bills QB Josh Allen edged out Jackson for the 2024 honor; Barkley, as dominant as he was, finished third. The conventional wisdom, in recent years, is that running backs are expendable. They can be replenished by younger, cheaper players that cycle through the league. While Brady and Rodgers can play into their 40s, running backs have a much shorter shelf life. The market for running backs was so financially depressed—relative to other positions— in 2023 that a group of top RBs, including Barkley, reportedly hopped on a Zoom call to express their concerns. The undervaluing of running backs was put on full display last year on Hard Knocks, the popular behind-the-scenes HBO docuseries that embeds with an NFL team. The series tracked the New York Giants, Barkley’s former team, last off-season; New York general manager Joe Schoen had inked quarterback Daniel Jones to a four year, $160 million contract extension in 2023. The cameras caught him wavering on his commitment to Barkley. “You’re paying the guy $40 million,” Schoen said of Jones. “It’s not to hand the ball off to a $12 million back,” meaning Barkley. So Schoen encouraged Barkley to test free agency. “I’d have a tough time sleeping if Saquon goes to Philadelphia, I’ll tell you that,” New York owner John Mara said in front of the cameras. Barkley wound up signing a three-year contract, worth $37.75 million that includes $26 million guaranteed, with Philly, New York’s division rival. Barkley’s in the Super Bowl. New York released Jones this season, and finished 3-14. After Barkley’s success, teams would be wise to rethink their investments in running backs. Davis was the last running back to win Super Bowl MVP honors, 27 years ago. If Barkley can repeat that feat, it’s official. This NFL thing has some legs.

As President Trump issues rapid-fire executive orders intended to drastically reduce the federal work force and dismantle several agencies, many federal employees are left wondering what the future holds. At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency with wide-ranging responsibilities that include disentangling whales from fishing nets off Alaska, gathering satellite data on wildfires in California and issuing tornado warnings in Kansas, one question of many that remain unanswered is: What will happen to the National Weather Service? Mr. Trump has not yet described his plans for NOAA, whose research is considered essential to the study of climate change, or for the Weather Service. But this week, staff members participating in Elon Musk’s efforts to downsize the government arrived at the agency, as they have at several others since Mr. Trump’s inauguration. Many of the Trump administration’s early actions have followed a blueprint set out by Project 2025, a policy blueprint created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. The 900-page document, published in 2023, envisioned a significantly pared down federal government, and it may offer clues to the fate of the Weather Service. But first, some history. It started with some shipwrecks. The first national meteorological service in the United States was established in response to tragedy. Across just two years, 1868 and 1869, more than 500 people were killed and more than 3,000 vessels sunk or damaged, many by storms, on the Great Lakes, according to “A Century of Weather Service,” a history of the agency by Patrick Hughes. By February 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant, pushed by calls for a storm warning system, formally established the country’s first meteorological service as part of the U.S. Army. This service was part of the Department of Agriculture and later moved to the Department of Commerce. In 1970, the National Weather Service was officially established when President Richard Nixon created NOAA, aimed at providing “better protection of life and property from natural hazards,” within Commerce. Since then, Congress has considered restructuring NOAA and its offices, which besides the Weather Service include the National Ocean Service; Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service; National Marine Fisheries Service; and the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. Congress has also considered moving NOAA to another department or making it an independent agency. And for several decades, conservatives in the pursuit of free market goals have advocated increasing the role of the private sector in American weather forecasting. How a forecast works now Today, the Weather Service is a dispersed operation. Many of its more than 4,000 employees work from 122 forecast offices across the country, where they continuously monitor local conditions, issue multiple daily forecasts and release warnings ahead of dangerous weather. Its staff also operates some additional offices with a specialized remit, including one that is tasked with monitoring flooding, units that advise air traffic controllers, and the National Hurricane Center. By its own estimate, the Weather Service collects over six billion weather observations a day. To create a forecast, a meteorologist at a local office may analyze some of those data points, consult weather models and make judgments based on expertise. But the service’s mission goes beyond forecasting. In April 2011, after a large — and accurately predicted — tornado outbreak killed more than 300 people across the South, the department began providing advice to emergency agencies and public officials. It started telling people what to do with the information its forecasts were providing. Rob Dale, the deputy emergency manager for Ingham County, Mich., works closely with the Weather Service. “Michigan State University’s in our jurisdiction, and they send a meteorologist out to every football game here, just to monitor the lightning threat or severe weather threat,” Mr. Dale said. “There’s someone right in the room as we go through the decision-making process.” The Weather Service provides its forecasts and warnings to the public free of charge. NOAA’s observational data, from the agency’s vast network of satellites, buoys, weather balloons and sensors, is also available at no cost; companies like AccuWeather, Google and Apple use it to power their weather products. The Weather Service estimates that its services cost every American resident $4 per year. How the Weather Service could change The chapter of the Project 2025 document that includes proposals for NOAA describes the agency as a “colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry,” and calls for it to be “broken up and downsized.” It proposes that the Weather Service focus on its data-gathering services and “fully commercialize” its forecasting operations. Mr. Trump’s nominee for Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, a billionaire Wall Street executive, told senators during his confirmation hearing in late January that he did not agree with Project 2025’s proposal to dismantle NOAA and eliminate many of its functions. He also said, during questioning from Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, that he would maintain the Weather Service.But in the same exchange with Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lutnick also appeared to allow for the possibility that the private sector could take up the forecasts that have traditionally been Weather Service work. “I think we can deliver the product more efficiently and less expensively, dramatically less expensively,” he said, “but the outcome of delivering those services should not be changed.” The Weather Service during Mr. Trump’s first term Mr. Trump has shown a preference for the private sector when it comes to weather. During his first term, he nominated Barry Myers, the former chief executive of AccuWeather, one of the nation’s largest private weather forecasters, to lead NOAA. Mr. Myers remained unconfirmed by the Senate for more than two years. He withdrew from the process in 2019, criticizing Democrats who had voiced concerns over his possible conflicts of interest. (In a statement last year, AccuWeather appeared to distance itself from Project 2025’s proposal to fully privatize the weather system. “AccuWeather does not agree with the view, and AccuWeather has not suggested, that the National Weather Service (NWS) should fully commercialize its operations,” its chief executive, Steven R. Smith, said. The public-private partnership approach in forecasting “has saved countless lives,” he said.) Mr. Trump’s influence on the Weather Service was felt elsewhere during his first term. In a 2019 episode that came to be known as “Sharpiegate,” Mr. Trump was at odds with government meteorologists over the forecast for Hurricane Dorian. After he included Alabama on a list of states that he claimed would be hit by the storm, a Weather Service office in Birmingham clarified on social media that the hurricane would not affect the state. Days later, during a news briefing, Mr. Trump brandished an illustration of the storm’s path that had been altered with a thick black marker to include Alabama. Bowing to pressure, Neil Jacobs, then NOAA’s acting administrator, issued a statement that supported Mr. Trump’s assertions and criticized the Alabama forecasters for their post. An investigation found Dr. Jacobs had violated the agency’s policy for scientific integrity in issuing the statement. This week, Mr. Trump nominated Dr. Jacobs to the post of NOAA administrator again. The future of weather If confirmed, Dr. Jacobs would lead NOAA at a time when the balance of its public-private partnership may already be in flux. Studies show extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more intense as a result of climate change. At the same time, weather models driven by artificial intelligence have demonstrated an ability to produce forecasts that are more accurate than traditional weather models. A crop of private companies that use A.I. to build their forecasts is leading the charge to adopt the technology more widely. Companies are now increasingly operating their own weather observation instruments, though many also still use NOAA data. In recent years, NOAA, too, has begun supplementing the data it collects with data purchased from the private sector. In Michigan, Mr. Dale worries that commercializing the Weather Service’s forecasting could set up a pay-to-play system for lifesaving warnings. “If someone says, ‘Hey, if you want a tornado warning for your county, you’re going to have to pay us, $100,000 a year,’ that’s just not viable,” he said. “There’s no spare money in most county budgets these days to do something like that.” Louis Uccellini, who was the Weather Service director between 2013 and 2022 and described himself as “one of the biggest supporters” of the private sector’s role in weather, said he believed not all the department’s work could be successfully contracted out. “Public service is not measured by the bottom line,” he said, “but by how well we serve society with the resources allocated by Congress.”

Vincent Vu helped found the Vietnamese-American Cadet Association at the United States Military Academy at West Point while he was a cadet, in 2015. West Point’s culture could be difficult for someone like him, who did not come from a military background, he recalled this week. And the academy’s affinity groups were far from discriminatory, he said. Rather, they helped people like him assimilate into the ranks of West Point cadets and the Army, and made him a better officer. “West Point was probably the first place where I had a supportive environment for my identity and who I am,” said Mr. Vu, a former air defense artillery officer and now a second-year law student at Wake Forest University. Now affinity groups having to do with race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation at West Point are under assault by an executive order signed by President Trump on his first day in office. The order called for an end to diversity, equity and inclusion policies in the federal government and in federally funded projects, as Mr. Trump promised to forge a “colorblind and merit-based” society. His administration has moved aggressively against people who are perceived as promoters of such policies. In an attempt to comply, the academy said on Tuesday that it was disbanding 12 affinity groups immediately, including the one serving Vietnamese American cadets, and reviewing others. The move met with a tide of criticism, and on Thursday, the academy suggested it might try to reinstate at least some of the clubs, if not all of them. Military historians have noted that the military has often been ahead of the rest of society in pushing for racial equality, and that removing the tools for what is now called D.E.I. threatens that progress. “You’re going to have a much more effective military when the demographics of the military represent the demographics of society,” Diane M. Ryan, a retired Army colonel, now an associate dean at Tufts University, said. Dr. Ryan taught psychology at West Point and was the officer in charge of the Corbin Forum, a club to promote female leadership, for many years. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The federal government has argued that same point in recent years, to fend off legal challenges to the academy’s consideration of race in admissions. The government said the system was necessary for recruitment and to build a diverse officer corps that reflects the troops they command.The conservative majority in the Supreme Court found that argument so compelling that it carved out an exception for the military academies in its 2023 decision striking down affirmative action admissions at colleges across the country. The decision said the academies might have “potentially distinct interests” in considering the race of their applicants, and it left that question to be decided by future litigation. But the landscape appears to have shifted quickly under the new administration. Within 24 hours of Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, Adm. Linda L. Fagan, the first female officer to lead a branch of the armed forces, was fired. On the list of reasons the administration gave for her termination was a claim that she had an “excessive focus” on diversity, equity and inclusion.Mr. Trump ordered the termination of all government D.E.I. offices in a January executive order, rolling back policies carried out by the Biden administration to prevent discrimination and promote diversity and equity within the government. Days after the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a memo, called D.E.I. policies “incompatible” with Department of Defense values. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Mr. Hegseth directed the creation of a task force dedicated to eradicating the department’s D.E.I. offices “and any vestiges of such offices that subvert meritocracy, perpetuate unconstitutional discrimination and promote radical ideologies related to systemic racism and gender fluidity.” Mr. Hegseth in January also declared identity months — such as Black History Month and Women’s History Month — “dead” at the Defense Department. He prohibited the use of official resources for cultural awareness months, a move that also applied to the 160 or so schools that serve children of military families around the world. Department of Defense schools, a high-performing school system run by the Pentagon that serves 67,000 students from preschool to high school on military bases in the United States and internationally, will no longer celebrate cultural awareness months in accordance with the secretary’s guidance, a spokesman said Friday. The news was earlier reported by Stars and Stripes. The agency that runs the schools was also assessing how student groups and clubs may be affected by new Trump administration orders and reviewing library books for potential violations. The Naval Academy said it was reviewing clubs, but had not disbanded any. It was unclear whether the other military academies had taken similar steps. After news got out about West Point’s move to close the groups down, the academy scrambled to do damage control. The West Point deputy commandant who signed the order, Chad Foster, wrote in social media posts that the academy was working on changing the charters of the clubs or placing them within academic departments so they could continue operating. “Of course, I’ve enjoyed being called a Nazi and the death threats during this typical internet feeding frenzy,” he wrote, adding, “Rest assured that we are establishing a process for deliberate review and possible re-establishment of these organizations.” The dozen clubs were singled out because they were directly affiliated with the office of diversity, equity and inclusion, before it was shut down last year, he said. Many of the clubs hosted luncheons, lecture series and off-campus trips. Though the clubs were focused on different groups, participation was open to every cadet, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or sexuality. Men often made up about 20 percent of the audience for Corbin Forum events, Dr. Ryan said. Colonel Foster’s memo, dated Feb. 4, said the clubs were “hereby disbanded,” and were not authorized to continue even informal activities using government time, resources or facilities.Background information provided by West Point’s communications office said that in keeping with Department of Defense guidance, the Department of the Army would not use official resources for cultural observances or awareness events. It said that cadets could still participate in such events in an unofficial capacity outside of duty hours. The official list of 12 banned clubs included the Asian-Pacific Forum Club, the Contemporary Cultural Affairs Seminar Club, the Latin Cultural Club and the National Society of Black Engineers Club. The academy said that more than 100 clubs remained available to its cadets, and that religious programs or activities were not affected. Alex Morey, vice president of campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group, said her group was monitoring orders like the one at West Point to see if they violated students’ First Amendment right to express personal views. Molly Shannon, a 2016 West Point graduate, said she had found mentors through the West Point chapter of the Society of Women Engineers. Ms. Shannon said she was devastated when she saw it was on the list to be cut, “because I know how important that community was to me.” The Corbin Forum was also shuttered. The group has historic resonance for female cadets, because it was created with the first class of women to be appointed to West Point, in 1976. Dr. Ryan was the officer in charge of the group from 2008 to 2017. “The way this has been politicized is, ‘We can’t do these things because it’s divisive,’” Dr. Ryan said. “And I argue that it is actually the opposite of divisive. We are not calling people out. We are calling people in.” Dr. Ryan said she had entered the military through the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps because she did not know that women could go to West Point at that time, in the early 1980s. “Hence, representation matters,” she said. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT As for West Point officials, they were taking a somewhat apologetic stance. Colonel Foster said they were “working hard to get things properly aligned” so cadets would have professional and personal opportunities. “No one enjoys telling young people bad news, trust me,” he wrote on LinkedIn.