Body mass index (BMI) is one of the most ubiquitous yet controversial metrics in medicine. A crude measure of weight relative to height, BMI is commonly used to diagnose obesity—even though many experts and professional groups agree it’s an imperfect tool that on its own reveals very little about someone’s health. Among other issues, BMI does not differentiate between weight from fat versus muscle and was not designed to assess a diverse array of bodies. It’s time to do better than BMI, an international group of 58 experts from fields including obesity medicine, endocrinology, bariatric surgery, cardiovascular medicine, gastroenterology, and primary care argue in a proposal published Jan. 14 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. In most cases, the experts write, clinicians diagnosing obesity should either augment or replace BMI readings with other body measurements, such as waist circumference, or tests that can objectively measure body fat. (Tests that precisely measure body fat are already available in some medical clinics, but they are used far less frequently than BMI because they are more costly and labor-intensive.) The proposal also calls for dividing obesity into two categories: clinical and preclinical. Under the group’s definitions, clinical obesity is accompanied by health problems tied to excess body fat, such as impaired organ function, reduced mobility, or difficulty carrying out day-to-day activities. People with preclinical obesity, meanwhile, do not have immediate weight-related health concerns. The former constitutes an illness, while the latter is a health risk to monitor, says Dr. Francesco Rubino, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King's College London and chair of the expert commission. Rubino calls his group’s framework “the most radical change that has been proposed for the diagnosis of obesity.” He says it constitutes “a new diagnosis…that is meant to be objective and pragmatic enough to be globally relevant.” Clinicians are under no obligation to follow the group’s proposal, but 76 medical organizations around the world—including the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the World Obesity Federation—have endorsed the report. “This new approach demands a fundamental change in how we treat obesity,” says Dr. Sahar Takkouche, an obesity-medicine specialist and associate chief medical officer at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who was not part of the expert panel. Implementing its recommendations won’t be seamless, Takkouche says. Machines that precisely measure body composition, for example, aren’t available in every doctor’s office, and insurance policies often lag behind evolving medical practices. But the approach outlined in the proposal offers “new hope for more effective care.” The proposed criteria could, for example, help clarify which patients are likely to benefit from treatments like drugs and surgery, Rubino says. While these may be good options for some people with clinical obesity, he says, people with preclinical obesity may not need intensive treatments, like ultra-popular anti-obesity drugs Wegovy and Zepbound. For some preclinical patients, monitoring alone might be appropriate, he says. "Obesity is nuanced. It’s a spectrum,” Rubino says. “It’s not a single thing.” That distinction alone requires a mindset shift, says Dr. Tirissa Reid, an endocrinologist, obesity-medicine specialist, and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center who was not involved in the Lancet proposal. Reid says she and most other obesity specialists already do much of the testing and analysis the report suggests. But, she says, it’s “a big deal” for a group of experts to further the idea that “excess body fat doesn't necessarily equate with illness automatically.” That message could both “reframe” the general public’s understanding of obesity, Reid says, and also help clinicians decide if, when, and how to treat patients. There has long been debate within the medical community about whether obesity should be treated as a disease. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Medical Association both call obesity a disease, but some doctors argue that label is wrong—or at least overly simplistic. While many studies have shown that obesity is associated with chronic health problems including Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, there is less research to concretely prove it causes these conditions, says Dr. Lisa Erlanger, a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine and president of the Association for Weight and Size Inclusive Medicine. Some people with obesity show no signs of chronic conditions, studies have found, and other research suggests weight stigma and inadequate health care are associated with many of the same issues frequently attributed to obesity. Erlanger says the new proposal—which, she notes, was authored by many people with ties to the weight-loss industry—looks like progress on the surface, but is flawed. It still assumes “any impairment occurring while you’re fat” counts as illness and encourages clinicians to use metrics, like waist circumference, that are “poor measures of how many of a person’s symptoms are actually caused by the number of their fat cells,” Erlanger says. In general, she says, the mainstream medical community is “uncurious” about whether obesity actually causes many of the complications it’s linked to, and whether weight loss is truly the best treatment for some of these problems. Habits like getting adequate exercise, nutrition, and sleep can have profoundly positive effects on overall health whether they affect weight or not, Erlanger says. A recent research review, for example, found that cardiorespiratory fitness is a better predictor of longevity than weight. It’s in part because of such debates in the field, Rubino says, that there’s a need for nuanced yet accurate methods of assessing obesity and its health effects—which, he says, his group has produced. “Disease should not be a matter of opinion,” he says. “It should be a matter of fact.”

President Joe Biden will leave the White House, presumably for the last time, on Jan. 20. And while his successor, Donald Trump, has promised to implement a raft of policies on Day One of his new term, Biden isn’t leaving before pushing through a few of his own. In December, Biden announced nearly $2.5 billion in security assistance for Ukraine, commuted death-row sentences, and granted clemency to a record number of prisoners. Since the beginning of 2025—in addition to addressing crises like the California wildfires and attending to the usual end-of-presidency securing of judicial confirmations, bill signings (mostly post office renamings), and handing out of medals to citizens and service members—Biden has used his remaining days in office to tout his administration’s accomplishments—on everything from LGBTQ rights to health care to small-business growth—as well as to assert his domestic and foreign-policy principles through a series of executive actions. “My Administration is leaving the next Administration with a very strong hand to play,” Biden said on Monday in the first of two farewell speeches to the nation. (The second is scheduled for Wednesday.) Read More: Biden’s Final Attempts at Legacy Polishing Won't Boost His Standing. Here's What Might Here’s a rundown of some of the final policies Biden has announced this month so far, as his presidency winds down. Blocking Nippon Steel’s planned acquisition of U.S. Steel On Jan. 3, Biden blocked a nearly $15-billion deal from Japanese company Nippon Steel to acquire Pittsburgh-headquartered U.S. Steel—a planned move that drew political scrutiny during the recent election season amid reinvigorated calls to shore up America’s domestic manufacturing industry. Biden said he blocked the acquisition on national security grounds. “A strong domestically owned and operated steel industry represents an essential national security priority and is critical for resilient supply chains,” the outgoing President said in a statement. “Without domestic steel production and domestic steel workers, our nation is less strong and less secure.” Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel were ordered to abandon their transaction within 30 days, but they sued the Biden administration alleging “illegal interference” in the deal that the companies say, according to a joint statement, would “enhance, not threaten, United States national security.” The Biden administration extended the deadline to unwind the transaction to mid-June, further into Trump’s term, though Trump has also opposed the acquisition. Increasing Social Security benefits for millions On Jan. 5, Biden signed into law the Social Security Fairness Act, a bipartisan measure that will increase Social Security payments for former and current public employees who receive pensions—including firefighters, police officers, and teachers, as well as their spouses and survivors—by rescinding two federal policies that limited their benefits. “This is a big deal,” Biden said during a signing event at the White House, where he touted himself as “the first president in more than 20 years to expand Social Security benefits.” The law would increase the monthly payouts of some 3 million recipients by an average of $360, while many will also receive lump-sum payments to make up for the shortfall of benefits they should have gotten in 2024. Trump has promised to “protect Social Security,” though analysts have warned the fund is headed toward insolvency and his proposals could worsen its finances, which may lead to legally-mandated benefit cuts. Banning offshore drilling On Jan. 6, Biden, using his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, issued a ban on new offshore oil and natural gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters, as part of his larger climate and conservation agenda. The order covers some 625 million acres of federal waters, including the U.S. East coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Coast along California, Oregon, and Washington, and more portions of the Northern Bering Sea in Alaska. “My decision reflects what coastal communities, businesses, and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation’s energy needs,” Biden said in a statement. Trump, who has promised to establish U.S. “energy dominance” by expanding oil and gas drilling, posted on Truth Social that Biden is “doing everything possible to make the TRANSITION as difficult as as possible” and said during a Jan. 7 press conference at Mar-a-Lago that he will immediately reverse Biden’s order—though he will likely need an act of Congress. Removing medical debt from credit reports On Jan. 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule that will remove around $49 billion in medical bills from consumer credit reports, improving the credit score of more than 15 million Americans. Lenders will also be barred from using medical information in their lending decisions, the bureau said, based on previous research that showed medical bills on people’s credit reports are poor predictors of their loan repayment ability. “This will be lifechanging for millions of families, making it easier for them to be approved for a car loan, a home loan, or a small-business loan,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in a White House factsheet that called reducing the burden of medical debt “a key priority in President Biden and Vice President Harris’s effort to lower cost for American families.” Expanding veterans’ benefits On Jan. 8, Biden announced that the Department of Veterans Affairs will expand the benefit coverage of veterans with cancer believed to be linked to toxic pit exposures, as part of a yearslong effort of his Administration to increase veterans’ access to benefits. According to a press release by the Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans with acute and chronic leukemias, multiple myelomas, myelodysplastic syndromes, myelofibrosis, urinary bladder, ureter, and related genitourinary cancers, as well as the survivors of veterans who passed from these conditions, can immediately apply for benefits without needing to prove that their ailments are linked to their service. “It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve as Commander-in-Chief and to support and care for our service members, veterans, and their families,” Biden said in his statement. Imposing more sanctions on Russia On Jan. 10, the Biden Administration expanded the sanctions on Russia’s energy sector in response to the war it continues to wage in Ukraine. In a statement, the Administration called the sanctions the “most significant” so far—covering two major Russian oil producers, dozens of oilfield service providers, 183 vessels moving seaborne Russian oil, and opaque traders of Russian oil worldwide. Some of the targeted vessels are also suspected to ship Iranian oil, according to the Treasury Department. “Some will ask why we waited for the end of the Administration to introduce sanctions on Russian oil,” reads a White House statement on the sanctions. “The answer is this: for sanctions to be successful, they must be sustainable.” Whether or not the Trump administration plans to continue these sanctions remains to be seen, though analysts have said that Trump may find sanctions on Russia to be “stickier” than expected, and he may even take advantage of them to force negotiations with Putin to end the war. Trump “has been handed a great big stick to use,” wrote Bloomberg’s Julian Lee. “He shouldn’t just throw it away.” Issuing guidelines on clean tax credits On Jan. 10, the U.S. Treasury Department released partial guidelines on how companies can secure clean fuel tax credits—which was aimed at incentivizing production of low-carbon fuels—in an apparent rush to secure climate initiatives before Biden’s term ends. “This guidance will help put America on the cutting-edge of future innovation in aviation and renewable fuel while also lowering transportation costs for consumers,” said Treasury Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo. But while the guidelines provide emission reductions criteria to ensure access to the subsidies, biofuels groups criticized the lack of specificity, as it leaves many of the final decisions to Trump, who has vowed to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act that established the credit in the first place. Forgiving student debt On Jan. 13, Biden approved student loan relief for more than 150,000 borrowers, bringing the total number of borrowers whose student debt has been cancelled under his term to 5 million—more than any other President in U.S. history, according to the Associated Press. Student loan relief, a key Biden campaign proposal in 2020, totaled to $183.6 billion throughout Biden’s presidency despite the Supreme Court striking down a wider forgiveness plan in 2023, forcing the Administration to instead expand upon the Education Department’s existing programs. “Since Day One of my Administration, I promised to ensure higher-education is a ticket to the middle class, not a barrier to opportunity, and I’m proud to say we have forgiven more student loan debt than any other administration in history,” the President said in a statement. In November, Politico reported that Trump’s transition team and advisers are already eyeing a rollback of Biden’s debt-forgiveness policies, though Trump allies have admitted that doing so won’t be simple. Restricting exports of AI chips On Jan. 13, the Biden Administration announced additions to its existing restrictions on AI chips, aimed at preventing China and other countries of concern to the U.S. from access to the technologies that will allow them to beat America in the artificial intelligence space. Under the framework, 18 U.S. allies will have no new restrictions, but for most other countries, the U.S. will require authorization for exports, reexports, and transfers of advanced computing chips. “This policy will help build a trusted technology ecosystem around the world and allow us to protect against the national security risks associated with AI, while ensuring controls do not stifle innovation or US technological leadership,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo in a statement. Tech groups, however, have warned that such “rushed” new policies could cause “unintended and lasting damage” to the American semiconductor and AI chip industry. The rule, however, has a 120-day comment period, which means the Trump Administration will get to decide whether or not it ultimately goes through. Read More: Why Biden Is Rushing to Restrict AI Chip Exports “Obviously it’s going to be up to them how they want to proceed, and they may have internal debates the same way we had internal debates about exactly how to calibrate the rule,” Biden National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told Bloomberg. “But I would be surprised sitting here today if, after 120 days, they looked at the landscape as we’ve looked at it, and said, ‘You know, we really don’t need this at all.’”. Negotiating a Gaza ceasefire deal The Biden Administration has been working to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, for which it has collaborated on negotiations with mediators Qatar and Egypt for more than a year. Ahead of Trump’s inauguration, which is seen by many as a deadline for a deal to be reached, Biden has made calls in the last couple days with the Emir of Qatar and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to White House readouts of both calls, Biden emphasized the need for a deal that would return the hostages that are still held in Gaza as well as bring a surge in humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. In a foreign-policy speech at the State Department on Jan. 13, Biden said, “On the war between Israel and Hamas, we’re on the brink of a proposal that I laid out in detail months ago finally coming to fruition.” Personnel from both Biden’s and Trump’s teams have been working together on the negotiations—as Trump also appears keen to quickly resolve the conflict in the Gaza Strip, having warned Hamas that there will be “all hell to pay” if the remaining hostages held captive are not released by the time he returns to the Oval Office.

Two morning earthquakes with magnitudes of at least 3.5 struck near San Francisco on Friday and Sunday, according to the United States Geological Survey. A 3.5-magnitude earthquake near Concord in the East Bay shook the area on Sunday, two days after a quake of similar magnitude struck in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Francisco on Friday, data from the agency shows. Residents across the region reported mild shaking but no immediate damage from either earthquake. U.S.G.S. data for both earthquakes earlier reported that each one was as strong as a magnitude 3.7 quake. As seismologists review available data, they often revise the earthquake's reported magnitude and update shake-severity maps. The location of Friday’s earthquake recalled one of the biggest earthquakes of all time, a 7.9-magnitude quake that nearly destroyed San Francisco in 1906. Friday’s quake, and its much more powerful relative, likely both occurred along the San Andreas fault, said Robert Skoumal, a research geophysicist at the United States Geological Survey. Preliminary location data from the U.S.G.S. suggested that the two may have shared more than a fault line — both occurred at very nearly the same location, about two miles west of Golden Gate Park. Mr. Skoumal said it was not possible to determine with certainty whether the two quakes shared precisely the same epicenter because of changes in measuring techniques over the last century. “Back in 1906, we didn't have the best seismic instruments out there,” he said. Earthquakes of similar size are also fairly common in the area west of San Francisco, he said. “We've had dozens of magnitude threes just over the past several decades along this one little patch,” he said. And while the risk of earthquakes in the San Francisco area is serious, Friday’s small earthquake did not signal the imminent arrival of a more destructive quake, he said. “I wouldn't say this particular earthquake should make anyone worried,” Mr. Skoumal said. Aftershocks in the region An aftershock is usually a smaller earthquake that follows a larger one in the same general area. Aftershocks are typically minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake. Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Pete Hegseth came under fire from Senators of both parties weighing his nomination to lead the Defense Department over his past comments about women serving in the military, putting the first of Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks to face a hearing on the defensive. Hegseth has faced a series of controversies in recent weeks, including alleged womanizing, sexual misconduct, inappropriate drinking, and claims of financial mismanagement. During a contentious hearing on Tuesday, he clarified his past comments and told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he would work to eliminate "wokeness" within the military, vowing to “restore the warrior ethos to the Pentagon.” While Hegseth tried to project confidence and clarity about his vision for the U.S. military, some of the most pointed questions came from within his own party. One skeptical Republican was Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, whose vote on the Armed Services Committee might well decide the fate of Hegseth, a 44-year-old former Fox News host and National Guard veteran. Ernst, a former Army National Guard commander and sexual assault survivor, has expressed concerns about Hegseth’s leadership experience and his past comments on women in combat. In one exchange with Ernst, Hegseth appeared to walk back his previous stance against women serving in combat roles—a position that has already prompted backlash within and outside the military. He was pressed by Ernst and several Democratic members of the committee on those comments, which he now claims were "misconstrued.” Hegseth wrote in his 2024 book that women are meant to be “life-givers” and shouldn’t serve in combat roles. “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially not in combat units,” he wrote. Currently, 18% of the military is composed of women. Asked by Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, a Democrat, if he thinks the two women on the committee who served in the military—Senators Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Ernst—made the military less capable, Hegseth said: “No, their contributions are indispensable. My comments are about having the same standards across the board.” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat on the committee, said that his comments on women were a “silly thing to say” and “beneath the position” of Secretary of Defense. “You have to change how you see women to do this job well, and I don’t know that you can,” she said. Later, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democrat, questioned his apparent recent change of opinion on women in combat and asked how women can be certain he won’t reverse his opinion again once confirmed. "I've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the first time I've seen a nomination conversion," she said. Read More: Pete Hegseth’s Role in Trump’s Controversial Pardons of Men Accused of War Crimes Hegseth can only lose a single Republican vote on the Senate Armed Services panel if all Democrats oppose him. If he makes it for a vote in the full Senate, Hegseth can afford to lose no more than three Republican votes if all Democrats vote against him. Hegseth only met with one Democrat prior to the hearing—Senator Jack Reed of Delaware, the top Democrat on the committee. Several Democrats called him out for not scheduling meetings with them. For many on the committee, it wasn’t just Hegseth’s views on gender and military service that raised questions. Past personal allegations—including sexual assault, drinking on the job, and claims by former co-workers that he mismanaged veterans organizations he led—remained key concerns. Hegseth called those allegations a “coordinated smear campaign” and said the media was “out to destroy me…because I'm a change agent.” He previously acknowledged that he paid an undisclosed sum to a woman who had accused him of sexual assault at a Republican conference in 2017. No charges were ever filed against Hegseth in the incident. Pressed by Ernst, Hegseth said he would appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention in the military. "I’m not a perfect person," Hegseth said. "But redemption is real.” The hearing also saw scrutiny from Democrats over Hegseth’s qualifications to lead the Pentagon, particularly given his relative lack of experience managing large, bureaucratic organizations. Reed, the top Democrat on the committee who voted in favor of Trump’s picks for Secretary of Defense in the President-elect’s first term, questioned Hegseth’s capacity to oversee the massive U.S. military apparatus, adding that he reviewed the allegations against Hegseth and concluded that the alleged conduct would “disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military.” Other Democrats pointed out that his management experience pales in comparison to even mid-level civilian managers in private sector companies, let alone the head of one of the world’s largest institutions. Duckworth, an Iraq War combat veteran, then quizzed Hegseth on military issues. At one point, she asked Hegseth to name a country that’s in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a political and economic union of 10 states. He mentioned South Korea, Japan and Australia—none of which are in ASEAN. "I suggest you do a little homework," she said. In response to concerns about his qualifications, Hegseth highlighted his military service, his leadership in the National Guard, and his work at veterans’ organizations, while also stressing his role as a critic of the military establishment and advocate for reform. Read More: ‘Not Qualified’ And ‘Out of Touch’: Combat Veteran Tammy Duckworth on Why She Opposes Pete Hegseth’s Nomination “It is true that I don't have a similar biography to Defense Secretaries of the last 30 years,” Hegseth said in his opening statement. “But, as President Trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly ‘the right credentials’—whether they are retired generals, academics, or defense contractor executives—and where has it gotten us?” “It's time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm,” he added. “A change agent. Someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives.” If confirmed, Hegseth would oversee more than 3 million military and civilian personnel around the world, the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and an annual budget of more than $800 billion. He would be expected to lead the nation’s military as the U.S. faces threats from Russia, China, Iran and adversaries around the world. Some members of the public expressed their opposition to Hegseth’s nomination on Tuesday as well. Four people, one wearing a Vietnam veteran cap, were removed from the hearing within the first minutes of Hegseth’s opening statement. At least three were protesting Hegseth’s stance on the war in Gaza. Later, when asked by Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas to address the protestors and clarify his stance on the Israel-Hamas war, Hegseth said that he supports “Israel killing and destroying every last member of Hamas.” Hegseth also addressed diversity and inclusion policies, arguing they “divide” troops and that the military should be putting “meritocracy first.” Asked by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, a Democrat on the committee, if he will use the military to take over Greenland or the Panama Canal as Trump suggested he might use the military to do in a press conference on Jan. 7, Hegseth said he would never tip his hand in a public setting on military plans. It’s not yet clear if Hegseth will get the support of every Republican on the committee—or in the upper chamber. Some Republican senators—including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—have remained noncommittal on his nomination.

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host whom Donald Trump has nominated to be Defense Secretary, came under fire on Tuesday during his Senate confirmation hearing, where he faced questions about his history of alleged sexual assault and excessive drinking, his views on women in the military, and his role in the pardoning of men accused of war crimes. But one particular moment from the 4.5-hour grilling has gained traction online: when he wasn’t able to name a single country in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In what has now gone viral, with millions of views on X and other platforms, Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth from Illinois, who has called Hegseth “not qualified,” says she appreciates that he’s “talked about the Indo-Pacific a little bit.” She then asks Hegseth if he could “name the importance of at least one of the nations in ASEAN and what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations.” She adds: “And how many nations are in ASEAN, by the way?” Hegseth responds that he “couldn’t tell you the exact amount of nations in that” before saying “but I know we have allies in South Korea and Japan and in AUKUS with Australia…” “None of those three countries that you’ve mentioned are in ASEAN,” Duckworth interjected. “I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations.” .@SenDuckworth asks Pete Hegseth about ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations): "None of those three countries that you've mentioned are in ASEAN. I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations." pic.twitter.com/C2qsQkBUi3 — CSPAN (@cspan) January 14, 2025 ASEAN, a bloc that has had diplomatic relations with the U.S. for nearly half a century, has 10 members—Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Though ASEAN is not a military alliance, the U.S. has defense alliances with both the Philippines and Thailand, while Singapore is a Major Security Cooperation Partner. Former Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.) shared a clip of the moment on X and questioned Hegseth’s suitability for the role. “Hegseth can’t name one country that’s part of ASEAN and he doesn’t know any of the US international security agreements. America, if you want peace and security, this ain’t it!” she wrote. Other social media users were also concerned about Hegseth’s gaffe. “This is simultaneously hilarious and terrifying,” one user on X posted. “No great power in history has combined such immense imperial hubris with such profound ignorance of others.” “From a basic knowledge standpoint, Pete Hegseth is woefully unqualified for this job,” posted the anti-Trump organization Really American. VoteVets, a liberal advocacy group, called it a “mic drop” moment. Read More: How Asia Is Bracing for Trump’s Second Term But others came to Hegseth’s defense. “I’ve literally never heard of ASEAN and I’ve followed geopolitics all my life,” one X user said. “Sounds like they’re just throwing obscure irrelevant gotcha questions at him and then saying ‘you should have prepared for this.’” Former Rep. Peter Mejier (R-Mich.) posted: “Ok this is dumb. Clearly Hegseth heard Asia, and If I was in Hegseth’s shoes I would have said the same thing about Japan/South Korea/AUKUS- bc it’s not at all clear why Duckworth is raising ASEAN, a political and economic union, in the context of Indo-Pacific defense agreements.” (AUKUS is a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the U.K., and the U.S.) In response to a post by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) praising Hegseth’s overall performance at the confirmation hearing, another X user pointed out: “Hegseth was so prepared that he couldn’t name a single ASEAN nation. Now, who should know about global affairs? Oh, that’s right, a Defense Secretary.”

There are a lot of variables at play in the catastrophic wildfires currently clawing through southern California: dry vegetation, lack of rain, dense housing development, errant sparks potentially from cigarette butts or campfires or power lines or even arsonists. And then of course there’s gravity. Of all of the factors involved, there may be nothing as basic or as powerful as the tendency of an object with mass to roll or slide or plunge downward under the pull of the Earth below it. In the case of the wildfires, the massive object is air—specifically cold air, swirling and flowing 1,200 meters (4,260 ft.) high in California’s Sierra Nevada and White mountains, and the Klamath Basin in southern Oregon and northern California—a whirling of atmospheric dervishes that creates the signature Santa Ana winds. The warmer, less compacted air down at sea level is no match for the colder, denser air in the high elevations and what’s at the top comes crashing down. Fire absolutely loves it when that happens. “We call those downslope winds,” says Alexander Gershunov, a research meteorologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. “They act as water does in an obstructed stream—they pull up against topography, and as they rush over the crests and through the gaps in the topography, they accelerate down the lee slopes and form something of a waterfall—or an airfall of downslope winds.” It is those atmospheric gushers that did as much as anything else to fan the flames that have so far killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and destroyed thousands of structures across the Los Angeles area. Last week, isolated gusts, especially in the Santa Monica Mountains, reached 100 mph. The weekend saw some easing back, but Wed. Jan. 15 and Thurs. Jan. 16 are expected to see winds back up to 65 mph. Category One hurricanes, by comparison, start out at 74 mph. There are a lot of variables at play in the catastrophic wildfires currently clawing through southern California: dry vegetation, lack of rain, dense housing development, errant sparks potentially from cigarette butts or campfires or power lines or even arsonists. And then of course there’s gravity. Of all of the factors involved, there may be nothing as basic or as powerful as the tendency of an object with mass to roll or slide or plunge downward under the pull of the Earth below it. In the case of the wildfires, the massive object is air—specifically cold air, swirling and flowing 1,200 meters (4,260 ft.) high in California’s Sierra Nevada and White mountains, and the Klamath Basin in southern Oregon and northern California—a whirling of atmospheric dervishes that creates the signature Santa Ana winds. The warmer, less compacted air down at sea level is no match for the colder, denser air in the high elevations and what’s at the top comes crashing down. Fire absolutely loves it when that happens. “We call those downslope winds,” says Alexander Gershunov, a research meteorologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. “They act as water does in an obstructed stream—they pull up against topography, and as they rush over the crests and through the gaps in the topography, they accelerate down the lee slopes and form something of a waterfall—or an airfall of downslope winds.” It is those atmospheric gushers that did as much as anything else to fan the flames that have so far killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and destroyed thousands of structures across the Los Angeles area. Last week, isolated gusts, especially in the Santa Monica Mountains, reached 100 mph. The weekend saw some easing back, but Wed. Jan. 15 and Thurs. Jan. 16 are expected to see winds back up to 65 mph. Category One hurricanes, by comparison, start out at 74 mph. “We are beginning to experience another Santa Ana wind event now, and there'll be another one early next week, and we may have two to three Santa Ana winds before we get the first rains,” says Gershunov. “That's what happened in 2017 and 2018, when the Thomas fire burned through most of December and the smoldering remains were put out by an atmospheric river Pacific storm that occurred on Jan. 9, 2018. But [the fire] was extreme enough over Montecito, in Santa Barbara County, that it caused debris flows from the fire scar that killed 22 people.” Containing wildfires—never mind extinguishing them—in parched and windy conditions can be monstrously difficult. Dry vegetation is rocket fuel for blazes and wind both feeds the flames and spreads the embers. “The winds are like pointing an air blower at a fireplace,” says Gershunov, “except it’s not contained and it’s on a much larger scale.” What’s more, while the ability of weather forecasters to predict a resurgence of the Santa Ana winds as they’re doing this week inspires some confidence that Los Angelenos can plan for what’s coming, the fortune telling is reliable only until it isn’t. Surface features—trees, hills, mountains, buildings—are agents of chaos, causing all manner of unpredictable turbulence when the winds touch down. And higher in the atmosphere things can be even screwier—and on a larger scale. “Last week the jet stream did this tremendous loop and retrograde up in the upper troposphere and was blowing in the opposite direction from what it normally does,” says Gershunov. “It was pointed right into the L.A. basin.” Humidity—or, specifically, the lack of it—is another problem. Hot, arid winds blowing in from the Sierra Nevadas, White Mountains, and Klamath Basin strip whatever moisture there might be in the Los Angeles air, and that further dries out leaves and underbrush and other fuel. “Single digits in terms of relative humidity are a prescription for uncontrollable wildfires if the fuels are dry,” says Gershunov. What less humid wind there is often blows in from the ocean, which unhandily pushes fires that might actually be rolling down to extinguish themselves in the water back up hill. If there’s even a faint bright spot in the current disaster, it’s that the Santa Anas have been gusting in clear blue skies, meaning no lightning to act as an additional ignition source. But even so, regardless of the cause, once a fire is lit in a tinder box environment like a windy Los Angeles, the business of extinguishing it takes a massive expenditure of public effort and treasure—all in the face of a massive loss of life and property. The current crisis will end, though for now no one can say when.

As he prepares for his final year as governor of New Jersey, Philip D. Murphy on Tuesday proposed banning cellphones in schools and disclosed plans to blunt any additional limits on abortion access by the Trump administration. Mr. Murphy also said he would work to address last year’s alarming 14 percent increase in roadway fatalities by overhauling the state’s 10 most dangerous intersections. Mr. Murphy, a Democrat, began his seventh State of the State address in Trenton by acknowledging what he called “the elephant that is not in the room”: President-elect Donald J. Trump. “I know there is some uncertainty and even concern about what this administration will bring,” the governor said, drawing the first round of applause from the standing-room-only crowd. Mr. Murphy, who plans to attend Mr. Trump’s inauguration next week, said he “would never back away from partnering with the Trump administration” when doing so aligned with New Jersey’s priorities. But he vowed to fight Mr. Trump “if and when” those values are tested. To that end, he said that New Jersey would stockpile a supply of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions, in the event that Mr. Trump moved to limit its availability. Aides to Mr. Murphy said New Jersey’s Department of Health had already begun gathering a six-month “strategic reserve” of medications, including mifepristone, which will be stored with abortion providers. New Jersey law permits abortion throughout a pregnancy. But the governor also said that he would pursue legislation to end out-of-pocket costs for the procedure, reiterating a proposal he made last year. As he outlined his priorities for his final year in office, Mr. Murphy said he would push for legislation to provide full pay to state workers on parental leave, make full-day kindergarten mandatory in the small number of towns that do not already offer it and permit 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in school board elections. But perhaps the loudest and most sustained applause came when Mr. Murphy said he would direct school districts to adopt policies that ban cellphones in the state’s elementary, middle and high schools. “Our children are inundated with screens,” Mr. Murphy said, adding that cellphone use had fueled a rise in cyberbullying and contributed to a mental health crisis among children. “We will help establish phone-free schools,” he vowed. New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul, said Monday that she planned to limit cellphone use in schools. New York and New Jersey join a growing number of states, including Virginia, Ohio and Minnesota, that have moved to limit the use of the devices in schools. Los Angeles Unified became the largest school district in the United States to ban cellphones last year. Mr. Murphy is prohibited by law from running for more than two consecutive terms, and November’s race to replace him is already in full swing. Six prominent Democrats and four Republicans are competing for their party’s nomination to run for governor in the June primaries. The list of contenders includes the mayors of the state’s two largest cities, two members of Congress and a former Republican Assembly member who came within three percentage points of beating Mr. Murphy in 2021. Indeed, the governor’s speech had a perfunctory air, and members of the audience at times appeared distracted; some repeatedly exited and re-entered the State Assembly chamber throughout the address. The Republican leader of the State Senate, Anthony M. Bucco, called Mr. Murphy’s address a retread of costly, feel-good policy proposals. “This state has become more and more and more unaffordable,” Mr. Bucco said. “The days of spending outside of our means are coming to an end,” he added. Still, the hourlong speech offered a window into major challenges facing New Jersey, including last year’s 14 percent increase in roadway fatalities. Traffic fatalities nationwide have been declining. But last year in New Jersey, there were 691 traffic deaths, up from 606 the year before. Pedestrian fatalities soared by 32 percent. The increase coincided with a drastic eight-month reduction in traffic enforcement by State Police troopers, who in July 2023 began writing far fewer tickets for speeding, drunken driving, cellphone use and other violations. The reduced enforcement began a week after the state’s attorney general, Matthew J. Platkin, released a report critical of the performance of the State Police, New Jersey’s largest policing agency. In August 2023, the first full month of the slowdown, troopers wrote 81 percent fewer tickets statewide, and crashes on the state’s two main highways immediately began to increase, according to records obtained by The New York Times through public records requests. Mr. Platkin has appointed Preet Bharara, a prominent former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, to lead a criminal investigation of the slowdown.Mr. Murphy is the only official in New Jersey with the power to replace the State Police superintendent, Col. Patrick Callahan, who led the department during the slowdown. On Monday, when asked about the relationship between traffic fatalities and the reduced levels of enforcement, Mr. Murphy said, “If we’re not enforcing the laws on the books, that’s unacceptable.” But he also worked to shift accountability for the slowdown away from himself and instead place full responsibility on Mr. Platkin and Colonel Callahan. “It’s on their backs to get this into the right place,” Mr. Murphy said, adding that he had confidence in both men. A spokesman for Colonel Callahan did not respond to a request for comment. On Monday, Mr. Murphy signed a bill that created a commission dedicated to reducing the number of traffic fatalities in New Jersey to zero by 2040. On Tuesday, he told lawmakers that he would “work with all of you to make New Jersey’s roads safer.” He also announced plans to “overhaul” 10 of the state’s most dangerous intersections “to keep our families safe and to help prevent avoidable tragedies.”

More howling, whipping, fire-stoking winds have arrived in Los Angeles. They are expected to strengthen by dawn and may blow up to 70 miles per hour. Some gusts could rekindle parts of the major blazes tearing through the city’s hills and suburbs. Others could start new fires. It may seem hard to understand why the combined resources of the federal government, California and Los Angeles haven’t been able to defeat the wildfires after a week of fighting them. The winds are a major reason. The gusts hurl embers across great distances, spreading fire quickly and thwarting efforts to pinch it off. Planes and helicopters that spray water and flame retardant can’t fly. Firefighters on the ground can’t battle the flames on streets and hillsides without fear they’ll be incinerated. At their peak, the winds have forced firefighters to focus on something else: evacuating residents. “You’re just trying to keep people alive,” Lenya Quinn-Davidson, a fire expert in Northern California, said. How to stop a fire When forests and grasslands ignite, crews follow a strategy called anchor and flank. They find a safe spot, or anchor point, upwind of the blaze. Then they attack from the edges: They douse the flames with hoses and remove anything flammable from the fire’s path. They use power tools to thin the vegetation or — for the bigger stuff — reduce it to ash with small controlled burns. That’s called a fire line. The advancing blaze stops when it reaches the fire line and finds nothing else to consume.But it’s incredibly hard to anchor and flank in strong winds. Even a spot that seems safe won’t remain safe for long. Flying embers can soar miles away from the fire’s front, meaning the danger spreads too quickly for firefighters to keep up. “Fires under these conditions — they’re not moving on the ground” as a normal fire would, said Hugh Safford, a fire ecologist at the University of California, Davis. “They’re moving in the air.” That’s why some wildfires in Southern California can’t be stopped until the desert winds, known as the Santa Anas, recede. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Urban warfare The Los Angeles inferno adds another difficulty: an urban tinderbox. When embers float from home to home on a crowded street, there’s no way to create fire lines to interrupt the flames. “All of the things that we have in our houses — drapes, couches, carpet — all of a sudden that stuff can ignite really rapidly,” Rick Connell, an officer with the U.S. Forest Service, said.And winds don’t just ground firefighting aircraft. They also make the water and fire retardants they spray less effective. Gusts turn the liquid into mist by the time it hits the ground, where it does little to smother the blaze. Even in the best circumstances, retardants can do only so much. “If you’ve already got 100-foot flames, you’re just wasting money,” Connell said. Over the last week, Los Angeles deployed more firefighters and received additional air support, including from the military. “We’re absolutely better prepared,” the county’s fire chief told reporters on Monday. But the experts I interviewed said it would be unrealistic to expect fires of this size to be contained in just a week. For now, the best hope may be to wait until the current winds slow down.

Hundreds of public schoolteachers are among the Southern Californians who lost their homes to raging wildfires in the last week. Some are scrambling to find places to live, even as they hope to return soon to their classrooms to restore some normality for their students — and for themselves. In the Pasadena Unified School District, which includes the communities where the Eaton fire has killed at least 16 people and destroyed thousands of structures, about 300 employees lost their homes, said Jonathan Gardner, president of United Teachers of Pasadena, the district’s union. The district has about 1,500 teachers and staff members, according to federal statistics. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, which includes an area where the Palisades fire leveled whole neighborhoods, the teacher’s union has counted nearly 150 teachers and staff members whose homes were lost, and hundreds more who’ve been displaced. Cecily Myart-Cruz, president of that district’s union, United Teachers Los Angeles, said that she expected that figure to rise. Many students have also lost their homes, a mass displacement that will affect the rest of the school year and beyond, and could lead to declines in enrollment, Mr. Gardner predicted. “There’s not going to be anything resembling normal for the rest of the semester,” he said. The Pasadena school district is closed this week, but nearly all schools in the Los Angeles school district reopened on Monday. Students and teachers at two elementary schools that were destroyed by the Palisades fire will resume classes later this week at space set aside for them in two nearby schools. In the Los Angeles district, more than 300 employees live in areas under mandatory evacuation orders, a district spokesperson said. Teachers who were displaced by the fires have been given the week off. Rebecca Mitsuse, 57, a middle school science and English teacher whose home in Altadena was destroyed in the Eaton fire, said she was using the time to search for housing for herself, her husband and their 16-year-old son. She hopes to be back in the classroom next week. “Life has to keep moving forward,” she said. Still, she is grappling with loss on many levels — including keepsakes that she cannot replace. Among those are books she used in lessons, notebooks where she had recorded plans and resources, a note from a student she received during her challenging first year of teaching 20 years ago. “We’re so glad you’re our teacher, and I know it’s hard, but please stay,” she recalled the note saying. LoriAnne Denne, 66, a middle school English teacher and college and career adviser, also lost her home in Altadena. She described herself as fortunate because she and her husband can stay with her brother, who lives nearby. Even so, she was finding the process of submitting insurance claims and applying for help overwhelming. “Everything should be done yesterday, by people who can’t even cope and have no home,” Ms. Denne said. Many teachers in Los Angeles-area districts already struggled to afford to live near their schools, so the cost of temporary housing was a major concern. Mr. Gardner said that roughly half of Pasadena school employees lived inside the district, and their shorter commutes allowed many of them to coach sports teams and advise after-school clubs. Those staff members had been heavily affected by Eaton fire damage, he said. “For those that aren’t able to find a place nearby, those schools will lose some of that color, that joy” created by teacher-led extracurricular activities, Mr. Gardner said. Scott Mandel, 68, has taught in the Los Angeles district for 40 years. As one of eight regional chairs of the union, he has spent the last few days calling roughly 15 teachers in his area who lost their homes to check in and share information. Some, he said, were crying when they picked up the phone. The closest comparison to the fires, he said, was the 1994 Northridge earthquake, which killed about 60 people and caused $35 billion in damage. While a few teachers lost homes in that quake, he said, it was “nowhere near the scale that we have now.” Ms. Mitsuse, whose school has reopened, said she was looking forward to the sense of routine that returning to work would provide. In the meantime, she knew her students could go to her partner teacher, who teaches math and history, with questions or concerns. He lives in Pasadena, and although fire had come within a few blocks of his home, she said, it escaped damage.

Meteorologists get it wrong sometimes. Thankfully, when they got a Los Angeles weather forecast wrong this week, it was because the winds were weaker than predicted on Tuesday and no longer met the National Weather Service’s criteria for a “particularly dangerous situation.” The phrase describes a rare, high-level warning that is meant to be used only every few years for the worst possible wildfire conditions of dried vegetation, low humidity and strong winds. Just a week ago, at the start of a cycle of four Santa Ana wind events that have overtaken the region since then, the forecast warned of a “particularly dangerous” wildfire outlook, with a windstorm of a strength not seen in over a decade. That forecast was realized when the Palisades fire, the Eaton fire and other blazes sent Los Angeles residents fleeing from their homes as a torrent of winds pushed fires raging through their neighborhoods.Weather Service meteorologists make their forecasts based on a combination of current conditions, historical events and computer weather models. They take all this information in and then forecast what they think is the most likely outcome. There are always outliers, conditions that could occur but are less likely. Sometimes, a storm will overperform the forecast, and sometimes it will under perform. In meteorology, both eventualities are considered “busted forecasts.” While forecasters who predict an especially extreme event might be happy if the conditions aren’t as bad as they had predicted, they know that if the forecast is off by too much, people will trust future warnings a little less. James Brotherton, a meteorologist with the Weather Service in Los Angeles, said he would much rather have a forecast be wrong if it meant there was “less pain and suffering.” Ahead of this cycle of winds, forecasters put another “particularly dangerous situation” warning in place from 4 a.m. Tuesday through noon on Wednesday, as they feared more strong winds would help fuel existing fires and possibly spark new ones. But by early Tuesday afternoon, the winds were proving to be less strong than expected, and the Weather Service dropped the warning for the rest of the day. The move was temporary, and another “particularly dangerous situation” warning will be in place from 3 a.m. to 3 p.m. Wednesday. Ryan Kittell, another forecaster in the Los Angeles office, compared it to someone filling out an N.C.A.A. bracket every March. “Even if you’re the best, at some point you won’t have a forecast verify as you would like,” he said. The “particularly dangerous situation” designation is still a relatively new tool, Mr. Kittell said. Tuesday’s forecast was always right at the line between high level and not, and the office opted to use the stronger warning because of the ongoing fires across the region, he said. Robert Clark, a fire behavior analyst for Cal Fire who is working on the Palisades fire, was relieved Tuesday’s winds weren’t as powerful. The fire didn’t grow overnight, and quieter weather was allowing crews to extinguish fire in pockets of smoldering landscape and vegetation. While conditions have improved, Mr. Clark said he was most concerned about the forecast for the Santa Ana winds to pick up again Tuesday night into Wednesday. “And then we’re looking out to the future to see what happens with the weather forecast with an additional round of Santa Ana winds possible next week,” he said.