At President Donald Trump’s inauguration on Monday, leaders from some of the world’s most powerful companies looked on from the dome of the Capitol Building as he promised, among other things, to cancel the “Green New Deal” and “drill baby drill.” Here in Davos, where the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) wrapped up on Friday, the world’s biggest companies are singing a different tune about climate change. Big banks talked about new opportunities for financing clean energy in emerging markets. Manufacturers warned of the climate risks facing their supply chains. And energy companies touted investments in renewables. The takeaway from these conversations to me is that companies will continue to pursue profitable climate initiatives in face of Trump, even if some of them no longer frame them as climate initiatives. “The leading companies of the world are going through a couple of transformations—the tech transformation and the climate transformation,” says Jesper Brodin, the CEO of the Ingka Group (IKEA). “The train has left the station. The benefits are clear.” The continued climate work isn’t an altruistic act. Many companies have embedded these programs into their multi-year planning process, investing billions on initiatives that can’t be easily reversed. Think of clean technology manufacturing projects that have already broken ground or office energy efficiency retrofits underway. To backtrack would be to waste valuable capital before it realizes a return. Many of the economics that made investments in things like clean power or electric vehicles smart a few years ago will only continue to improve. “There is a lot of noise, but the market fundamentals still stand,” says María Mendiluce, CEO of the We Mean Business Coalition, a business group that pushes for climate action. And then there are the programs aimed at addressing climate risk. All the headline-grabbing climate-linked extreme weather that the world has experienced in recent months—and years—have hit supply chains and led companies to worry. Indeed, a WEF report released last December found that unprepared companies could face an up to 25% hit to their earnings by 2050 without adequate measures to adapt to the effects of climate change. That’s a long way away for CEOs focused on quarterly earnings, but companies are already seeing the early warning signs as fires, droughts, and flooding twist up supply chains. “I think the time of sustainability strategy is over,” says Torsten Lichtenau, who leads the Carbon Transition practice at Bain & Company. “It’s about business strategy with sustainability embedded in it.” I’ll be the first to acknowledge the counter arguments. There are areas where the Trump presidency is bound to slow things down. Companies will be less likely to invest in nascent sectors that rely on supportive government dollars or policy, meaning that technologies like hydrogen and biofuels may take a hit. And then there’s the selection bias problem. At conferences like this, different rooms have different mixes of attendees with different view points. In the meetings I attend, executives are much less likely to share their plans to backtrack. More importantly, European businesses are overrepresented in the halls of Davos—and more likely to have climate-friendly views than the American counterparts who aren’t here and remain skeptical of the climate agenda. That’s all the more reason to share the stories of companies that have made climate programs profitable. In a presentation in Davos, Brodin put the company’s financials side by side with its emissions performance. Since 2015, the company has cut its climate footprint by 30% while growing the company’s revenue by nearly 24%. “There is a very strong myth in society today that climate smart comes at a premium,” he told me afterward. “Now, it’s quite easy to dismantle that myth.” How does the continued support for climate initiatives square with the apparent private sector enthusiasm for Trump? For one, it’s worth noting that not everyone is over the moon. The applause for Trump when he spoke virtually to the crowd gathered in Davos was far from overly enthusiastic. But many others actively touting Trump either see no contradiction or don’t care. Even as their CEOs attended Trump’s inauguration, companies like Amazon, Google, and Meta have continued engaging in a breakneck race to buy clean electricity to power their growing data center footprint. Both moves, they might say, are just good business.

After a rare winter storm walloped the southern United States with record snowfall, the region faced dangerous icy road conditions and a bitter chill on Thursday that raised the possibility that some streets may remain impassable until the weekend. From the swamps of Louisiana to beaches in the Carolinas, the conditions left officials in much of the South delivering a similar message. The effects of the storm were not over, they told residents, and driving remained a hazard on untreated roads still frozen with slippery ice. While temperatures briefly rose above freezing in parts of Louisiana, southern Alabama and Mississippi, nighttime temperatures plummeted in areas including Georgia, northern Florida and coastal communities in the Carolinas, causing snow and ice to refreeze on roads. Morning commuters faced an increased risk of black ice, the slick patches that can form unpredictably and almost invisibly because they blend in with the asphalt. “Ice is ice, and it will present a hazard to motorists if they’re not prepared,” Richard Bann, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service, said. That pattern — of ice partially melting, only to refreeze at night — was expected to continue for much of the South until at least Saturday morning. The threat is worse in a region that is unaccustomed to severely cold weather, and where snow plows are not regularly well stocked. Temperatures as low as 12 degrees Fahrenheit were possible on Thursday morning in parts of Southern Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and the Florida panhandle, according to the National Weather Service, which issued an extreme cold warning for the area through midmorning. The storm has already disrupted the region, with scores of schools canceling classes this week, airports delaying or canceling flights and travel becoming nearly impossible. Hundreds of flights were canceled through Thursday morning and several Southeastern airports paused operations. But by Thursday afternoon, airports in the region were largely resuming operations, including in Atlanta, New Orleans, Charleston, S.C., and Tallahassee, Fla. Fueled by a whirling mass of Arctic air, the storm has also killed at least 10 people in Texas, Alabama and Georgia. And cities received record amounts of snow: Mobile reported 7.5 inches; Pensacola, Fla., received 7.6 inches, breaking its three-inch record from 1895; and New Orleans saw eight inches, more than Anchorage got this month. In the Charleston, S.C., area, many roads would likely remain dangerous and filled with ice and slush through Friday because of frigid temperatures, the authorities said.In Georgia, the State Patrol had responded to more than 3,000 calls, including 370 vehicle crashes, since Tuesday evening, the agency said in a statement. In North Carolina, where eastern coastal communities received as much as six inches of snow, the State Department of Transportation deployed more than 1,300 trucks to clean roads. “It is important to remember that below freezing temperatures will remain for the next few days. Any snowfall that does melt will refreeze each evening,” Will Ray, the director of the state’s emergency management office, said. Several officials and utility companies urged residents to help conserve power. “We are not out of woods yet,” Baldwin EMC, an electric utility in southern Alabama, said in a post on social media. In Mobile, a port city on Alabama’s coast, residents’ initial jubilee about the snow morphed into concern about travel, as many roads have been deemed impassable. “The snow has been beautiful and fun, but there could be a lot of problems hiding under all this snow and ice,” Eddie Tyler, the superintendent of the Baldwin County Public Schools system, wrote in a letter to parents after canceling school for the remainder of the week. In Tallahassee, Fla., police officers used pepper balls to disperse a rowdy snowball fight. In a statement, the Tallahassee Police Department confirmed its officers had arrived to the scene of the wintry chaos after people had complained of being hit in the head with snowballs. In a statement, the police confirmed officers had used the tactic after they, too, were hit in the face, and the crowd refused to stop. In Louisiana, the state’s transportation department said that parts of Interstate 10 would reopen Wednesday night between the Texas border and Lake Charles, but a major portion of the highway remained closed in both directions on Thursday morning. The Georgia State Patrol said that it had responded to more than 100 vehicle crashes. In DeKalb County, Ga., more than 100 vehicles were stranded on icy roadways and “obstructing emergency response efforts,” the authorities said. Progress to clear the roads, officials said, had been slow because of freezing temperatures. Even some fire trucks had become stuck. “This is a serious situation,” Lorraine Cochran-Johnson, the county’s chief executive, said. “We are asking for everyone’s patience and cooperation as our teams work around the clock to ensure public safety.”

Thousands of homes remained without power on Saturday after a fierce storm knocked out service for hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland and Scotland, the aftermath of a weather pattern that previously delivered bitter cold and record-breaking snow to parts of the United States. The storm, which is named Eowyn, brought damaging gales throughout Friday, and 625,000 homes and businesses in Ireland were without power by the evening, the power supplier ESB said in a statement. On Saturday, the company said it was still assessing the extent of the damage. The storm also knocked out power to hundreds of thousands of homes in Scotland, and prevailing winds made it nearly impossible for engineers to restore power to some regions, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, a regional energy supplier, said. On social media, the energy company said that “it’s simply not safe right now for our teams to climb and carry out repairs to damaged poles and overhead lines.” As it worked to restore power to roughly 48,000 homes, the company offered hot meals to affected communities on Saturday. By early Friday, the storm had already brought record winds to the Irish coast. At 5 a.m., a gust of 114 miles per hour was recorded at Mace Head, County Galway, beating a previous national record of 113 m.p.h. set in 1945. The winds were so strong that they apparently disrupted some efforts to report them: “Severe winds have interrupted data supply from our stations in Belmullet, Mace Head and Markree,” Met Éireann, the Irish weather service, said on social media. ESB Networks, a state-owned power company, said on Friday morning that “extreme, damaging and destructive” winds had caused widespread disruption to Ireland’s electricity network. More than 560,000 customers were without power as of 6 a.m., it said. That is almost a quarter of the around 2.4 million total customers ESB Networks lists on its website. The intensity of Storm Eowyn also prompted Britain’s Meteorological Office to issue its most severe red wind warnings for Northern Ireland and central and southwestern Scotland. It warned of “very dangerous conditions with widespread disruptions and significant impacts.” It was the first red wind warning issued for Northern Ireland since the Met Office moved to impact-based warnings in 2011.Paul Gundersen, a chief meteorologist at the Met Office, said, “We reserve the issuing of red warnings for the most severe weather which represents a likely danger to life and severe disruption, and that is the case with Storm Eowyn.” The Irish meteorological service had issued equivalent top-level wind warnings for all of Ireland on Friday. The Met Office has been naming strong storms during the autumn and winter seasons since 2015 along with Met Éireann and the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. This storm’s designation, a name it shares with a “Lord of the Rings” character, was chosen by the Dutch weather service, which took suggestions from members of the public. The stark temperature contrast created by the arctic blast that has gripped the United States in recent days and the warm moist air in the Gulf of Mexico intensified the jet stream, a high-altitude current of fast-moving air that drives global weather patterns west to east, and often plays an active part in the weather of Ireland and Britain. The speed of the jet stream is usually 190 to 220 m.p.h., but this past week, it strengthened to about 260 m.p.h. This strengthening deepened Storm Eowyn rapidly in the Atlantic, steering it toward Ireland and Britain with heightened ferocity. Eowyn is the most severe storm to hit Ireland since 2017, when one of the most powerful storms ever recorded in the northeastern Atlantic killed at least three people. The last time Britain experienced a storm of this strength was at the start of December with Storm Darragh, which was also influenced by a strong jet stream. Wind speeds for that storm reached 93 m.p.h. in Wales. The jet stream is also known for powering trans-Atlantic flights, which pilots sometimes use to speed up journeys and save on fuel. On Wednesday, the ground speed of a flight from Las Vegas to London hit 814 m.p.h., close to the subsonic speed record of 835 m.p.h., which was set by a flight from New York to Lisbon last February. In the United States this past week, the bitter arctic air mass plunged much of the country into dangerously cold conditions, delivering record-breaking low temperatures not experienced in decades, and life-threatening wind chills. Eowyn is expected to clear into the Norwegian Sea on Saturday, allowing a brief lull of drier and calmer conditions for the day. Another storm system is forecast to bring similar hazards for Britain on Sunday and Monday.

Rain and cooler temperatures will bring relief to Southern California this weekend, after a prolonged stretch of dry, breezy weather that allowed wildfires to thrive. The parched landscape between Los Angeles and San Diego hasn’t seen any significant precipitation so far this winter, providing plenty of dry vegetation to fuel the fires. A cold storm system forecast to move across the region Saturday through Monday will change that. But there’s a growing chance that the rain could be on the heavier side — up to three quarters of an inch per hour, said Ryan Kittell, a National Weather Service meteorologist. That could trigger flash floods and debris flows in places recently charred by the Palisades and Hughes fires and especially in the region burned by the Eaton fire, which is expected to see more rain than the other areas. The Santa Ana winds that have swept over the region for weeks finally stopped blowing late Friday morning and a coastal breeze developed, pushing moist cool air off the ocean. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Light showers could fall as early as Saturday afternoon in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, where fires are still burning. The greatest chance for heavier rainfall will come between 4 p.m. Sunday and noon Monday. Parts of Los Angeles, including downtown, could receive as much as an inch of rain, said Brian Lewis, a Weather Service forecaster in Oxnard, Calif. “We’re not expecting high rainfall rates unless a thunderstorm goes right over that area,” he said. There’s now a 15 to 25 percent chance of isolated thunderstorms. There’s also a chance for snow at elevations as low as 3,500 feet. The lower parts of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains could receive up to four inches of snow. Elevations above 5,000 feet could see six to 12 inches, with as much as two feet on the highest peaks. Though the risk for debris flows — or mudslides — is relatively low, officials were deploying crews across the region this week to clear debris and deploy sandbags. At a news conference, Mark Pestrella, Los Angeles County’s public works director, said that people living on or near scorched hillsides should be cautious, especially if their homes had not been inspected after the fires. “Your best bet is not to be in that home when it rains,” he said. Mudslides or debris flows — which Jason Kean, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, described as “a flood on steroids” — happen when burned soil becomes compact like concrete, funneling water down slopes that have lost any vegetation to keep it in check. That rushing water can claw up the landscape, unleashing a torrent of trees, rocks, brush and anything else in the way. Residents can use burn maps created by the U.S.G.S. to determine if their home is at risk. The Eaton fire near Pasadena could be the most prone to debris flows. Peak rainfall — defined as more than 1.5 inches per hour, falling within a 15-minute interval — would be nearly certain to trigger a debris flow, the maps show. The San Diego area will see the effects of the storm about 12 hours after Los Angeles, as the chance for rain, and chillier air, moves south on Sunday and Monday. While the projected precipitation totals for the region went up slightly on Friday than earlier predictions, Rich Bann, a meteorologist with the Weather Service, said this storm wouldn’t deliver a major deluge. “In most areas at most times, this amount of rain generally isn’t a concern and it’s only a concern right now because we have these fresh burn scars,” he said.

More Los Angeles-area schools reopened on Thursday for the first time since wildfires swept the region this month and forced officials to shutter buildings in the areas hit by fires. In the Pasadena Unified School District, six campuses reopened, out of more than two dozen that had been closed since the fire. Roughly two-thirds of the district’s 14,000 students and about half of its roughly 3,000 staff members live in areas that were under evacuation or warnings. One of the schools was Willard Elementary School in Pasadena, where multiple students and staff members lost their homes, said the principal, Maricela Brambila. Gabriela De La Torre, 44, made sure to get her daughter, 7, and son, 9, to school on time, even though they are staying with relatives an hour away after losing their home. “It gives us at least something where my kids feel safe,” she said. “At least something is somewhat back to normal.” And in many ways, it did look like a normal school day. One little boy’s backpack bounced as he ran toward the blue doorway of his school. The crossing guard, wearing a neon cap, directed traffic. Parents congregated outside after drop-off to chat. But there were also signs that things were different. It was, as Ms. Brambila put it, a day just to reconnect. The parents who usually disperse by 8:15 a.m. lingered until nearly 9, catching up. Inside the kindergarten classroom of Cherie Wood, students painted at easels, played with blocks on the rug and rocked a baby in a cradle. “We’re starting with play because this is how children best process,” Ms. Wood said. One girl asked Ms. Wood how to write, “I love you, Ms. Nicole.” She wanted to make a card for the classroom’s teacher-in-training, who lost her house in the fire and had not yet returned to school. Even as more schools reopen, not everyone is feeling relief. While many parents and teachers said they were grateful for the return to normal routines, others worried dangers still linger in schools near burned areas. Officials have kept areas of Pacific Palisades closed off, in part because of toxic ash and chemicals, and parents are concerned not enough is being done to make sure the air is safe for children coming back. Some felt it was too soon to ask students who had lost everything to focus on math class. In areas hit by the Palisades fire, nine Los Angeles Unified district schools were temporarily relocated. Five returned to their campuses and two were still closed on Thursday. Alisa Rodman’s two daughters — Delancey, 10, and Reese, 7 — go to a school, Canyon Charter Elementary, that survived the fire but is near the perimeter of the burn zone. Classes have been held virtually, an unwelcome reminder of the Covid pandemic, when Delancey’s kindergarten switched to remote learning. Still, Ms. Rodman, 40, is not sure if she wants her daughters to go back to a school so close to the fire’s ruins. For her, the situation conjures memories of 9/11 and the toxic waste that sickened residents in Lower Manhattan. “I would love nothing more than to be able to send them to their sweet little school and see their teachers and their friends and know that for six hours a day they’re in caring hands and learning,” Ms. Rodman said. But, she added, “Do I think L.A.U.S.D. is rushing to open school before it’s possibly safe? Absolutely.” Parents have still not been told for certain when Canyon will reopen. At a virtual meeting with Canyon parents, staff and district administrators on Tuesday night, officials attempted to reassure parents that the school buildings would be safe and free of ash, noting they had hired an industrial hygienist and outside consultants. “We feel like they’re ready to go,” said Carlos A. Torres, the director of the district’s Office of Environmental Health and Safety. Wildfires can harm children’s health long after the blaze is extinguished. Young people are more vulnerable to air pollution, and can suffer lingering trauma after experiencing destruction and deaths in their communities. Some families would prefer that the school relocate students to other campuses, farther from the burn zone. And some are considering leaving. Andrew Ferrone, a Canyon parent who lives in Venice, is weighing whether to enroll his two daughters, 7 and 4, in another school. “Educating your child is about your most important priority — after their safety,” Mr. Ferrone said. “And to have that up in the air really throws everything up in the air.” The Pasadena district has not yet announced a specific timeline to open the rest of its schools but has said it will all be open by the end of the month. Dayonna Patterson, a math teacher at John Muir High School, which does not have a reopening date, said the uncertainty was the least of her concerns. Ms. Patterson was grappling with her own grief at what her community had lost. She was trying to think about how to be open with her students, to share their pain, without breaking down herself. “I don’t know what to do, I don’t know what to say,” she said. “I’m lost.”

Who gets to be an American? Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1868, the answer to that question has been cemented in the American psyche: anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. That is until Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, 2025—the first day of his second term as President—that would make birthright citizenship conditional on the legal status of one’s parents, targeting many of the hundreds of thousands of children born each year to immigrants. The order was immediately challenged as unconstitutional and is expected to be held up and potentially blocked by the courts before it can go into effect. But just how radical is the idea of limiting who can be a citizen? The U.S. is one of around 30 countries that follows the principle of generally unrestricted jus soli, meaning “right of soil.” This has allowed millions of people each year to automatically become American citizens irrespective of their parentage. Under Trump’s order, which is set to take effect on Feb. 19, at least one parent must be either a citizen or a lawful permanent resident for their U.S.-born child to become a citizen. What does it mean to not have birthright citizenship? Across the world, birthright citizenship is not considered the norm. Canada and Mexico have unrestricted birthright citizenship, as do a majority of Latin American countries. But across Asia, Europe, and Africa, almost none do—at least without similar restrictions to what Trump is proposing. Most countries with restricted birthright citizenship have conditions that broadly depend on either the legal residency status of at least one of the child’s parents, the residency of the child, or both. In Australia, for example, a child born there can become a citizen either if at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident of Australia, or if the child resides in Australia for a decade following their birth. Where countries don’t follow jus soli, they generally rely on jus sanguinis, meaning “right of blood.” Countries like Singapore and China require at least one parent to be a citizen in order for their child to become one. Whether or not the child is born in the country doesn’t matter—citizenship still follows their parents’ nationality. The U.S., like many other countries that follow jus soli, also applies jus sanguinis to children born to an American parent overseas. If the practice of birthright citizenship appears geographically skewed—it’s much more common in the Western Hemisphere—sociologist John Skrenty told Politifact that might be because for many countries it was a tool of colonialism, used to quickly outnumber native populations. In the U.S., the 14th Amendment was adopted to address the legal status of freed slaves. Have other countries changed their birthright citizenship laws before? In recent years, several countries—including Pakistan, the Dominican Republic, and Ireland—have revised their citizenship laws to restrict or revoke birthright citizenship. An Islamabad High Court heard the 2022 petition of a Pakistani-born Afghan who had not been granted citizenship despite Pakistan’s birthright citizenship. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, but in November 2024, Pakistan introduced restrictions that would mean a person born in Pakistan, to be a citizen, had to either have a parent who was a citizen or permanent resident, or reside in Pakistan for a decade after their birth. The change stands to impact many more Afghan refugees who may lack the documentation needed to stay in Pakistan. One of the most severe changes occurred in the Dominican Republic, where the government abolished birthright citizenship in 2013, ruling that anyone born after 1929 who does not have at least one parent of Dominican blood would be considered to be in the country illegally or “in transit.” The restriction denationalized more than 200,000 children of immigrants, many of whom were ethnically Haitian, according to Reuters. And in 2004, Ireland became the last country in Europe to end unrestricted birthright citizenship when 79% of voters in a referendum chose to amend their constitution to require at least one parent be an Irish or British citizen, permanent resident, or legal temporary resident (excluding students and asylum seekers). The change was brought about after a much-publicized “immigration loophole” was discovered when two Chinese nationals living in the U.K. traveled to Belfast to give birth, which (due to Ireland’s unique relationship with both the U.K. and the E.U.) gave them so-called “backdoor” access to permanent residence in the U.K. as parents of a dependent E.U. citizen. In 2018, around when Trump earlier discussed ending birthright citizenship in the U.S., a proposed law to restore birthright citizenship in Ireland gained ground after a high-profile case of a nine-year-old Ireland-born boy who faced deportation along with his Chinese mother. A survey at the time found 71% of Irish respondents wanted to bring birthright citizenship back. However, while the boy was ultimately granted a reprieve from the government, the bill to restore birthright citizenship failed, though the Irish Labour Party continues to advocate for such a change.

If Elon Musk is serious about cutting government waste, fraud, and abuse, he may find help in an unusual place: Elizabeth Warren. While many Democrats in Congress want nothing to do with the billionaire who spent a fortune to help elect Donald Trump, the Massachusetts Senator says she wants to find common ground with Musk in his new role leading the White House's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In a letter she sent him Thursday morning, Warren proposed 30 recommendations for eliminating $2 trillion in federal spending over the next decade, according to a copy of the letter obtained by TIME. The list includes several of the progressive icon’s long-held policy fixations: renegotiating Department of Defense (DOD) contracts that independent analysts have found waste billions each year; reforming the Medicare Advantage insurance program and allowing Medicare to negotiate lower costs of prescription drugs; and closing tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthiest earners. It’s not clear how Musk will respond—but he’s in need of suggestions. Earlier this month, he walked back his pledge of finding $2 trillion in federal savings. That may be due to political constraints. Because Trump vowed on the campaign trail not to touch Medicare and Social Security, and Republicans refuse to cut military spending, DOGE will have to find less conventional ideas to fulfill Musk’s budget-slashing fantasy. For years, Democrats and Republicans alike have wanted to curb wasteful government spending. While much of Washington recoils at Trump’s disruptive, norm-shattering second-term agenda, some see an opportunity for strange bedfellows to emerge. “In the interest of taking aggressive, bipartisan action to ensure sustainable spending, protect taxpayer dollars, curb abusive practices by giant corporations, and improve middle-class Americans’ quality of life,” Warren writes to Musk, “I would be happy to work with you on these matters.” That may be easier said than done. Many of Warren’s proposals won’t go far with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and Musk himself may bristle at many of them. Her missive might do more to make a point than spur an improbable collaboration. Equally significant will be the chorus of deficit hawks who insist the only way to remedy a bloated federal government is to restructure entitlement programs at risk of collapse in 10 years. “There's no way to meaningfully improve the deficit and debt situation without meaningful reforms to entitlements, which we also need to do to avert insolvency for Social Security and Medicare,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Still, Trump won the election after campaigning on cutting federal spending. For a cross section of Americans, it’s an issue of serious concern. To that end, Warren’s outreach stands to serve as an early test for whether there are areas of bipartisan agreement over where taxpayer money is being squandered, or whether it’s the first round of a four-year clash of competing visions and priorities. The biggest cost-saving idea in Warren’s letter is to preserve $200 billion by renegotiating Defense contracts. She points to an Inspector General report from 2011 that found contractors regularly hike prices for the military. One egregious example includes the Air Force overpaying 7,943% on soap dispensers. To rectify the problem, she urged passing legislation she previously introduced with Mike Braun, the former Republican Senator from Indiana, that would close loopholes to prevent defense contractors from price gouging the DOD. “There is a huge problem of the government being able to supervise these contractors carefully enough to be able to make sure we're getting our money's worth,” says Don Kettl, an expert on government administration and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. Kettl recently wrote an essay in the Washington Monthly arguing that the federal government needs more and better skilled civil servants to oversee contractors and that Musk and Trump’s plans to massively reduce the federal workforce will perversely lead to higher, not lower, government spending. “The argument is that the market can do the government's work better and cheaper,” Kettl says. “The problem is that that's not always the case, and contractors often get higher wages.” One area ripe for bipartisan cooperation may be tackling wasteful spending and abuse in the healthcare industry, such as ending or overhauling Medicare Advantage. Non-partisan analysts estimate the insurance program overcharged taxpayers by more than $83 billion last year alone. Warren also wants to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, an idea for which Trump has previously expressed support. At the same time, Warren proposed cracking down on Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), which Trump once castigated as “famous middlemen” who “rip off Medicare patients.” There has already been some movement in Congress. Last year, Warren introduced legislation with Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri that would prohibit the parent company of a PBM from owning a pharmacy—a form of market domination that allows them to charge higher prices with impunity. But not all of Warren’s proposals enjoy the same level of budding support across the aisle. In her letter, she calls for boosting the Internal Revenue Service’s budget—an expense that she argues would be offset by collecting more in taxes—and changing the tax code to close loopholes for corporations and the highest income earners. Both ideas are anathema to Republicans, and one of Trump’s main domestic priorities is to extend his 2017 tax cuts and embark on a deregulatory crusade. Warren also wants to eliminate or substantially reduce funding for the Charter Schools Program, which was designed to provide federal grants for charter schools but which the Government Accountability Office has found mismanages and wastes most of its funding. Warren estimates that cuts to this program could save up to $400 million from being frittered away each year. Another target in the educational sector includes for-profit colleges, which have a long history of ripping off students. Warren wants to make them ineligible for federal aid grants. It’s still not clear how DOGE plans to operate. Katie Miller, a spokeswoman for the operation, did not respond to questions. Watchdog groups have already sued the Musk commission for allegedly violating federal transparency requirements. Many also fear the apparent conflict of interest in Musk overseeing the agencies that regulate his companies that have contracts with the government. In a December letter to Musk that went unanswered, Warren asked how he would avoid self-dealing. In her latest letter, she offered the chance to cooperate on achieving his larger objectives. “Your broad point—that the federal government spends trillions of dollars on wasteful spending is correct,” she writes. “And if you are serious about working together in good faith to cut government spending—in a way that does not harm the middle class—I have proposals for your consideration.” Whether those proposals can go anywhere remains to be seen. Many doubt Musk’s true intentions in taking the reins of DOGE. Others see the possibility of him proposing technological innovations that can save the U.S. money. But for some of Washington’s most strident voices arguing for government spending reforms, it represents a chance for ideas usually relegated to white papers to finally get a full airing. “At this moment,” says MacGuineas, “I'm a fan of what Elon Musk is doing and I’m a fan of what Elizabeth Warren is doing.”

In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump issued a proclamation declaring a national emergency at the southern border. The proclamation authorizes the Secretary of Defense to move money within the department to fund construction of the border wall. It further authorizes the Secretary to call up reservists to assist the Department of Homeland Security in its border activities. Six years ago, with illegal border crossings hovering near a 40-year low, Trump also declared an emergency to secure funding for the border wall and to call up reservists. So it should come as no surprise that he did the same in his second term, with illegal border crossings at higher levels (although still steadily decreasing from the record highs seen in late 2023 and early 2024). But the increased traffic at the border does not justify what is still a misuse of emergency powers. By using these authorities to address a longstanding policy problem, Trump is usurping the role that the Constitution assigns to Congress. Moreover, the actions he has laid out likely exceed the authority provided by the specific powers he has invoked. The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives the president broad discretion to declare a national emergency. That declaration serves as a trigger to unlock powers contained in 150 different provisions of law, including some that carry alarming potential for abuse. For instance, there are provisions allowing the president to take over or shut down communications facilities and to freeze Americans’ assets without judicial process. It is not hard to see how a president could wield these powers to erode both individual liberties and democracy itself. In the proclamation he issued Monday, Trump invoked a provision that allows the Secretary of Defense to reallocate department funds to pay for “military construction” projects that Congress has not authorized. He used this provision in 2019 to secure funding for the border wall after a split Congress refused to allocate the amounts he requested. Reprogramming these funds meant terminating ongoing projects to build weapons maintenance shops, fire rescue stations, and cyberoperations facilities. He has now invoked the same provision for the same purpose, without waiting to see if the new Republican-controlled Congress would provide funding. Trump also invoked a power that allows the Secretary of Defense to call up reservists, including National Guard forces, in a national emergency. These troops will supplement National Guard forces currently deployed at the border to support the Department of Homeland Security. The military has been deployed in this role for years, and President Biden relied on the same emergency authority to augment their numbers. (Because the troops are providing logistical support rather than apprehending or detaining migrants, they are not violating the Posse Comitatus Act’s general prohibition on military participation in law enforcement.) Leaving aside the merits of these policies, accomplishing them through emergency powers is an abuse of presidential authority. Emergency powers play a particular role in our constitutional system. They give the president extraordinary flexibility to address sudden, unexpected crises—the very definition of “emergency”—that Congress could not have foreseen and cannot act quickly or flexibly enough to address after-the-fact. If a problem is longstanding and Congress has had time to grapple with it, it is not a valid target of emergency powers, however serious it may be. There is nothing sudden or unexpected about unlawful immigration at the southern border. Moreover, Congress can and should address the problem by passing comprehensive immigration reform and allocating sufficient resources to handle the backlog of people seeking to immigrate through lawful means. So far, though, Trump hasn’t shown much interest in a long-term solution. Indeed, when Congress was on the verge of passing a bipartisan border security bill in 2024, he reportedly pressured Republican lawmakers to kill it so he could continue to campaign on border chaos. Unfortunately, even though Congress clearly intended for national emergencies to be declared sparingly, there is no definition of “national emergency” in the law. Absent such a definition, courts historically have been quite deferential to a president’s determination that an emergency exists. But they have been much more willing to examine whether a president’s actions comport with the specific emergency powers the president has invoked. And on this count, Trump will likely run into trouble. In particular, some courts struck down Trump’s previous use of the “military construction” provision to build the border wall. Under the provision, the purpose of the construction project must be to support a deployment of the armed forces. For instance, a temporary base may be built to support troops deployed to a remote overseas location. The border wall turns this condition on its head: Instead of the construction supporting a military deployment, the military is being deployed to support the construction. The courts’ decisions were stayed on appeal, and the Supreme Court vacated them in 2021 after Biden terminated Trump’s emergency declaration. But the same arguments will be raised now—and if courts faithfully interpret and apply the law, they should prevail. Trump’s invocation of the power to call up reservists could fail for a different reason. Under a separate law, the armed forces may not provide support to law enforcement agencies (such as the Department of Homeland Security) “if the provision of such support will adversely affect the military preparedness of the United States.” U.S. military personnel are already stationed in over 160 countries throughout the world, and the National Guard is stretched thin. Moreover, lengthy border deployments have proven bad for morale at a time when the military is experiencing unprecedented recruitment and retention challenges. Under these circumstances, any substantial call-up of reservists would likely be detrimental to military preparedness. Without question, there are serious problems at the southern border. The numbers of people attempting to flee persecution, drug or gang-related violence, and economic hardship are creating a humanitarian crisis. Moreover, the level of unlawful migration in recent years speaks to a broken immigration system that must be fixed. But misusing emergency powers will not solve the problem; instead, it will open the door to further such abuses—by this president or a future one. And the next time, those abuses could involve even more potent emergency powers, with even greater potential to undermine liberties and democracy. Until Congress reforms the National Emergencies Act to help prevent presidential overreach, it will be up to the courts to keep us off that slippery slope.

During the last decade, we have become painfully aware that the climate crisis is no longer a distant threat but a living reality. It affects millions of people every day. Last year, the world exceeded 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial temperatures for the first time—a milestone that reminds us of the urgency of action. Now, every fraction of a degree counts. Every year we can gain in actions will matter. Every leader who takes responsibility will matter. Today, 68% of IKEA’s customers worldwide see climate change as the biggest threat and worry about our future. The numbers, gathered during a 2023 survey, vary less from country to country than you may think. At the same time, only 6% of customers are prepared to pay more for sustainable products and solutions. Do not make the mistake of concluding that people don’t care. The truth is that most people simply can’t afford to pay more. They expect policymakers and companies such as ours, to find solutions that are affordable and sustainable. And they are right to do so. Sustainability can’t be a luxury for the few. As a leader of a multinational business and father of three, I see three reasons to be part of leading the transition to a climate smart future. To start with, based on the facts and awareness of today, we simply cannot allow ourselves to pass this on to the next generation. Secondly, it is clear that our customers and co-workers across the world expect us to lead the way. People will deselect brands that don’t. The expectation is not for perfection but sincere intentions and impactful actions. Third—here comes the good news—this is great for business. In general, climate smart means cost smart. Waste has always been expensive and every step of building a sustainable business model drives positive impact on the financials. Some actions pay off fast. Some take time. Just like any other investment. As we experience the pains of today’s climate impacts and listen to the justified concerns for our future, we need to mobilize our optimism. It is true that we are not on track with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It is true that the trajectory is currently towards 2.5-2.9°C of warming by 2030 which will have disastrous consequences should it become a reality. At the same time, it is also true that we have already reached peak carbon per capita and have within our reach to soon bring down emissions in total. As a company we are committed to the Paris Agreement—we must halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and reduce them by 90% by 2050. This means across scope 1 emissions in our operations, scope 2 indirect emissions, and scope 3, which covers emissions from the whole value chain—from raw material, production and transportation to customer use and product end of life. And it works. Since 2016, our baseline year, we have managed to reduce our climate footprint by 30.1% across all scopes, while growing the business by 23.7%. To help achieve this, we have invested more than 4.2 billion euros into off-site renewable energy since 2009. We are also investing about 1 billion euros in companies that are working to boost recycling infrastructure. And efficiency measures have helped us to reduce our energy bill by 97 million euros—or 29%—compared to five years ago. Meanwhile, we have cut our operation food waste by half across our business. Reducing waste, transitioning to renewable energy, as well as supporting our customers to save water, waste, electricity, and money is all a part of a long-term perspective that is resource smart, climate smart, and in the end, business smart. And we’re not alone. Take a look at the World Economic Forums Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders, which has more than 130 member companies. Over the last three years they have collectively reduced absolute carbon—across all three scopes—by 10% while growing their business by 18%, outgrowing global GDP. It’s not enough, but it proves we are on the right path. Only a few years ago many of us leaders made decisions based on faith. Today we know for a fact that our changes and investments will pay off—for people, for the planet, and for business. So, what’s the problem? We are not fast enough and actions are not enough. With five years left until 2030, we find ourselves at the halfway point of the most important decade for climate action. All parts of society including small and large companies need to act on their impact. We all need to get our own house in order by knowing our carbon footprint and taking action. We need a stronger and more solution-oriented collaboration between policymakers and corporate leaders to set the framework for the climate smart economy. We need to speed up change—the clock of this crisis is ticking. We also need to share our successes. Trust is at an all time low for the wrong reasons. Greenwashing and intentional misinformation are unacceptable, but silence from the best actors is an even bigger risk. And, we must be leaders for the future. All of us must assume a bigger role in the collective change. We need to challenge the myths that stand in the way of action. We have the solutions and money to transition towards net zero. The risk is not only to miss the benefits of the new economy but suffer the economic loss. According to a recent report from the World Economic Forum, the cost of inaction will be in the region of 10-15%, every year. The biggest risk as a leader is knowing you could have done something, but didn’t. It is good business to be a good business. It’s cost smart. It’s resource smart. And it’s climate smart. Let’s own the responsibility, lead from opportunities. Think about it: we are the first generation that can be part of creating a sustainable future that is good for people and the planet. That inspires me. I hope it does for you too.

With respiratory-disease season in full swing and a bird flu outbreak rapidly evolving, the new Trump Administration has ordered federal health agencies to secure White House approval before communicating with the public. “As the new Administration considers its plan for managing the federal policy and public communications processes, it is important that the President’s appointees and designees have the opportunity to review and approve any regulations, guidance documents, and other public documents and communications (including social media),” through Feb. 1, reads a Jan. 21 memo sent by Department of Health and Human Services officials and reviewed by TIME. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are all housed within HHS. These agencies regularly publish reports, research, and guidance that shape public response to both chronic and acute health threats, ranging from tobacco to infectious and food-borne disease. “CDC is the health warning system of the United States,” says Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist who has been a communications adviser to the CDC but was not speaking on behalf of the agency. Any policy that slows that warning system, she says, could make CDC’s job “incredibly chaotic.” Branded Content XPRIZE at the 2025 TIME100 Summit: Making the Impossible, Possible By XPRIZE Behind the scenes, staff at federal health agencies are scrambling to understand what the directive means for their work, says a person with firsthand knowledge of the discussions, who asked not to be identified due to the political sensitivity of the situation. “They’re gaining clarity in real time,” they say. The directive does not constitute a full freeze on public communication, suggests the Jan. 21 memo, but rather requires pre-publication review of documents, press releases, website updates, social media posts, and other public communications. Such a policy is not totally unprecedented. In 2017, the first Trump Administration issued a similar communications pause for agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of the Interior. And both the Trump and Biden White Houses vetted communications related to COVID-19 at various points in the pandemic. Mitch Zeller, who was director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products from 2013 to 2022, says it is “not unusual” for an incoming administration to issue a temporary pause on publications. “They want to get up to speed on stuff that would otherwise be coming out before they’ve all even gotten their IDs laminated,” Zeller says. It is less standard—and more concerning—for the White House to request review of scientific documents, he says. During his tenure with the FDA, White House communications staff were “almost never involved” in agency announcements unless it was an “extremely high-profile, once-in-a-decade kind of announcement,” Zeller says. HHS has its own “challenging” system for getting materials approved, Zeller says. Adding an extra layer of review, he says, could create a “bottleneck” in agencies’ communications, which are potentially time-sensitive. Already, the policy has reportedly delayed CDC reports on bird flu, according to the Washington Post. (The memo reviewed by TIME notes that agency personnel can notify HHS executives if they believe a document or communication should be exempt from the policy for reasons including “affect[ing] critical health, safety, environmental, financial, or national security functions of the Department.”) Further, “I don’t trust the incoming administration on issues like this,” says Zeller, who worked at the FDA during the first Trump Administration. “They have come in with an anti-regulatory, anti-science agenda.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the vaccine skeptic who Trump has tapped to lead HHS, has repeatedly said he will spearhead dramatic changes within federal health agencies if he is confirmed. (Kennedy's confirmation hearing is unlikely to happen before February, Bloomberg reports.) These changes potentially include clearing out “entire departments” at the FDA, limiting the CDC’s ability to create and disseminate vaccination guidance, and redirecting NIH research funding to topics related to preventive, alternative, and holistic health. A day before the communications memo was circulated, Trump also signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization, a move that experts say makes the U.S. more susceptible to public-health threats. The White House office that handles pandemic preparedness is also expected to dramatically shrink under the Trump Administration. Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, views the communications directive, however short-lived, as another “assault on American health.” “The White House has no expertise in science and health and medicine,” Gostin says. “Why would I want to know what they think more than I would want to know what a top public-health scientist thinks?” HHS representatives did not respond to TIME’s requests for comment before press time. However, according to the memo, “The President’s appointees intend to review documents and communications expeditiously and return to a more regular process as soon as possible.”