The fierce and bipartisan backlash to gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy's decision to feature his opponent's estranged mother in an ad left Republicans in Ohio and Washington reeling on Wednesday, as both Ramaswamy and Vice President J.D. Vance doubled down on the divisive strategy.

Publicly, Republicans were mounting a defense, led by Vance, who is from Ohio and was campaigning in Cincinnati on Wednesday, treating the ad as a gamechanging October surprise. But privately, old-guard Republicans were baffled that Ramaswamy would dare to deploy Democratic nominee Amy Acton’s own mother, who has not spoken to her daughter since 1978 when she defended Acton’s stepfather who was indicted for raping Acton as a child. Some predicted the ad was likely to draw more empathy and interest in Acton from voters, and turn them away from Ramaswamy. 

“We’ve lost the plot,” says one Republican strategist. “We had a real good chance and then we do this two weeks out.”

Adds a second: “We now deserve to lose this race.”

The addition of this ad so close to Election Day roiled races in Ohio up and down the ballot. “I would not have run that ad,” Republican Sen. Jon Husted, running in a tight and expensive race for re-election against Sherrod Brown in Ohio, told The Associated Press on Wednesday. Other players in the state's Republican circles say the ad has all the pieces of a misfire, especially among women.

Recent polls have shown Acton leading but not running away with the race. A Marist University poll released this week showed her up seven points. But Ohio is a state where President Donald Trump won three times, never with fewer than eight points to spare. If elected, Acton would be the first Democrat to become Governor since 2007.

Ramaswamy’s campaign said it was putting $4 million into making sure the ad gets seen, with a goal of targeting persuadable voters still undecided between the billionaire entrepreneur and Acton, the former state health chief who steered Ohio through the pandemic. But the risk of it backfiring is incredibly high with no time to recover.

Ramaswamy’s campaign includes several operatives who previously worked for Vance, who sidestepped questions about the ad’s message on Wednesday as he urged  Republicans to not allow such hard-nosed messaging to distract them from the stakes of the election. “I’m a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans across the country who are whining more about that advertisement than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats want to do to the United States of America,” he told reporters. “So I would say to Ohio Republicans: do you actually think that Amy Acton is unfit to serve as Governor of the state of Ohio? I do.”

By Wednesday afternoon, it was clear Vance might be in a decided minority. “I don’t have to agree with Amy Acton’s politics to believe that exploiting someone’s childhood trauma is wrong,” wrote Republican Lydia Mihalik, a member of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s Cabinet. 

Mike Murphy, a strategist who was in Sen. John McCain’s inner circle when he ran for President in 2000 and headed Gov. Jeb Bush’s super PAC in 2016, wrote a brutal assessment on social media, saying it “is looking more and more like political suicide.”

And former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who ran against Ramaswamy in the 2020 presidential primaries and was a frequent critic of him, was even more direct. “He’s a bad guy,” she said. “It’s a shame he continues to get away with it.”

In an editorial endorsement of Acton published Wednesday, The Columbus Dispatch roundly condemned the video: “It should go without saying that sexual violence against children should not be politicized or taken as lightly as Ramaswamy appears to take it.”

For its part, Acton’s campaign began an ad of its own calling out Ramaswamy’s effort to make her childhood a campaign issue after a half century in the past. 

"I received a lot of abuse, but Amy always got the worst of it,” Acton’s brother, Phil Stearns, says in a new 30-second ad released Wednesday. “She continued to receive that abuse because she knew she had to protect me from that, and if she hadn't done that, who knows where I would have ended up.” 

"She was 11- and 12-years-old, and to think that that's somehow a talking point—shame on Vivek,” Stearns continues. “The contempt he has for Amy is the contempt he has for Ohio. He's not fit to lead."

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan has accused the Supreme Court’s conservative majority of undermining democracy and creating a more polarized electorate through a series of key rulings that have affected the nature of elections ahead of the midterms. 

“The court has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effect of their rulings on how the political system works,” Kagan said while speaking to students and faculty at Catholic University’s law school in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.

She went on to say that the conservative justices have “created a democracy that does not work as well as it should.” 

Kagan—who was nominated to the bench in 2010 by President Barack Obama—referenced specific rulings that have had a large impact on electoral maps, campaign finance, and executive authority. Experts tell TIME that these rulings have affected the midterm elections and could, in turn, change the fate of Congress.  

Read More: Midterm Ad Spending Has Surpassed $10B. Where Is the Money Coming From?

“It's no exaggeration to say that the form of our elections and democracy owes a great deal to the decisions of the Supreme Court, sometimes overruling the will of Congress,” says Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school and the director of its Safeguarding Democracy Project. 

In fact, he believes Kagan’s remarks do not go far enough in their criticism. 

“You're going to hear more voices calling for the Supreme Court to be changed, either by adding more justices, putting in term limits, or doing other things,” he says. 

The outcome of the midterm elections might have some influence on these issues going forward, though there are limits to what Congress can accomplish regardless of who controls the majority in the years ahead.

How Supreme Court rulings may affect the 2026 midterms

Kagan’s comments outline how the high court’s rulings have impacted this year’s elections. 

She pointed to Louisiana v. Callais, which concerned whether Louisiana had to draw a second congressional district where Black voters made up a majority—giving them a greater chance to elect their preferred candidate. In April, the Supreme Court struck down that map and made it harder to challenge maps that weaken minority voters’ influence. Kagan called the ruling an “evisceration” of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Following the decision, many Republican-led states proposed redrawn voting maps that favored their candidates and weakened Black voters’ electoral influence.   

Read More: Supreme Court Ruling Weakens Major Provision of Voting Rights Act

Hasen says that Americans are already facing the fallout. He pointed to Louisiana and Alabama, each of which eliminated a district where Black voters could elect their candidates of choice.

“We'll see much more of that in the next few election cycles,” Hasen predicts, calling the decision “the worst election law decision in 100 years at the Supreme Court.”

Kagan also mentioned a 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause that prevents federal courts from blocking electoral maps on the grounds that they unfairly favor one party. States including Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida have since adopted new congressional maps that could help Republicans win additional House seats in November.

This gerrymandering, Kagan said, strips people of “their rights to voting equality” and has resulted in “driving people away from the center, toward the wings, toward the extremes.” The outcome, she said, is contributing toward what’s already a “too-polarized country.” 

She added that these redrawn maps are “very destructive to our democracy.” 

How campaign finance rules may come into play ahead of Election Day

In her speech, Kagan also highlighted the role that money increasingly plays in politics.

“The people of America look around this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare, and they’re right,” Kagan said.

A 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines from June in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC removed limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, including on television advertisements. 

Her comments come amid what is projected to be the most expensive election cycle in history. 

Billionaires have poured hundreds of millions into super political action committees (super PACs) for campaign ads—chiefly supporting Republican candidates in tight Senate races. 

How the court has expanded presidential powers

Supreme Court rulings have also influenced the scope of presidential power.

Kagan also criticized the court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter. In June, justices struck down protections against firing Federal Trade Commission commissioners without cause, expanding presidential control over independent agencies. 

“The danger is it allows the president to ride roughshod over all the institutions of government,” Kagan said.

Aziz Huq, a professor at the University of Chicago law school and a co-author of How to Save a Constitutional Democracy, tells TIME that “the misuse or the use of prosecutorial discretion at the direction of the president against political foes … flows from the court’s ruling” in Slaughter.

Furthermore, Huq says, it expands “the scope of presidential directive authority over subordinates.” 

Huq pointed to the Trump Administration’s investigation into Somali-born Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota as an example of how greater presidential control over executive officials can be used against political opponents.

What Congress can do to check the Supreme Court

Even if Democrats regain control of Congress in November, Trump could veto legislation seeking to counteract the court’s decisions. Overriding him would require two-thirds support in both chambers.

As a result, Hasen says it could take until 2029 “at the earliest,” when a new president enters the White House, for there to be a counteractive response to the high court’s conservative majority. 

There are measures Congress and states can take in the meantime, he continues, saying that Congress has the ability to enact a nationwide law that would restrict partisan gerrymandering of House maps. 

Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledges that authority in his ruling in Rucho.

“As noted, the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause,” Roberts wrote, referring to the 55 delegates who in 1787 met to draft the U.S. Constitution. “That avenue … remains open.” 

When it comes to Callais, Hasen says lawmakers could attempt to amend the Voting Rights Act, and restore protections narrowed by the ruling, by forcing the Supreme Court “to decide some of the constitutional questions that they ducked” during the original case. 

But any new legislation could face a legal challenge, leaving the Supreme Court to decide whether it can stand.

Those hoping to challenge the highest court’s composition or jurisdiction may go about that in a few ways, such as by petitioning for term limits. Proposals include limiting justices’ active service through legislation—an approach whose constitutionality is disputed—or through a constitutional amendment. Another route is to limit which cases the court can hear. 

Complicating matters, Huq says, is that legislative reforms could ultimately come before the Supreme Court, whose methods of interpreting the law leave the justices largely unconstrained in reaching their preferred outcomes.

“Almost all of these proposals are going to fail because the court will strike them down or find ways to undermine them,” Huq says. “We're at a very difficult and perilous point.”

The goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is largely out of reach. That’s according to the United Nations Environmental Program’s (UNEP) 2026 Emissions Gap report released on Wednesday, considered the definitive assessment of global climate action. 

“We’ve spent decades postponing cuts to emissions and now we’re facing the consequences,” Anne Olhoff, director of the UNEP-Copenhagen Climate Centre, and one of the report’s authors, said after the report’s publication. “The world can still attain the goals of the Paris Agreement but we must work hard to not only meet but surpass our most ambitious climate targets. The longer we wait, the larger the risk that we jeopardize the temperature goal.” 

While the report’s warning is stark, that doesn’t mean that all hope is lost. Coordinated efforts to reduce emissions can still have a meaningful impact on climate change, it says—but action must be taken quickly. 

Here are the biggest takeaways from the Emissions Gap report. 

The 1.5°C target is mostly out of reach 

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world agreed to halt planetary warming at 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures and to pursue efforts to limit warming by 1.5°C. Doing so would provide a greater chance at avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. The window to avoid overshooting the 1.5°C goal, however, is now closed, the report finds. 

But that doesn’t mean that there’s no hope for climate action. It is still possible to limit the overshoot and bring temperatures back below 1.5 degrees by the end of the century. Every fraction of a degree of warming above 1.5°C increases climate impacts, making the goal to limit as much warming beyond 1.5°C all the more important.  

The world is on track to reach 2.8°C of warming by 2100

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, countries must submit updated climate pledges, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline specific goals to reduce national emissions. Based on the policies currently in place under the NDCs submitted by over 150 nations, the planet is on track to reach 2.8°C of warming by the end of the century. 

Based on this, today’s report concludes that global climate pledges are falling short. If countries meet their new NDCs, which set upgraded targets for 2035 and were due last year, global warming is still projected to reach 2.6°C by the end of the century. 

Both scenarios would have devastating consequences—dramatically transforming sea levels and ecosystems, and triggering compounding climate extremes such as higher temperatures and drought, increasing the likelihood of wildfires. 

We need to cut carbon emissions by 18% in the next four years

The report notes that it is still possible to peak warming at 1.7°C or 1.8°C. Doing so would require major changes. We would need to cut emissions by 18% by 2030, 45% by 2035, and 69% by 2040, relative to 2025 levels. This would require sustained emissions cuts along with carbon dioxide removal. 

“Every additional fraction of a degree and additional year of warming above 1.5°C increases climate impacts and risks, such as the deadly floods, heat waves, and wildfires that have plagued many nations this year,” said UNEP executive director Inger Andersen. “So, we must pull out all the stops to minimize peak warming and return to 1.5°C by the end of the century.”

The U.S. is a major outlier for emissions

While emissions growth has slowed down in most G20 countries, emissions in the United States “far exceeded that of all other countries," the report says. That’s due to the increased electricity demand, in part due to data centers, and new policies that encouraged the use of fossil fuels like coal over clean energy sources. 

The report includes a statement from the State Department, noting that the U.S. "does not endorse or agree with its analysis or conclusions, and has not provided comments to this report."

The Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement also worsened the climate projections, as estimates no longer include climate action that would have been taken under the United States’s NDC targets.

The U.S. is the second largest emitter of climate-warming greenhouse gases, behind China, which has quickly become a world leader in renewable energy (while also ramping up coal production.)

Climate policies are reducing emissions

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement just over a decade ago, global renewable electricity capacity has grown three times faster than anticipated, while solar PV build-out has increased seven times faster. If these trends were to continue, and coupled with more policies to support clean energy, the world would be on track to reach its renewable energy goals.

The report examined more than 200 climate policies and found that they target emission reductions across a wide range of sectors and countries. That’s an encouraging sign the report notes. All that’s left is for these solutions to be scaled faster. 

“We have a wealth of success stories showing that emissions can be cut quickly,” said Andersen. “It is now up to nations to urgently put in place policies that spark fast, deep and sustained emissions reductions, and put the world on track for a more stable climate and more stable economies and societies.”

As Election Day looms, much of the national focus is on whether Democrats will win control of Congress. But in several states, the race for governor is among the tightest, and most consequential, races on the ballot.

The party in control of the White House typically fares poorly in midterm elections. While that usually translates most clearly into losing congressional seats, true “wave” elections often lead to similar shifts in state governments as well. 

Multiple states could see the party in the governor’s seat flip. Voters in Ohio, Alaska, and Texas might end up electing their first Democratic governors in decades. In Oregon, the reverse could pan out, with a Republican in contention to upend a Democrat’s hold on the office for the first time since 1982. 

Read More: Republican Panic Sets In Over Prospects of a Massive Blue Wave

Here are seven races for governor to watch on Election Day.

Ohio

Ohio's governor's race was thrust into the national spotlight this week after Republican Vivek Ramaswamy's campaign released an ad featuring the estranged mother of his Democrat opponent Amy Acton. Acton’s mother lost custody of Acton and her brother after their stepfather was arrested and indicted on a charge of raping Acton when she was a child.

The ad immediately drew widespread outrage, the latest twist in a race that Republicans had thought they were well positioned to win after Trump won the state by 11 points in 2024. Many Republicans had been expected to vie to replace Gov. Mike DeWine, who couldn’t run again because of term limits. But Trump’s endorsement of Ramaswamy essentially cleared the field for him. 

Now Ramaswamy is in a very tight race against Acton, who previously led the Ohio Department of Health during the Covid-19 pandemic. While the Cook Political Report previously marked the Ohio gubernatorial race as “Lean Republican,” it later shifted its rating slightly in favor of Democrats, to “Toss Up.”

Read More: Ramaswamy Facing Tougher Fight Than Republicans Had Expected in Ohio

Many polls show Acton with a narrow lead, but a few suggest that Ramaswamy has a razor-thin lead. 

If Acton ultimately wins, it would be the first time in 20 years that Ohio voters had elected a Democrat as governor.

Alaska

The Cook Political Report recently changed its rating for the race in Alaska from a “Toss Up” to “Lean Democrat.” Alaska’s current governor, Republican Mike Dunleavy, is prohibited from running again because of term limits. The open race to replace him includes one Democrat, Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, and three Republicans: Bernadette Wilson, a business owner who has received the backing of President Trump; Dave Bronson, the previous mayor of Anchorage; and Treg Taylor, a former state attorney general.

Kreiss-Tomkins, who was previously a state legislator, finished the state’s open primary race in August in the top spot, with another Democratic candidate, Tom Begich, in second place. In Alaska, the top four candidates in the open primary move on to the general election. But Begich later announced that he was dropping out of the race and endorsed Kreiss-Tomkins, allowing Taylor to land a spot in the general election ballot. 

“The data we’ve seen makes clear that the strongest path to winning in November is not two Democratic candidates competing for the same donors and resources—it’s bringing those people together behind one ticket,” Begich said in a video announcing the suspension of his campaign in August.

Many recent polls show Kreiss-Tomkins leading his three opponents. This month, Trump expressed frustration with all the Republicans still in the race, noting on Truth Social that he had urged Bronson to drop out.

“All Bronson and Taylor will do is take away Votes from the Candidate that has, by far, the best chance of winning,” Trump said in his post. “Now is the time for all Republicans to unite behind Bernadette to ensure she has a tremendous Victory in November!”

Texas

The last time Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ran for re-election in 2022, he won by double digits. He now may be facing his most competitive re-election fight yet; some polls show him holding a slim lead over Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, while others show Hinojosa ahead by a small margin. 

“This is an unusual situation in Texas politics,” Joshua Blank, the research director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, previously told TIME. “It’s rather uncommon to see any Democratic candidate leading in anything other than a single outlying poll leading up to the election.”

If Hinojosa were to win, it would be the first time voters chose to put a Democrat in the state’s governor’s mansion in more than three decades. The tightness of the race mirrors that of the state’s Senate race, where Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton are locked in an expensive fight.

Read More: Could Texas Elect a Democratic Governor for the First Time in More Than 30 Years? Polls Show a Tight Race

Still, the Cook Political Report suggests that the odds are in Abbott’s favor, rating the race as “Lean Republican.”

Oregon

Amid talk of a national blue wave, the race for governor in Oregon may prove to be a bright spot for Republicans. Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, is trying to fend off a challenge by Republican Christine Drazan, a state senator. Some polls show Kotek ahead by a narrow margin, while others show Drazan in the lead by a similarly small measure. The Cook Political Report previously rated the race as “Likely Democrat,” but has since shifted it slightly in Republicans’ favor, to “Lean Democrat.”

The Cook Political Report says the battle “is one of the rare races moving in Republicans’ direction.” If Drazan were to defeat Kotek, it would mark the first time since 1982 that Oregonians have elected a Republican to the governorship.

Georgia

Georgia is shaping up to be one of the tightest gubernatorial races in the country. It’s one of four that the Cook Political Report has marked as a “Toss Up.” Republican Gov. Brian Kemp couldn’t run for re-election because of term limits, leaving the field open for another member of his party, billionaire Rick Jackson, and Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms, the previous mayor of Atlanta. Polls suggest the race is essentially tied, with some indicating Jackson has a razor-thin lead.

A win by Bottoms would mark a significant shift in the southern state’s politics. While both of Georgia’s current Senators are Democrats, it has been led by a Republican governor since 2003. It would also mean the breaking of a national barrier: Georgia would be the first state in the country to have elected a Black woman as governor.

Nevada

A perennial swing state, Republicans are vying to hold on to its leadership of Nevada’s government. Gov. Joe Lombardo is fending off a challenge from Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford. Polls are split over who’s in the lead—some showing Lombardo while others showing Ford, both by slim margins. The Cook Political Report rates the race as a “Toss Up.”.

Wisconsin

The race to lead this swing state became a wide open free-for-all last year, when Democratic Gov. Tony Evers announced he wasn't running for another term. The race was on the verge of becoming a marquee one for democratic socialists, with progressive Francesca Hong leading in the polls ahead of the Democratic primary, before she ultimately lost the nomination to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a moderate.  

Crowley is now vying for the job against Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany in a race where campaign funding has become a prominent issue, as Tiffany’s bid has been largely bankrolled by three billionaires.

While the Cook Political Report rates this a “Toss Up," multiple recent polls show Crowley with a small lead over Tiffany.

This article discusses all six episodes of Netflix’s The New Stanford Prison Experiment.

For decades now, scholars have argued over what—if anything—we should have gleaned from the Stanford Prison Experiment. That it was unethical to place two dozen male college students in a university basement repurposed as a prison, designate a few of them guards and the rest prisoners, and encourage the former to discipline the latter, was apparent by the time its mastermind, Stanford psychology professor Philip Zimbardo, ended what was supposed to be a two-week exercise after only six days. As the extent of Zimbardo’s manipulation came to light, the 1971 study lost credibility in academic circles, even as its pop-cultural legend kept growing. Fifty-five years after it was conducted, perhaps the only definitive conclusion to draw from the Stanford Prison Experiment is that the Stanford Prison Experiment is not worth repeating.

But just try telling that to the reality-TV machine, let alone a platform currently at work on the third, all-celebrity season of a competition series that cheerfully (and, of course, non-lethally) recreates the horrors of its international hit anticapitalist battle royale thriller Squid Game. The New Stanford Prison Experiment, Netflix’s take on a project that was always more convincing as improvisational theater than as scientific research, isn’t even television’s first crack at Zimbardo’s study. The BBC got there first with The Experiment, in 2002, whose earnest attempts to correct for the original’s missteps yielded a more nuanced, if still inherently flawed, look at authority. That the Netflix version of what can now be best understood as a reboot of a famous franchise feels less like social psychology and more like a high-concept season of Big Brother is no surprise. What’s most perplexing is its choice to incorporate female participants in a limited way—and its failure to make any real sense out of what they bring to the experience.

Aware that the televised resurrection of a notoriously inhumane experiment was bound to draw scrutiny (the mere announcement of the show’s existence touched off a wave of incredulity), the producers of the six-episode series take pains to make both their safety precautions and their high-mindedness visible. Instead of a retrofitted academic building, the inmates are sequestered in a real housing pod of a Georgia correctional facility. The 30 voluntary participants are said to come from all walks of life, though what we find out about their backgrounds is generally limited to hometown, racial identity, and line of work. According to executive producer Jane Lipsitz, each “underwent psychological screenings prior to entering the experiment.” There’s a safe word any of the participants can, and some do, use to leave the roleplay early.

The appearance of legitimacy is further reinforced by a panel of three experts who provide commentary on what’s happening in the pod. Michael Cantrell, who brings 30 years of experience working in federal corrections, games out the results of the guards’ strategies. Journalist Trymaine Lee, who has covered stories ranging from Hurricane Katrina to the power of the Black electorate, was presumably tapped to bring insight into big-picture issues such as race, violence, and the justice system. But the show keeps the experts’ interjections so brief that he’s rarely afforded more than a quick sound bite. Filling a limited version of the host role is Alison Wood Brooks, a behavioral scientist on the faculty of Harvard Business School. It’s she who introduces the series with a speed-run summary of Zimbardo’s study and its “ethical breaches,” as well as the true but comically vague observation that “in today’s world, the study of power couldn’t be more relevant.” So, Brooks says, it seemed like the right time to retry the experiment in hopes of more accurately answering its original question: “Does power corrupt?”

It doesn’t take long to notice that only three of the 30 participants are women—and all of them join the five men selected as guards. It’s not hard to guess why there are no female inmates. Correctional facilities are segregated by sex. Throwing men and women together in close quarters for 14 long, monotonous days is a recipe for uncomfortable, sexually charged interactions, if not full-on harassment or assault. Of course, similar dangers exist in single-sex environments. Abuse of power seems particularly likely when male guards are put in charge of female prisoners, yet precisely this dynamic is the reality in many American prisons. I suppose untrained, inexperienced guards might be expected to pose a greater threat. But you would think that the same safeguards put in place to protect participants’ physical and mental health could be extended to enable a truly coed experiment. (The show doesn’t have much to say about the existence of transgender, nonbinary, or even queer people behind bars.) 

The architects of New Stanford might’ve avoided all of the above and still meaningfully included women by running parallel exercises in separate pods. Instead, they only examine the behavior of three women—a number so small, it precludes any claim of representativeness—in positions of authority over men. One of them, Laura Berens, is the CEO of her own business and thus presumably comfortable in a leadership role. Shavonnah Jefferson, whose background as a security guard also seems relevant here, has no trouble asserting herself. “You have to speak up,” she says. “Because if you do not, people will run you over.” Yet only Kiana Gaona, a young, devoutly Christian social media manager elected head guard by her shiftmates, gets much screen time in early episodes. Professing to believe in gender equality despite her choice to submit to her husband, she’s a bit erratic. She makes the extreme decision to give an outcast inmate a position of power, then veers dramatically in the opposite direction, punishing him and a fellow dissident with 23 hours of confinement to a cell for talking about a rebellion.

It’s these scheming inmates and the two male guards who initially claim control of their respective shifts who dominate the show for most of the season. There’s an interesting, if under-analyzed, contrast between the latter men’s leadership styles. Chris Lee, a prototypical new-school executive, wants to wield influence by inspiring his charges, while Chet Hudson, an oil rig supervisor, likens his new job to breaking horses. The resulting inconsistency fosters a bit of unrest. But it’s only after an extremely reality TV plot twist in which Lee, Hudson, and their fellow male guards switch roles with the most rebellious prisoners that a truly telling storyline emerges. Hudson, who as a guard had been the strongest proponent of a strict hierarchy, starts saying things like: “When people unite, no matter what, they’re in control of the power.” Then he makes a big deal of leaving the experiment early, claiming that he has nothing to learn from being a prisoner. For a certain kind of person, one that’s really having a moment right now in American politics, inequality only becomes a concern once they lose their place at the top.

Although the men’s role reversal remains the dominant drama, the shakeup also puts a new spotlight on the women, who are reassigned to an all-female shift. They quickly settle on Berens as head guard, citing her leadership experience. (It’s worth noting that neither of the two Black guards, Jefferson and Nicholas Washington, are shown to be considered by their peers for head guard.) “The female shift gave me an opportunity,” Berens reflects. “Obviously, the guys on my shift weren’t treating me super equal.” Unfortunately, this isn’t obvious based on the footage we’re shown, and it certainly doesn’t explain why Berens, the sole woman on her original shift, joined the majority that elected Hudson head guard. Regardless, she proves to be the most competent leader in the experiment, striking the right balance between firm rules and humane treatment. Her best moment happens when the shift made up of rebellious ex-prisoners loses control and she steps in to quiet the inmates and advise her counterpart to protect his guards.

Aside from the self-evident notion that some women make strong leaders (and some men weak ones), it’s hard to know what the takeaway from the introduction of an all-female shift is supposed to be. Maybe because they really do all respect women in positions of authority, or more likely because they don’t want millions of people watching them act sexist on TV, the inmates barely adjust their behavior when Berens’ team walks in. Another probable reason for their compliance is that they’re so intent on antagonizing the ex-inmate shift, which many feel is being rewarded for bad behavior. The women don’t come into the pod with the same baggage.

The expert commentators don’t really help make sense of the situation. When it comes to the gender issue, they could’ve supplied context about differences in how men and women typically wield authority or how men tend to perceive women in power. Maybe they did and that footage didn’t make it into the final edit. Either way, we see a lot of the experts noting that the all-female shift is fascinating without digging into specifics. The closest we get to synthesis comes from Berens. “I guess I really did have 22 men listening to me,” she marvels, attributing her success to kindness, humor, and mutual respect. “What if there are more women leaders who can lead in this type of way?” This is a subject far older than this Lean-In-era epiphany, yet New Stanford stops short at gesturing faintly in the direction of conversations that could theoretically be had.

The series’ shallow approach to gender doesn’t just weaken its depiction of the three female participants. It also neglects to acknowledge the explicitly gendered aspects of the male hierarchy, with its charismatic, physically strong leaders and smaller, less socially adept outcasts. In that sense, New Stanford replicates an ancient form of patriarchal bias that casts men as the norm and women as an atypical other. Maybe it’s silly to criticize something as inherently unserious as a reality show for failing to internalize the lessons of The Second Sex. But this particular reality show tries to justify its controversial existence by proclaiming its seriousness with regards to psychology, philosophy, and current events. So it seems fair to judge it by those lofty ambitions.

To that end, it isn’t only gender that the series glosses over. Racial disparities occasionally surface—one Black inmate justifies his obedience to authority by explaining that for his community, fighting back might result in an “accidental shooting”—yet go largely unexamined. Anyone hoping for timely debate over the purpose or efficacy of the criminal justice system is bound to be disappointed. By the time the guards are dismissed, in the finale, so that the prisoners can take responsibility for their own fates, the whole “experiment” feels like a bait-and-switch. New Stanford wants to reel in viewers with the notoriety of the original study and the promise that hot buttons will be pushed. But then, perhaps because the producers are afraid to alienate any segment of Netflix’s diverse audience, it shrinks from every opportunity to make meaning out of what happens in that housing pod. And so, as different as the two exercises are, this latest Stanford Prison Experiment becomes as pointless as the first one.

Immune-based treatments for cancer have become the biggest new advance in tackling tumors, and the latest approval could make a big difference for some people with rectal cancer.

On Oct. 19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved dostarlimab (brand name: Jemperli) to treat a specific type of rectal cancer called microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient cancer. This cancer is caused by the accumulation of certain genetic mutations that prevent rectal cells from repairing DNA damage and accounts for 5-10% of rectal cancers. In a study of 154 people with this type of rectal cancer who were treated with dostarlimab, 68% had a complete clinical response at one year, which meant doctors could not see evidence of tumors on imaging or other methods for tracking the tumors. In the study, which the drug's manufacturer, GSK, submitted to the FDA, people received nine infusions of the drug: once every three weeks for six months.

“Not only did they reach clinical complete response, but they maintained that for a year,” says Dr. Andrea Cercek, section head of colorectal cancer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and principal investigator of the study. (Some of the earliest patients have continued to remain tumor-free for even longer. ) “That really suggests that the response is durable and real.”

Dostarlimab is a checkpoint inhibitor, which means it releases the brakes that hold back the immune system from recognizing and attacking tumors. The drug allows immune cells to destroy cancer, making it a powerful weapon for seeking out cancer cells no matter where they spread or hide.

“We have completely leapfrogged over standard of care with a simple immunotherapy that melts the tumor away,” says Dr. Luis Diaz, head of solid tumor oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering and one of the trial investigators.

The benefits of avoiding standard rectal-cancer treatment

Standard treatment for rectal cancer involves chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery to remove the rectum that requires patients to wear colostomy bags for the rest of their lives. The dostarlimab approval means more patients whose tumors have specific mutations could avoid those aggressive therapies altogether. “We have patients who would have lost the ability to bear children who have had children because this therapy replaced chemotherapy, radiation, and life-altering surgery in one swoop," Diaz says. "That’s a big deal.”

Kelly Spill is one of them. Diagnosed in 2020 when she was 29, shortly after having her first baby, Spill spent nearly nine months trying to figure out why she continued to have constipation and see bloody discharge in the toilet. Because she had recently given birth, doctors first attributed the symptoms to her pregnancy, and when they persisted after delivery, to internal hemorrhoids. It wasn’t until a doctor ordered a colonoscopy that they found a tumor.

“The doctor told me it was Stage III colorectal cancer, and that the treatment plan would include chemo, radiation, and surgery. And that I would never carry another baby again, and would most likely have a colostomy bag for the rest of my life,” says Spill. “It didn’t seem real until I heard the words that I was not going to carry another baby. I immediately stopped thinking about me, and started thinking about my husband and what it meant for my son. We had just started our lives together; we were supposed to have all these kids.”

Sascha Roth also faced devastating news when she was diagnosed with rectal cancer in 2019 after seeing blood in her stool. A resident of Washington, D.C., she had a friend with a similar diagnosis who had received chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery and recommended his surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering. Roth assumed she would follow the same strategy, but she learned that she had Stage III cancer and that she wasn’t a good candidate for surgery because the tumor was located so low in the rectum. Her tumor also had mutations that suggested it wouldn’t respond well to chemotherapy.

“It was a double whammy that threw me down,” she says. But the surgeon introduced her to Cercek, who was waiting to hear from the FDA about starting an immunotherapy trial for patients like Roth. “They told me I would be the first patient in the study, and there wasn’t scientific evidence that it would work.” Still, Roth wanted to try. She agreed to become Memorial Sloan Kettering’s first patient on the study, and then spent two months waiting for the FDA to greenlight the trial so she could begin receiving the drug. “I was calling Sloan Kettering incessantly to see if the FDA approved [the study],” she says. “The second the FDA gave its stamp of approval, Dr. Cercek’s team called me to New York to start the first round of treatment less than a week later.”

Not long after that, at Spill's first appointment at Memorial Sloan Kettering to discuss chemotherapy, she learned that the mutations on her tumor made her a good candidate for a study they had just begun. Only three patients had enrolled ahead of her (including Roth), so there was no data on whether it would actually treat her cancer. Spill, who was at the appointment with her mother, decided she had nothing to lose by joining the trial. “If it doesn’t go well, we could go back to option A,” Spill remembers her mother saying.

By her second infusion, Spill felt the tumor was shrinking because she no longer had major constipation. By the fourth infusion, scans showed the tumor had shrunk by 50%. The study originally called for patients to get chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery if needed after six months on dostarlimab. But a nurse pulled Spill’s mother aside after that appointment to tell her that the first three patients in the study did not need any additional treatments because their tumors had disappeared. Following Roth’s results, the study was revised to make chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery an option only if needed: if the tumors hadn’t gone away. It wasn’t a guarantee that Spill would have the same results as those first patients, but “it gave me hope, and all I could think about was maybe I could have another baby,” she says.

After all of her dostarlimab infusions, Spill, too, no longer had any tumor left and was declared cancer-free. Her doctors advised her to wait two years before trying to get pregnant again to ensure the cancer wouldn’t return. Once she was cleared, she got pregnant and gave birth to a girl in 2023, and later a boy in 2025. “I am now five years cancer-free, and last September got the boot from Memorial Sloan Kettering,” she says, meaning she no longer needs to follow up with her oncologists there. She now sees her primary care doctor for colonoscopies every two years.

“I see beauty in absolutely everything in life now,” Spill says.

What comes next for dostarlimab

Not only does the immunotherapy appear to work well in treating these rectal cancers, but it also comes with relatively few side effects. About 20% of those in the study reported fatigue, rash, diarrhea, and uncontrollable itching. Roth, who received her infusions during the COVID lockdown, drove from D.C. for her treatments and was able to make the roundtrip in one day. "It's just proof that you can really do the things you want to do. I didn't feel tired or sick after [the treatment], and there was never a time when I was at home recovering," she says. "I watched my mom and dad go through standard chemo and radiation and anticipated that would be what my treatment was like. It was nothing like that."

Cercek says the results point toward a potentially new model for managing some rectal cancers, which may include relying on immunotherapy like dostarlimab and monitoring patients more carefully before automatically turning to chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. Some of the patients in the trial who were treated on dostarlimab underwent surgery after finishing their infusions if their doctors still felt there might be tumors remaining. Among them, despite the doctors’ suspicions, 80% did not turn out to have evidence of tumors in their specimens, says Cercek.

Dostarlimab is already approved to treat endometrial cancers with the same mutations and costs $10,000 to $12,000 per dose out of pocket, although GSK has a manufacturer's savings program to cover that cost for some patients.

“We still have a lot of learning about what complete clinical response means,” she says, and with immunotherapy, that might mean a more patient-centric, individualized approach that involves more time for the immune system to respond to the immunotherapy and become trained to attack the cancer. “If it looks like the tumor is responding, we need to give it more time with better techniques to determine whether or not the tumor is truly gone.”

Cercek and her team are studying the best ways to monitor how tumors respond to dostarlimab by looking at snippets of genetic information that tumors shed in the blood, or more advanced imaging to accurately capture changing tumor sizes. “We need to improve on those techniques but also to teach the oncology community that there is a very, very high chance that the tumor might disappear, even if it might not look like it at six months. We need to continue watching and waiting and giving it time.”

Wait a second. You’ve been standing in line for 20 minutes, famished and desperate to order one of the viral bagels that keep selling out—or for six hours outside a concert venue, determined to claim a spot at the barricade to see your favorite band.

And then someone strolls up and slips in line ahead of you. Apparently, the rest of you have been standing around for the ambiance.

How much of a sin are line-cutters committing? “You are ripping the fabric of society apart,” says Nick Leighton, an etiquette expert and co-host of the podcast Were You Raised by Wolves? Queue-jumpers have to live with that, he adds. “But worse, we have to live with you.”

Here’s exactly how to handle this maddening situation—including when and how best to speak up.

When to speak up about someone cutting in line

If a stranger jumping ahead of you feels strangely personal, Richard C. Larson, a professor emeritus of data, systems, and society at MIT who has studied queuing, understands why. “We only have a finite number of minutes of life on Earth,” he says. The cutter’s implied message: “A minute of my life is worth more than a minute of yours.”

Before you decide whether to confront the offender, think about what speaking up would accomplish. Are you trying to reclaim your turn or get revenge? Sometimes, the impulse is “to sort of let them know you think they’re a jerk,” says Ryan Martin, a professor of psychology and dean of the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, known online as the Anger Professor because he studies strong emotions.

Martin would speak up to help someone recognize “that what they did wasn’t OK and that I wanted them to go to the back of the line,” he says. But he’d also consider: “What is going to allow me to have the kind of night I want to have?” If you spend the concert replaying a confrontation instead of singing your happy heart out, you’ve lost more than your place in line.

Leighton's gut check for situations like these is to ask yourself: Is this the hill you want to die on? “That’s always a good etiquette question,” he says.

Consider your safety, too. If the person seems hostile or you feel uneasy approaching them, you can ask staff for help or let the cut go. “Health and safety always trumps etiquette,” Leighton says.

What to say—if you do decide to say something

Marie Helweg-Larsen, a professor of psychology at Dickinson College who studies social norms, has explored what makes line-cutting so rage-inducing. For a 2008 study, she and a colleague surveyed U2 fans waiting for prime concert-floor spots, asking how they would react to hypothetical line-cutting scenarios.

Interestingly, fans reacted just as negatively to someone cutting behind them as ahead of them—even though their own place wasn’t affected. “You have to have people follow the rules,” she says, “or your investment into the line falls apart.” Helweg-Larsen’s co-author also heard fans invoke a higher authority when someone misbehaved: “Bono wouldn’t like that!” 

You don’t need a rock star’s moral authority—or a grand speech—to point out where the line starts. Helweg-Larsen’s suggested opener: “Excuse me, but the line starts down there.” Aim for an “‘I’m just trying to be helpful’ kind of vibe,” she says.

That approach gives the person a chance to correct their mistake without having to defend their character. And you don’t have to believe it was an innocent oversight to deliver the message graciously. “Even if they’re doing it on purpose, you still need to use that tone,” Leighton says.

He’s been on the receiving end of a polite correction himself: At a deli, he once joined what he thought was the back of the line, only to discover he’d guessed wrong. He was happy for someone to point him in the right direction.

If you decide to speak up, do it promptly. “Your window of opportunity is short,” Leighton says. “As soon as it happens, that’s when you need to say something.” Waiting until you’ve spent five minutes glaring at the back of someone’s head won’t make the conversation any easier.

For a line that represents a serious investment of time, Martin suggests spelling that out: “Hey, I’m not sure you noticed, but there’s actually a really long line here, and people have been waiting all day.” You’ve identified the problem and given them an opening to say “Oops.”

Of course, some situations are murkier than a stranger breezing past the entire queue. Someone returning from a bathroom break is different from four friends arriving hours later to join the person who saved their places. Leighton is sympathetic to a water or restroom run. Holding spots all day for a last-minute entourage? “I don’t love that,” he says.

What to do if a line-cutter won’t move

Sometimes, your kind reminder won’t be met with the same level of helpfulness: They saw the line. They’re staying put. Now what?

If you feel comfortable continuing, Martin suggests a firmer follow-up: “I really think you should go back to the back of the line.” You’re making a direct request without adding an insult.

Larson advises skipping any confrontational nicknames or demands—like “What do you think you’re doing, bud?” You’re pointing someone toward the back of the line, not challenging them to a duel.

If the person still refuses to move, resist the urge to keep arguing. “We can’t control everybody,” Martin says. Continuing to push someone who’s already refused could lead to “a more significant confrontation.”

At a concert venue, amusement park, or other staffed location, you can ask an employee or security person to step in. “You can always appeal to a higher authority,” Leighton says. Whether they’ll enforce the rules is another question, but it’s an option worth trying when the cutting is particularly egregious.

If you decide to drop it, drop the parting shot, too. A sarcastic “Must be nice!” might feel irresistible, but Leighton advises against adding more rudeness to the encounter. “It will not achieve anything,” he says.

As Larson puts it, “A fight can ruin your whole day—or life.”

Iran may have found a weapon in the American electoral calendar. With the midterm elections two weeks away, Tehran is intensifying attacks on shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz, calculating that higher energy prices will deepen President Donald Trump’s political troubles and make another U.S. military campaign too costly to contemplate.

The wager is seductive: an American president anxious about diesel prices and his party’s prospects in the midterms, Iran seems to believe, will have little appetite for another major war.

Trump’s declaration that he will refrain from striking Iran before the Nov. 3 vote appears to vindicate this view, even as he periodically threatens to use force again. Having survived two rounds of war and absorbed punishing economic losses, Iran’s leaders believe they can endure a little longer. By disrupting Gulf commerce, they gain leverage their conventional forces cannot provide. They also hope to make that leverage permanent and compel Washington to accept Tehran’s authority over passage through the world’s most important energy chokepoint.

Yet the past nine months of war against Iran have made it clear that renewed military conflict before the midterms or after the elections is unlikely to resolve the disputes between the U.S. and Iran. The two countries will eventually have to sit across the negotiating table to resolve their long-running disputes. 

Miscalculations in Tehran and Washington

Tehran may be misreading how political peril shapes an adversary’s decisions. Trump could decide that appearing powerless as Iranian attacks push up prices is more damaging than another round of military strikes. Reports that his administration has considered fresh strikes suggest the military option remains in play. A serious attack on American forces could turn Trump’s promise of restraint into a political liability overnight.

The political situation in Israel adds a combustible variable. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces an Oct. 27 election with his bloc struggling to secure a majority. He has staked his political reputation on the claim that only he can neutralize the Iranian threat.

With Tehran rebuilding its missile and drone capabilities and uncertainty surrounding its nuclear program, Netanyahu may see renewed strikes as both a strategic opportunity and a means of restoring his standing at home. Such a gamble could deepen Israel’s insecurity, but electoral desperation seldom improves anyone’s judgment.

The convergence of these calculations makes the coming weeks particularly perilous. Iran thinks Trump’s electoral weakness will constrain him. Trump and Netanyahu might each conclude that a show of force could rescue their political fortunes. Each side imagines it can calibrate the violence and manage the aftermath. The experience of this year’s conflict, in which successive rounds of fighting outran diplomatic efforts to contain them, offers little reason for that confidence.

Even if October passes without another conflagration, November brings its own hazards. After the midterm elections, the political constraints Trump has publicly imposed on himself will disappear. With substantial American forces already positioned in the region, Washington may be tempted to break the deadlock through another round of attacks. Tehran, fearing another surprise attack, might choose to strike Israel or U.S. military assets in the region first. What might seem like prudent preparation in Washington or Tehran could help bring about the war it is meant to deter.

The underlying impasse is as stubborn as ever. Washington wants a nuclear agreement and believes its blockade will ultimately compel Iran to negotiate. Tehran insists on upfront economic relief and an end to the war before substantive talks on the nuclear issue can begin.

America can point to tankers still transiting Hormuz, but shipping that depends on costly military protection and remains under threat is a poor substitute for normal trade. Iran can inflict considerable damage on the oil exports of its Gulf neighbors, but it has so far failed to turn that leverage into meaningful American concessions.

Dangers of a wider war

Another surge in hostilities would widen this gulf rather than bridge it. American and Israeli aircraft can destroy missile launchers, production facilities, and infrastructure, but Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that it can retaliate and survive. Iran’s response could extend further to target Gulf energy infrastructure, maritime commerce, data centers, and other critical networks.

The Houthi confrontation with Saudi Arabia already offers a grim illustration of how quickly the costs can spread. The war in Yemen has been reignited with devastating consequences, including deadly attacks on civilian airports and a spiraling cycle of retaliation. The fighting now threatens to draw in Turkey and Pakistan to support Saudi Arabia, as the three countries recently signed a mutual security pact known as the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement.

A new campaign could leave Iran poorer, Israel more exposed, and the U.S. burdened with an even more expensive regional commitment, while markets around the world absorb another shock.

The outlines of a diplomatic bargain have been visible for months: reciprocal steps to reopen Hormuz, calibrated sanctions relief, and a resumption of nuclear negotiations. The difficulty lies in sequencing and trust. Tehran fears that surrendering its maritime leverage first would invite fresh demands; Washington worries that easing pressure would reward coercion without securing lasting constraints on Iran’s nuclear program. Addressing those fears will require reciprocal steps and credible verification. More bombing won’t help.

Leaders contemplating an October surprise or an offensive after the midterms must remember that uncomfortable truth. Military force may alter the balance of pain without resolving the disputes each side will eventually have to confront across the negotiating table.

After another round of death and destruction, they could find themselves negotiating over the same issues, with less trust, greater bitterness, and far fewer resources to rebuild what they have broken. Their choices will be no easier then; the cost of reaching an agreement will be far greater.

When Rachel Bowman first tried to bring lionfish to restaurants and grocery stores in the Florida Keys in 2012, it was a hard sell. “We weren’t getting that much money for them, and it took a little convincing,” says the commercial lionfish hunter. That’s because the invasive lionfish—flamboyant enough that Bowman likens it to a Mardi Gras drag queen—wasn’t traditionally on the menu. 

Native to the tropical waters of the Indo-Pacific, lionfish have infiltrated the western Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico, where they have become a destructive invasive species ever since the first was recorded near Miami in 1985, likely after being released from the home aquarium trade. With few predators in these new habitats, a single fish can produce more than 2 million eggs a year. Studies have found that just one lionfish can reduce the replenishment of native fish populations on some reefs by nearly 80%.

In 2016, Bowman sold the first lionfish to Whole Foods in South Florida. “That was the ground-breaker,” she says, “because if Whole Foods is promoting something, then people know it’s good. We went from $2 per lb. to $10 per lb. pretty much overnight.” Now, 10 years later, through Keys Fisheries, her fish is sold in stores, and lionfish appears on restaurant menus throughout the area—and in doing so, millions of native reef fish have been saved from predation. 

Bowman’s work is part of a growing trend that’s not just about introducing new dishes to the local food scene; creating a market for invasive species may also bring ecological benefits for the local environment. 

Invasive species are considered one of the five most critical direct drivers of biodiversity loss, according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), whose most recent report in 2023 notes that the global economic toll of dealing with these species cost more than $423 billion in 2019. Once established, invasive species are often impossible to eradicate because they reproduce rapidly, spread across vast, interconnected environments, and often go unchecked until they are established. And the challenge of managing invasive species is particularly acute in the ocean, says Helen Roy, a professor at the U.K. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the University of Exeter and a co-chair of the IPBES assessment. It’s a consequence of the openness and connectedness of marine systems, she says. 

In 2004, conservation biologist Joe Roman coined the term “invasivorism” to describe the idea of eating invasive species to help control their populations. Since then, a growing movement across North America is attempting to transform ecological menaces into culinary commodities, from Florida to Hawai’i, British Columbia, Maine, and the Mississippi River basin. That movement is still expanding: in 2025, for example, 70 restaurants and fish markets across the U.S. participated in Green Crab Week, a national campaign encouraging diners to eat the invasive European green crab.

The goal, says Isabelle Côté, a marine ecologist at Simon Fraser University, is often “functional eradication”: reducing an invasive population to a level where its ecological impacts are considered acceptable. That’s where our dinner tables can help, by turning the removal of the species into an economic opportunity. 

David Standridge’s philosophy is all about harvesting what’s plentiful and turning it into something delicious. Since 2022, the James Beard Award-winning executive chef of The Shipwright’s Daughter in Mystic, Conn., has processed more than 10,000 lbs of green crab, making it a menu mainstay.

Commonly considered one of the world’s worst invasive species, the green crab has successfully invaded every continent except Antarctica. The species, native to Western Europe and Africa, has few predators, aggressively hunts its prey, and can consume a wide variety of shellfish, including oysters, clams, mussels, lobsters, and other crabs. One crab can eat more than 40 juvenile soft-shell clams in a day, while also destroying seagrass habitats. And a single green crab can produce up to 185,000 eggs per year, while its larval life stage allows young crabs to drift considerable distances in ocean currents, spreading from one invaded area to another.

Rather than a nuisance, Standridge describes the green crab as tremendously flavorful, producing a beautiful stock that can be used across dishes. “We use them not to eliminate green crab, but to take some pressure off the ecosystem,” he says. Getting green crab onto the menu, however, wasn’t so straightforward. 

When Standridge first tried to source the species in 2020, he discovered that Connecticut, like many states, classified green crab as bait and technically couldn’t be sold for human consumption. He finally found a supplier to help in 2021, and then in 2025, a change to a single line of state code allowed green crab and other species on the bait list to be harvested and sold as food. Parks says the market is beginning to take shape. Suppliers across New England now regularly carry green crab alongside other seafood, making it more accessible to chefs. 

The green crab’s global spread is only expected to increase with climate change, says Mary Parks, executive director of GreenCrab.org, a nonprofit organization building culinary markets for the invasive species while raising awareness of its impact. “We used to have these really cold winters and those helped keep green crab populations in check,” says Parks. “But with winters getting warmer and warmer, that population control got taken out of the picture.” 

On the other side of the continent, in 2020, the first green crabs were detected on Haida Gwaii, an archipelago off the coast of British Columbia. To slow the species’ establishment, the Council of the Haida Nation launched a full-scale trapping and mitigation program. Over five years, 36 crews removed nearly 2 million crabs, including more than 1.3 million from the Honna and Tarundl estuaries alone. The scale of the invasion has made control difficult, and harvester and marine economic development coordinator Eli Gladstone hopes a viable market for the crabs could help reduce their numbers. But he cautions that commercial demand alone won’t be enough: trapping will also need to become more efficient, and some continued public investment may be necessary.

Communities across the U.S. have been grappling with the ecological and economic impacts of introduced species for decades.

In the 1950s, bluestripe snapper, also known in Hawai’i by its Tahitian name, ta’ape, was introduced to O’ahu, when roughly 3,000 fish were released to bolster fishing opportunities and establish a new food source. But ta’ape, native to the South Pacific, never became a sustained part of Hawai’i’s seafood market. By the 1980s, the overabundant fish was largely considered a “trash fish,” prompting the state’s Department of Aquatic Resources to launch a market-development project in 1985 that used consumer education and supermarket promotions to try to build demand. The effort failed to gain lasting traction: supply was inconsistent, and demand tapered off after the project ended. 

Freediver and spearfisher Kimi Werner has seen firsthand just how dramatically the ta’ape has come to dominate the reefs. Where schools of snappers in their native ecosystems might number just a handful, she says Hawai’i’s ta’ape, with its electric-blue stripes and lemon-yellow skin, can blanket the seafloor. “You can see the power of numbers taking over these habitats where native fish belong,” she says.

Since 2019, Conservation International Hawai’i, in partnership with local businesses and organizations including the nonprofit Chef Hui, has been trying to turn that abundance into an opportunity: promoting ta’ape as a food source to reduce its numbers while supporting local fishers and food security. The approach is starting to resonate across Hawai’i’s tourism industry, says Jhana Young, sustainable seafood senior manager with Conservation International Hawai’i. Hotels now serve the fish to staff and guests; Hilton Hawaiian Village alone purchases about 500 lbs a month. In 2025, an average of 27 commercial fishers sold approximately 42,000 lbs of ta’ape statewide, 47% more than in 2018. And a March 2026 “Eat the Invaders” tournament removed more than 1,200 lbs of invasive reef fish from Maunalua Bay in a single weekend, nearly 90% of it ta’ape. Where fishers once received an average of just $0.65 per lb. for ta’ape in the 1980s (about $2.63 today), says Young, today some O’ahu fishers receive as much as $6 per lb.

“When we started, ta’ape was a fish people threw back or used for bait,” says Amanda Corby Noguchi, co-founder of Chef Hui. “Now we regularly get organizations, schools, and hotel properties reaching out to us wanting to be part of it, not the other way around.”

But creating a market for an invasive species also raises the question of whether it can genuinely serve conservation goals—or simply become another fishery. Young argues that it can redirect existing fishing pressure toward a species whose removal benefits the ecosystem. “Fishers are always going to fish. By helping create markets for a species that didn’t exist before, it helps point fishers in the direction of a choice that is ultimately better for nature’s long-term balance.”

More than 4,000 miles away, in the lower Mississippi River basin, Asian carp populations have proliferated since the species was imported to the U.S. from China in the 1970s. They were brought in to control nuisance algae in wastewater-treatment plants and aquaculture ponds, as well as for human consumption. Within a decade, they had escaped confinement and spread into the Mississippi River basin and its major tributaries, including the Illinois and Missouri rivers, disrupting aquatic food webs, harming native fish communities, and interfering with commercial and recreational fishing. The invasive Asian carp is one of the most urgent, far-reaching, and complex environmental challenges facing the U.S., according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). And experts now worry about their potential to reach the Great Lakes. 

For Angie Yu, founder of Two Rivers Fisheries in Wickliffe, Ky., the potential of invasive carp was obvious. Yu grew up in China, where carp is a dietary staple—so commonplace, she says, that it is eaten “just like chicken.” When she first read about the Asian carp problem in 2010, she saw an opportunity others in the U.S. had largely overlooked: a fish considered “trash” by many Americans but which had an established market in Asia. She began connecting the fish with Asian markets, eventually exporting to 12 countries. Before the pandemic, nearly 90% of the company’s products were destined for overseas markets. But then shipping disruptions, rising fuel costs, and steep international tariffs made exporting increasingly difficult, prompting Yu to turn her attention to building a domestic market. She has since developed a use-everything model for the fish, making meatballs, patties, dumplings, along with pet food, as well as fish meal and fertilizer from the trimmings, guts, and other waste, while finding uses for the skin and bones. Her carp is now sold in Asian supermarkets across the U.S., and her processing plant can handle up to 40,000 lbs of carp a day. “The fish is not trash,” she says, “it’s a treasure.”

The question now is whether commercial demand for invasive Asian carp can grow large enough to meaningfully reduce their populations. For Peter Stoett, a professor at Ontario Tech University and co-chair of the IPBES Assessment on Invasive Alien Species and Their Control, the key is to “measure the population, not the market.” A growing commercial fishery, more restaurants serving an invasive species, or thousands of pounds harvested may signal that a market is working—but not necessarily that the ecosystem is recovering. Reductions in an invasive species’ numbers or biomass, he says, are the clearest indicators of whether management is working. But measuring that requires sustained monitoring: “Money must be spent monitoring these populations or we won’t know if targets are being met.”

Stoett argues that if a market is used to encourage removal, the commercial activity should exist because the species needs to be reduced, contained, or eradicated—not because the goal is to establish a sustainable fishery for that species. In other words, the conservation objective has to come first, with the market serving as a tool rather than becoming the goal itself. As populations decline, he says, there needs to be ongoing dialogue among scientists, industry, local communities, and government about whether incentives should continue, change, or eventually end.

In Kentucky, there is some evidence that removal efforts are having an effect. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources has increased its fishing incentive to $0.15 per lb. for invasive carp harvested from Kentucky Lake and Barkley Lake, citing evidence that management efforts are reducing populations in both lakes. Most of the carp processed by Yu comes from those same two lakes. Meanwhile, according to a USFWS spokesperson, around 30 million lbs of invasive carp are removed from Midwestern waters each year.

The idea of harvesting and eating invasive species can sound like an elegant solution: turn an ecological problem into dinner and let appetite do the work. But Roy cautions against treating consumption as a panacea for control. The ecological payoff from harvesting is rarely proportional to the share of a population removed. Taking half of a population, for example, does not necessarily mean halving its impact on the ecosystem.

That does not make the markets emerging around lionfish, green crab, ta’ape, and carp meaningless. They can provide food and income, engage communities and, in some cases, redirect fishing pressure toward invasive or overabundant species whose removal can benefit ecosystems. But Roy stresses that these benefits must be considered separately from the ecological damage caused by an invasion: “There’s no simple sum here.”

Creating demand could theoretically give people an incentive to keep an invasive species abundant, although Côté says she is not aware of evidence that this has happened. And while “nothing beats prevention,” says Stoett, once an aquatic or marine invasion is established and containment is the only realistic option, a market for their safe consumption could provide another tool—one whose economic benefits can be weighed against the ecological impacts of the invasion. The goal, ultimately, is not to eat our way out of an ecological disaster. It is to make sure that, when we eat an ecological problem, we are actually helping to reduce it.

In front of foraging chef Robin Kort’s home on Galiano Island in British Columbia’s Salish Sea, is a sea urchin barren—an underwater desert where kelp once swayed but has since been devoured by the urchins that cover the seafloor like a spikey carpet. Unlike lionfish or Asian carp, red and green sea urchins are native to the region. But when their populations become too abundant, they can have invasive-like effects. 

Urchins are remarkably effective grazers. Marine ecologist Anne Salomon, a professor of applied marine ecology and social-ecological system science at Simon Fraser University, says urchins and kelp can coexist when food is plentiful. But when food becomes scarce, urchins form what she calls “active feeding fronts,” stripping away vegetation that provides food, shelter, and habitat for a wide range of marine life. Selective harvesting can help restore kelp forests, Salomon says, but doing so effectively requires sustained effort.  

“We have this commercial fishery around sea urchin, and we have, in Vancouver, a huge population that likes eating them,” says Kort, who calls uni “the parmesan of the sea,” describing it as cheesy, creamy, and versatile enough for both sweet and savory dishes. Last year, Kort helped launch an Eat the Invaders event, bringing chefs together to channel people’s appetite for delicious food by cooking with invasive and overabundant species. Part of her effort is to incentivize more harvesting of the older, less desirable but more destructive urchins. “Humans’ greatest power is the amount of stuff we can eat, basically, if we want to,” she says. “So can we use that superpower for good?”

Russia has released a retired American teacher who had been imprisoned for more than four years on charges of fighting as a mercenary in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed the release Wednesday, during a meeting in St. Petersburg.

Witkoff referred to Putin as a "humanitarian" and thanked him on behalf of U.S. President Donald Trump. "You talk so much about my President, President Trump, being a humanitarian—you are a humanitarian also, sir, and I salute that," he said.

Stephen Hubbard, 74, was sentenced to nearly seven years in a penal colony in 2024, after being detained in April 2022. Russian authorities accused the Michigan man of signing a contract with Ukraine’s military in the eastern Ukrainian city of Izyum after Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. The U.S. State Department under the Biden Administration declared that Hubbard, who was sentenced in a closed trial, had been wrongfully detained.

Trump said the release was secured at his request, "made directly" to Putin in a telephone conversation last week and was not part of a swap.

"Stephen is on his way back home and will soon be with his family," Trump said, noting that the U.S. "was not required to give anything in return."

Trump had hinted to reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday that Hubbard’s release was pending. "Just ​stick with me," he replied, when asked about the American man’s case. "I don't ⁠want to talk about it, but everybody has been after Hubbard for a long time, long ​before I got here. And just remember that ​question for ⁠a couple of days from now, okay? Because I do things that nobody else can do."

Yet experts advise against viewing Putin's decision to release a prisoner as a sign of progress in the broader context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

"The release of Hubbard was a gesture to Trump, nothing more, and does not imply a larger willingness on Putin’s part to make concessions or end the war," argues Brian Taylor, a professor of political science at Syracuse University who specializes in Russian politics.

Hubbard is the second American to be freed by Russia within the past three months. Marine veteran Robert Gilman was released on Aug. 11, having spent more than four years imprisoned on disputed charges of assaulting a police officer. Referencing Gilman's reported poor health, Trump at the time said Russia had agreed to release him "on a humanitarian basis."

Hubbard was the last American on the State Department’s list of “wrongfully detained” U.S. citizens in Russia. His release comes in the wake of Trump waiving sanctions on Russia in a bid to progress the controversial diesel deal he made with Putin as he attempts to lower fuel prices, which have soared in the wake of his war with Iran.

The deal has earned bipartisan condemnation, with several Republican lawmakers joining calls for Trump to reverse course, insisting the action will only serve to bolster Putin’s war efforts as Ukraine braces for a fifth winter under attack.

Read More: Lawmakers Argue Trump's Russia Diesel Deal 'Violates' the Law. Here's What Legal Experts Say

Relations between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have deteriorated, with the latter voicing grave concern over the U.S.-Russia diesel deal. Trump announced an “energy cease-fire” between Russia and Ukraine on Oct. 11, calling on the two countries to stop targeting each other’s assets. Zelensky accused Moscow of breaking the apparent agreement and, in turn, resumed strikes against Russian oil facilities, defying pressure from Washington. Trump called Ukraine's fresh wave of strikes a "disgrace" and said Zelensky is "more difficult to deal with than Putin."

Russia agrees to resume U.S.-mediated peace talks with Ukraine, Kremlin says

During their meeting at the grand imperial palace, Witkoff asked Putin to reconsider participating in peace talks with Ukraine, with the U.S. serving as an intermediary.

"Even if we don't have a resolution today, if we just talk about and sort of consider what ​that next step might be, I think that would be important and the world is waiting to hear that," Witkoff said as he pitched the idea.

The Kremlin later announced that Putin had agreed "in principle" to resume trilateral talks as soon as next month, anytime after Nov. 10. Putin’s foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov told reporters the technical talks would likely focus on security guarantees for Ukraine and Russia once the war comes to an end. Ushakov suggested the sit-down could take ​place in Abu Dhabi.

"These talks happened before and did not lead to any meaningful progress on reaching a settlement," Taylor says, again advising a cautionary approach. Reflecting on the Kremlin's strategy, he adds that Putin likely "wants to show Trump he’s willing to play ball, without actually changing his behavior."

Senior Ukrainian and Russian officials last convened in Switzerland in February for U.S.-brokered peace talks, just ahead of the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The discussions, which Zelensky suggested had been "difficult," ended without a breakthrough.

In August 2025, Trump met Putin for a high-stakes summit in Anchorage, Alaska, marking the first in-person encounter between the two leaders since 2019. The sit-down was aimed at exploring a path toward a cease-fire in the war in Ukraine, yet it ended earlier than expected and yielded no tangible results.

Witkoff, meanwhile, met with Zelensky in Oslo on Tuesday ahead of his trip to Russia. Zelensky said the meeting was productive and expressed his openness to a "potential trilateral meeting of the leaders to address the issues that only the leaders can do." However, he emphasized that any meetings to negotiate an end to the war must include Ukrainian officials, insisting there should be “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine."

Zelensky's remarks came after the Wall Street Journal reported that Putin had floated the idea of a summit with Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping to discuss a potential Ukraine deal. Trump on Monday said he was open to a trilateral summit with those attendees to discuss matters related to “denuclearization.”

U.S.-Ukraine tensions escalate

Ukraine and U.S. officials remain at odds as to why Kyiv has experienced limited access to Starshield, the military-grade counterpart of SpaceX’s Starlink commercial service. The program, which offers remote Internet connectivity from satellites in low-Earth orbit, has become a lifeline for Ukraine on the battlefield, allowing it to execute long-reach drone strike missions and counter attacks.

On Oct. 14, Ukraine said its access to Starshield was abruptly limited. Serhiy Beskrestnov, an adviser to Zelensky, said speed restrictions had been imposed, leading to the “failure” of several military missions. Beskrestnov claimed the restrictions, which he said applied to devices traveling over 100 miles per hour and using Starshield, were “related to the current political situation.” During an Oct. 18 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, Zelensky said he believed the limited Starshield speed was a “message” from the U.S. government. He also said that Washington had briefly ‌stopped sharing intelligence with Kyiv, drawing a denial from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Zelensky’s remarks came after Reuters reported, citing two U.S. officials, that an order to limit Starshield services in Ukraine had come from inside the White House. When approached for comment, a senior U.S. official told TIME: “No such request was ever made by the President.” Some Republican lawmakers, including Representative Mike Turner of Ohio and Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, have joined bipartisan calls for an investigation to determine the cause.

Addressing the matter, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said: “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the U.S. government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the U.S. military and ultimately POTUS.”

Donald Trump is betting that the promise of more money in Americans’ pockets will translate into support at the ballot box. With his approval ratings low and November’s midterms just weeks away, the President has made a series of financial pledges in a bid to preserve Republicans’ majorities in Congress.

At a Kansas rally on Monday, Trump announced that the Administration is offering an $8 billion aid package to help American farmers offset higher diesel costs in the current harvest season. Diesel has remained above $6 per gallon since mid-September, per the American Automobile Association, as oil prices have been pushed up by the war with Iran, which Trump started in late February.  

Some rural voters, who helped elect Trump in 2024, have grown disillusioned with him, but he continued to court them in Kansas, adding: “When the Republicans win, we will pass even more funding for our farmers. We love our farmers.”

Several opinion polls show that rising costs of living are top of mind for voters ahead of the elections. Some polls rate the President’s handling of the U.S. economy as very poor. Disenchantment with the current political and economic system has also reached a point where socialism has grown more popular among Americans.

Trump’s efforts to woo voters with offers of cash gained attention in September, when he explicitly promised a Dallas crowd that his Administration would dole out a $5,000 dividend to every American adult if the GOP maintains its majorities in Congress. But with about 240 million adult citizens, the proposal would cost around $1.2 trillion—a gargantuan financial undertaking that even some in his own party questioned how the U.S. could afford. Democrats, meanwhile, called the dividend proposal a vote-buying scheme.

The same month, the Administration promised to refund more than 950,000 Obamacare enrollees in 30 states $500 each for “overcharges” collected by the Biden Administration. Earlier this month, it promised a one-time $90 payment per person to help more than 20 million enrollees pay for their Medicare premiums. Some voters have already reported receiving these payments.

While mentions of these handouts have earned cheers at Trump’s supporter-packed rallies, it is unclear if they will translate to any additional earned votes. Voter turnout in the U.S. is historically lower during midterm and off-year elections, and Trump, in a bid to boost the GOP’s chances, has repeatedly called on his supporters to imagine that he is on the ballot. 

It’s also unclear if voters are sold on Trump’s cash-based solutions. For example, a Wall Street Journal poll in September found that 64% of respondents thought Trump’s proposed $5,000 checks were a “bad idea right now.” And even if Republicans won the election, an Economist/YouGov poll from September found that most voters are skeptical that Trump would deliver—and they have good reason to be.

What happened to Trump’s past cash proposals

Trump has made many big promises, but he hasn’t always kept them.

He has repeatedly floated the idea of giving a $2,000 stimulus check or tax rebate to most Americans, supposedly funded by revenue from the global tariffs he’s imposed throughout his second term. But since making that promise in November 2025, as of this month, such dividends have yet to materialize. TIME has reached out to the White House for comment.

When his on-and-off friend Elon Musk was implementing a cost-cutting initiative across the federal government last year, Trump said he was considering using some of the savings to give Americans cash. “We’re thinking about giving 20% back to the American citizens, and 20% down to pay back debt,” Trump said in February last year. That plan also never materialized.

During his first term, while he was seeking re-election in 2020, Trump promised that his Administration would send $200 discount cards to 33 million older Americans on Medicare to help them pay for prescription drugs. Critics slammed the plan for lack of a clear funding source and how it appeared to be designed just to court voters, but his term eventually ended without distributing those cards and he did not pursue the policy in his second term that began in 2025.

To save Americans in economic freefall during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump in 2020 promised to get money to them “as quickly as possible.” It also coincided with his campaign for re-election. Eligible adults were able to receive as much as $1,200 as well as $500 per qualifying child. By October that year, the Internal Revenue Service delivered more than 160 million payments totaling over $270 billion. Although he did make good on his promise, the effort did not help Trump’s re-election, however, as he lost the 2020 presidential race to former Vice President Joe Biden.

Trump pours his own cash into election

Trump appears to be ramping up his own political spending to ensure the GOP’s political victory on Nov. 3. “I have spent, or will be spending, over 400 Million Dollars by Election Day,” he posted on Truth Social on Tuesday. “More than 300 Million Dollars has already been spent on Advertising, Direct and Indirect Voter Contact, Rallies, Rally Arenas, Telerallies, Get Out the Vote Programs, Election Integrity, and more.”

Trump’s super political action committee, MAGA Inc., allocated $277 million, a record amount for a second-term President, from the start of September through the first two weeks of October to help the GOP in the midterms, according to the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The latest filings also show that MAGA Inc. received about $25 million in donations during that period. Some of the biggest donors include Trump-allied billionaire Diane Hendricks, Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, and casino-resort developer Steve Wynn.

MAGA Inc. has raised about $473 million since Trump’s re-election in 2024.

From social media to sports betting, Americans have become remarkably willing to adopt new technologies without necessarily believing they're good for us or our health, our society, or our planet. Artificial intelligence may be the clearest example yet.

Just 39% of Americans say AI has a positive impact on society, compared with 44% who believe its impact is negative, according to a national survey conducted this month by my company, Outward Intelligence. Only 15% say they're excited about AI's growth.

But here’s the disconnect: While 58% of Americans don't trust the leaders of AI companies to make decisions in society's best interests, 41% say they use AI chatbots every day. Among Americans who believe AI harms society, roughly half use AI chatbots at least weekly.

In some ways, this shouldn't surprise us. People can appreciate the convenience of social media while questioning its effects on children. They can participate in the boom in sports betting while worrying about its consequences, from addiction to financial hardship. They can shop online while worrying about the decline of local businesses. And they can rely on smartphones while believing those devices have undermined attention and human connection.

But AI tests the limits of the U.S. consumer’s appetite for holding two contradictory ideas in their minds at once. And the implications are political as much as economic: What happens when Americans embrace a technology but don't trust the institutions responsible for creating it as well as overseeing and pacing its development?

In our survey, about two-thirds of Americans said a candidate's position on AI could influence their vote in the upcoming Midterm elections, although most acknowledged that other issues matter more. Roughly one in six said it could actually determine their vote.

Neither party appears to have established much credibility with independent voters on the issue. Nearly two-thirds of independents say they don’t trust either party to handle AI responsibly, or that they trust both equally, or that they’re unsure.

Data centers are where the broader debate over AI becomes much more concrete, and where opposition becomes more unified. More than half of respondents say they would oppose construction of a large data center near where they live. Nearly four in ten would strongly oppose it.

Their concerns are practical. Electricity costs rank first, followed by water usage and environmental impact. America's ability to compete internationally, which has become a central argument for expanding AI infrastructure, ranks much lower.

To a tech company, building a data center may represent an investment in America's economic future. To someone living nearby, it may mean worrying about electricity bills, local resources, and whether the community has much say in the decision. The result is a growing chasm between how the people building AI think about its benefits and how ordinary Americans think about its costs.

The associated political costs are significant, too. When asked about candidates who strongly support building more data centers, 42% of voters say that position would make them less likely to vote for a candidate, vs. 27% who say it would make them more likely. Among independents, the gap is even wider: 49% to 19%.

So while AI may not be a top issue for all voters in November, their attitudes toward AI expose a tension in the politics of technological progress. Promising innovation and economic growth doesn't answer questions about electricity bills and corporate accountability, and expressing concern about the technology doesn't explain how to capture its potential benefits.

AI companies now ask for an enormous amount of public faith. They're developing systems that could reshape employment, education, and the economy, while making major infrastructure investments that will affect communities across the country. Americans, meanwhile, are weighing who benefits, who bears the costs—and who is accountable when things go wrong.

Americans have already shown they're willing to use AI. The harder challenge, for Silicon Valley and Washington alike, is earning, and deserving, their trust.

The world’s richest man has publicly backed a potential combination of SpaceX and Tesla in what could be the biggest merger in history.

On Tuesday, Elon Musk, the CEO and largest shareholder of both companies, said the electric vehicle maker and the rocket company had formed special committees at the request of shareholders to discuss the idea.

“I do think there’s a lot of merit to combining the companies as we are pretty much in the superintelligence singularity, ​and there’s a lot to be gained from cooperating,” Musk told SpaceX investors on a conference call.

“I think it would be a good ​idea, but it’s really up to the special committees of both companies,” he added.

The committees, which are made up of independent directors, would need to agree on the transaction terms of any deal before putting it to shareholders for a vote. Musk said his conflict of interest prevents him from participating in their discussions.

Musk has previously teased a Tesla-SpaceX merger. On a July 22 earnings call, Musk said there was “more and more overlap” between Tesla and SpaceX as the companies expand into artificial intelligence and robotics. Last week, Barclays analysts suggested that a merger could be announced before Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting in December.

Tuesday’s call was the first confirmation that the companies were formally exploring a combination.

A merger could create a company worth around $3.5 trillion, putting it among the world’s most valuable companies. It could also become the biggest merger ever by deal value, potentially surpassing SpaceX’s record-setting $250 billion acquisition of Musk-owned AI company xAI in February. SpaceX is currently valued at about $2 trillion, and Tesla at $1.5 trillion. A deal could also help propel Musk back into trillionaire ranks, depending on its terms and how investors value the combined company. Musk owns around 48% of SpaceX and 20% of Tesla.

The shares of both companies rose in after-hours trading on Tuesday. SpaceX, which went public in June, reported a quarterly net profit of $4.4 billion. Musk told investors he expects annual recurring revenue of between $500 billion and $1 trillion by the end of 2027.

Some analysts, however, have warned of regulatory and geopolitical hurdles, particularly in terms of Tesla’s Chinese operations and SpaceX’s U.S. defence work. Morningstar analysts said a merger could raise U.S. national security concerns involving the combined company’s supply chain. JPMorgan analysts also flagged regulatory approval in China as a potential stumbling block.

Any deal could also face congressional scrutiny, which could intensify if Democrats win control of either chamber in the coming midterm elections. Democratic lawmakers have previously questioned Musk over conflicts of interest and raised national security concerns about reported Chinese investments in SpaceX. Democrats have also challenged major acquisitions in the past on consumer protection grounds. In June, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) criticized SpaceX’s IPO, citing Musk’s concentrated voting power and weak investor protections—concerns that could resurface in a Tesla-SpaceX merger.

Why a merger matters

A merger could bring two of Musk’s biggest businesses under one corporate umbrella, making it easier for the companies to move investments and resources between projects. “This would allow him to run all their operations under one roof without tripping on as many governance issues,” wrote Morningstar analysts Seth Goldstein and Nicolas Owens in June. “For example, Musk could move Tesla software developers or engineers to work on SpaceX AI projects, and vice versa, or have Tesla and SpaceX supply one another without the need for related party transaction disclosures or risking shareholder lawsuits claiming the resources of one firm are being diverted for the benefit of the other.”

Analysts noted that Tesla’s robotaxis could benefit from Starlink connectivity, while its autonomous vehicles and Optimus humanoid robots could more closely integrate SpaceX’s AI technology. SpaceX’s planned orbital data centers, meanwhile, could potentially benefit from access to Tesla’s battery and energy storage products.

A combined company could also mean greater control of several stages of the AI value chain, from chip design and planned manufacturing to computing infrastructure, AI software, and its deployment in vehicles and robots.

The companies already collaborate. In March, they announced Terafab, a joint semiconductor manufacturing project intended to produce chips for Tesla’s vehicles and humanoid robots and SpaceX’s planned AI satellites. SpaceX technologies have also been used in some Tesla products, including the new Roadster prototype, which uses SpaceX-developed thrusters.

David Nicholson, chief technology advisor at market research firm The Futurum Group, told the BBC that a merger also appears to align with Musk’s long-held ambition of colonizing Mars. Musk previously outlined plans to send Tesla’s Optimus robots to the planet aboard SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft.

A merger could also strengthen Musk’s influence over Tesla’s direction. Barclays estimated that a SpaceX acquisition of Tesla could give Musk around 37% of the combined company while controlling around 56% of its voting power. He currently controls around 82% of voting power at SpaceX and 20% at Tesla. That could represent either a benefit or a risk for shareholders, as decision-making would become faster but have fewer checks.

“One thing I don’t think people talk enough about with SpaceX and Tesla as well: You do still have a huge amount of key-man risk here,” wrote Morningstar analyst David Sekera earlier this month. “God forbid anything were to happen to Elon Musk.”

At first glance, chair yoga might seem like a workout just for older adults with mobility issues. The gentle, accessible workout offers a modified take on the ancient movement and meditation practice, usually from a seated position. No one’s asked to climb down onto the floor or independently hold themselves upright in tricky standing postures—which makes it ideal for those with limited strength or balance.   

But experts say chair yoga shouldn’t be pigeonholed, because anyone can benefit. “It is a practice that meets you where you are,” says Divya Balakrishnan, a yoga instructor in New York City. “You’re still using your strength and flexibility, just in other ways.” 

What is chair yoga? 

A yoga teacher named Lakshmi Voelker first began adapting some yoga poses to a chair in 1982 to make the practice more accessible for a student with arthritis. Since then, numerous instructors have found ways to use a chair for adapted versions of a surprising number of traditional yoga movements, like lunging warrior poses and standing-to-lying sun salutations. 

While students typically crouch, sit, and lie down on a mat in traditional yoga classes, the chair, in a way, brings the floor closer. Some chair yoga classes are done entirely seated, moving through modified variations of classic yoga sequences without ever asking participants to get up. Other classes transition between sitting and standing while holding onto the back for a little extra help with balance, or doing poses like downward dog with hands on the seat instead of reaching to the floor. 

In a sense, the chair is simply another prop. “Just like you would use a strap or blocks to increase the accessible range of motion or bring different awareness to the body, the chair can be used in a similar way,” says Jessica Pate, a Boston-based yoga teacher. 

Experienced yogis also use a chair for athletic feats that wouldn’t be possible on a mat alone. In particular, the Iyengar style of yoga uses a yoga chair (designed with an open back and a completely flat seat) for advanced postures like an upside-down inversion where the yogi’s shoulders rest on two chairs while their head hangs in between. 

“There's an infinite number of ways that you can use the chair,” says Jules Mitchell, a Las Vegas–based yoga educator. 

The health benefits of chair yoga

Research on the physical benefits of seated chair yoga has found that practitioners tend to  improve their functional fitness and experience a decrease in how much pain interferes with their daily life. Much of that research has focused on older adults, who generally have a lower baseline of fitness than younger, healthy adults. It’s unlikely that people who are in peak shape would see as much benefit. 

“You're not challenging your muscles or your balance as much as traditional yoga,” says Justin Smith, an assistant professor at Wichita State University who recently co-authored a case series on the benefits of chair yoga. 

But that doesn’t mean it’s a waste of time for more athletic folks.

For experienced yogis, doing yoga from a chair can offer new ways to explore familiar movements, says Pate, who incorporates a chair into many of her regular yoga classes. By sitting, the body’s weight gets distributed differently, which makes the muscles engage in new ways and can bring a fresh awareness to the body. “For example, with Warrior 2, having the chair underneath [my] pelvis, I'm able to feel where my sit bones are,” she says. This can help people better recognize if their hips are twisted or tilted. 

Although most people assume that sitting makes everything easier, that isn’t always the case. Sometimes the challenge just changes: Pate says she actually feels her outer hips working harder in Warrior 2 on a chair than they do when she’s standing in the pose because she’s forced into a more neutral alignment, and bigger muscles can’t take over. 

Sitting on a chair can also sometimes help people go deeper into poses. Say you’re trying to target your glutes with a Figure 4 pose, where one ankle rests on the opposite knee as you bend forward. When you’re seated, you’re able to focus more on the stretch because you’re not struggling to balance, Balakrishnan says. “If I was doing a standing Figure 4, half of my attention is going to be on the standing foot and keeping myself upright, so I may not sit as deep,” she says. 

The same is true for breathing. Pate says that the extra support of the chair makes it easier to focus on breathing deeply and intentionally—something that many students forget to do once poses get challenging. 

One group that might particularly benefit from chair yoga is people who are stuck sitting in front of a computer all day. “For anyone who works at a desk, it is a lifesaver,” Balakrishnan says. A simple seated yoga routine can relieve tight, achy joints, and multiple studies have found that chair yoga can significantly reduce stress. Balakrishnan regularly takes yoga breaks right from her chair, doing neck rolls, spinal twists, or anything else her body is craving to bring some movement and mindfulness back to her day—without feeling like she has to stop what she’s doing and carve out time for a full yoga session. “You don't have that mental barrier of, ‘Okay, let me get out of my chair, go roll out my yoga mat, go get my blocks,’” she says. “It requires less of you to begin the practice.”

There’s also a simpler reason to do seated chair yoga: It just feels good. The low-key movement can help stretch out tense muscles and get some blood flowing without feeling like you have to do a workout that impresses anyone. Smith says that all the participants in his case series were incredibly enthusiastic about their routine. “You can tell that they really just love chair yoga,” he says. 

Seated chair yoga may not build Olympic athlete–level strength and agility. But experts agree it still has plenty to offer, no matter your age or fitness level. “We all can benefit from calming down, observing our sensations in our body, and getting in a little bit of stretching,” Mitchell says. 

It’s 11 a.m. at Ha-Meem Group’s Ashulia garment factory north of Dhaka and every floor is a whirlwind of feverish labor. Industrial jigsaws slice stacks of denim into precise panels, which nearby seamsters then stitch into jeans, skirts, and jackets. 

Next comes washing, ironing, and affixing buttons and zips before the brand labels are attached—Gap, American Eagle, and JCPenney are major clients—and the finished garments are stacked into boxes by some of the group’s 90,000 staff, who together produce 9.3 million apparel items every month.

Read more: What Bangladesh’s New Leader Tarique Rahman Means for South Asia and the World

But suddenly the lights flicker, the workshop dims for a moment, and then full illumination returns accompanied by four cacophonic British-made diesel generators, which automatically splutter into life whenever the gas supply weakens.

“In Bangladesh, the grid electricity is bad, there are frequent interruptions,” says Tanul Chakraborty, head of power, energy and environmental sustainability for Ha-Meem Group. “After gas the most reliable energy in Bangladesh is diesel. Grid electricity is third. Almost the entire economy moves on diesel.”

It’s a startling admission given that Bangladesh’s economy is worth $510 billion, South Asia’s second-largest after India. But the nation is in the grip of a severe power crunch, as wars in Ukraine and Iran expose the fragility of its growing dependence on imported fuel. Since Russia’s invasion, industrial gas prices have risen by 150%, and diesel by about 70%. Since the Iran war began, the cost of spot liquefied natural gas (LNG) has nearly tripled.

That’s bad news for a garment industry that is the country’s largest source of formal employment, directly providing 4 million jobs and supporting countless more livelihoods, while generating $38.7 billion last year—over 80% of export earnings. (Ha Meem alone accounted for $1 billion of exports.)

But the strain extends across the Global South, where developing nations struggle with a prolonged energy crisis that disproportionately squeezes the planet’s most deprived. In the Philippines, heavy dependence on imported Gulf oil has forced emergency conservation measures, including four-day working weeks, restrictions on official travel, and flight cancellations. Diesel prices have risen 86% in Nigeria and more than 50% in Tanzania and Ethiopia, driving up the cost of farming, trucking, and electricity from generators—and, in turn, the price of staples such as rice and corn.

“The poorest people, who spend the highest share of their income on food and fuels, will be hit the hardest,” Indermit Gill, World Bank Chief Economist, warned in April.

In Dhaka, a sprawling megacity of almost 40 million that is usually defined by relentless momentum, the nights have grown eerily dark. With the national power shortfall exceeding 3,000 megawatts, the government has imposed sweeping cuts, exempting only essential services such as hospitals and pharmacies. Illuminated billboards along busy commercial corridors now dim soon after sunset, while shops close an hour early. The burden is even heavier in rural villages, where residents have recently endured blackouts lasting as long as 16 hours a day.

For ordinary citizens, daily life has become a relentless calculus: Residents are forced to rise before dawn in the hope that their stove's gas pressure might be strong enough to cook. Other quandaries include how long they can run a fan against the suffocating humidity, and how far the queues will stretch at the gas station. As businesses flounder, a secondary crisis looms: global malnutrition monitors warn that 18.1 million Bangladeshis may soon face food insecurity.

Internal missteps have only tightened external bottlenecks. The country of 175 million drastically underinvested in both transmission infrastructure and domestic gas fields, meaning today it relies on imports from the Middle East for almost half of its energy. But between July and August, imports of LNG plummeted 83% largely owing to disruption around the blockaded Strait of Hormuz as well as a blaze that temporarily disabled one of its two floating regasification terminals.

Last month, thousands of opposition supporters staged a long march to pressure Prime Minister Tarique Rahman—who only took office in February, just weeks before the Iran war broke out—to do more to tackle soaring fuel costs. “Energy is the biggest test for the new government and has become a galvanizing point for the opposition,” says Michael Kugelman, resident senior fellow for South Asia at the Atlantic Council.

While the global energy crisis is tied to geopolitics, Bangladesh’s woes are uniquely entwined. Rahman’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party took power following the popular ouster in 2024 of autocratic former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, whom India granted sanctuary, deepening the rift between the neighbors.

Bangladesh imports roughly one-sixth of its electricity from India, which hasn’t been shy in wielding that strategic vulnerability as diplomatic leverage. Compounding the disruption, many of the key architects of national energy policy over Hasina’s 15-year reign have been placed on special duties ostensibly due to their ties to her Awami League party.

Bangladesh also finds itself hostage to shifting Great Power rivalry beyond its neighborhood. Dhaka invested $12.65 billion—chiefly via Moscow-backed loans—in its first nuclear power station in the town of Rooppur built by Russian energy giant Rosatom. The plant was supposed to begin operations in July 2024 but faced repeated delays due partly to the Ukraine war, which complicated payments to Russian banks and blocked the arrival of air and maritime cargo. After finally completing its first controlled nuclear reaction on Oct. 11, it is now expected to go into service in December, although months of staged testing will be required before it reaches a touted output of 1,200 MW.

Complicating matters, the U.S. Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act comes into force on Oct. 18, with provisions including sanctions on senior Russian officials and businesses supporting Russia’s energy sectors. This could mean Dhaka has to secure specific U.S. Treasury waivers or approved payment channels to service its plant debt and buy nuclear fuel.

Meanwhile, Washington is dangling its own alternatives. On Sept. 25, Bangladesh and the U.S. signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on strategic civil nuclear cooperation that focuses on small modular reactors. That comes on top of an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade inked in February that committed Dhaka to massive purchases of U.S. commodities, including $15 billion worth of U.S. energy products over a 15-year period.

But Bangladesh is also looking to Washington’s superpower rival. Rahman’s first overseas trip in June was to Malaysia and China. In Beijing, the two nations signed 17 agreements and other instruments to mark a “new era” of bilateral relations, with one explicitly covering renewable energy cooperation. But two of the agreements involved corporate groups subject to U.S. sanctions, and the growing ties between Dhaka and Beijing have caused consternation in Washington, State Department sources tell TIME. Bangladesh is also in advanced negotiations with a Chinese state-owned firm to build a third floating LNG terminal.

Seemingly pulled in every direction, Dhaka is desperate to instill more energy independence. The government recently launched a special incentive package for rooftop solar, slashing import duties on solar equipment from 17% to 1%, while particularly encouraging systems paired with battery storage. Bangladesh added some 200 MW of solar capacity to the national grid over the first half-year, according to government figures. However, that rate must be ramped up sixfold to have any hope of achieving ambitious five-year targets.

“We are actually looking into diversification, new areas where we can source energy from,” Shama Obaed Islam, State Minister for Foreign Affairs, told TIME as part of a panel at the 2026 Bay of Bengal Conversation last week. “We have [also] been looking into solar energy [and] making every citizen self-sufficient in energy.”

But while rooftop solar may work well for homes, it is far less useful for energy-intensive factories. Ha-Meem has 29.2 MW installed on its roofs—one of the largest private solar installations nationwide—though Chakraborty says it is only helpful for perhaps four hours per day when the sun is highest at a factory complex that operates around the clock.

Paradoxically, Ha-Meem has seen demand increase since the energy crisis. It has absorbed orders from some of the more than 400 smaller factories forced out of business in the three years till June (as well as from customers shifting production out of China to skirt Trumpian tariffs.) But with Ha-Meem’s energy bills rising from roughly $200,000 to $300,000 every day, and clients refusing to budge on prices, there is a relentless drive to boost efficiency.

In the office of Ha-Meem Senior Executive Director Brig-Gen (Ret.) Mohammad Abdul Moeen, a computer spreadsheet maps every employee against hourly targets. Workers who fall behind are counseled by managers—“maybe she had some problem with the machine,” says Moeen. “She may have just been tired”—and offered additional support and training. Those who consistently fall short are replaced by some of the dozens of applicants clutching résumés who queue up at the factory gate each morning.

“We may be facing some kind of energy crisis but that’s more reason why we cannot compromise with productivity,” says Moeen.

Moeen’s relentless focus on efficiency is easy to fathom. The garment industry is ruthlessly competitive and manufacturers fear that any rise in costs or supply disruption could see orders shift to rival Vietnam, Cambodia, or Pakistan. However, simply securing energy is not alone sufficient; with many Western brands making ambitious sustainability commitments that rely on shifting away from fossil fuels, how power is generated is also a key concern.

And if preserving Bangladesh’s dominant role in global garment production is precarious, diversifying the economy is harder still. The nation has ambitious goals of ramping up existing pharmaceutical and leather industries, and even moving into autos, medical devices, and semiconductors. But competition is tough, and few serious investors are charmed by candlelight meetings.  

Last month, Bangladesh unveiled a new energy roadmap that aims to add 12,940 MW of generation capacity via new solar installations and coal-fired projects, alongside modernization of grid distribution networks and a total of 300 new exploration wells to firm up domestic gas supplies (31 have already been drilled.)

“We are satisfied with that plan,” says Mohammad Hatem, president of the Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association, which represents over 2,500 garment factories. “Within three or four years, maybe there will be no more electricity crisis.”

For now, however, Bangladesh’s garment workers—and billions across the Global South—have little choice but to endure given scant signs of relief in oil markets. In recent days, Yemen’s Houthis have intensified missile and drone attacks on Saudi airports, cities, and oil infrastructure, killing civilians in Riyadh, disrupting flights, and provoking Saudi-led strikes that have stoked fears of a wider regional war.

“It’s a difficult situation for the present government,” says Fazlee Shamim Ehsan, managing director of Fatullah Apparels Ltd., which produces 22,000 finished garments per day. “It would be much better if there was no war in the Middle East.”

—With reporting by Zia Chowdhury/Dhaka

In July, a horde of OpenAI agents broke out of their sandboxes and worked together to launch a cyberattack on the AI company Hugging Face. The incident seemed to confirm the AI safety community’s worst fears: as AI got smarter, it would circumvent efforts to contain it. But for some cybersecurity experts, the incident revealed just how poorly the AIs had been contained in the first place. 

The two camps disagree about which defenses deserve the most attention. According to cybersecurity experts, AI companies should improve how they contain models during testing and improve monitoring mechanisms to catch misbehaving agents. All organizations should prepare for AI-enabled attackers and bolster defenses. But many in AI safety think those defenses are destined to fail. They fear that in the coming years AI will become capable of outmaneuvering any human effort to contain it, and the only durable solution is “aligning” AI with human values.

That prescription has rankled many cybersecurity experts who scoff at the possibility that their expertise will be rendered obsolete. They see AI safety’s focus on what AI agents did—rather than what AI companies failed to do—as playing into the industry’s hands. And they worry that warnings about the futility of traditional defenses could become a self-fulfilling prophecy by discouraging investment in cybersecurity. 

Meanwhile, there are AI safety researchers who fear that portraying such incidents as easily remedied security failures gives political cover to those who want AI development to proceed unchecked. The Hugging Face incident was due to a “horrible cybersecurity configuration,” Shyam Sankar, Palantir’s chief technology officer said on Face the Nation in October, adding that the agents “were not in a sandbox” and had internet access. In fact, the agents had been operating in a sandbox and exploited a previously undiscovered vulnerability to access the open internet. 

On Oct. 13, around 400 academics signed an open letter pleading for unity. The letter calls for the establishment of an international body that standardizes best practices for keeping AI safe in consultation with governments “and a wide range of both AI and cybersecurity experts.” But it does not address the larger disagreements between the two groups, says Zack Korman, co-founder of cybersecurity startup Embroidery and a fierce critic of AI safety. “We both believe the other group's messaging will lead to serious harm,” he says.

As the stakes rise, so too does the competition over who gets to decide what making AI safe actually means. On Oct. 15, Anthropic announced it would give METR—an organization deeply embedded in the AI safety community—permanent employee-like access to evaluate the company’s safety practices. Elon Musk responded, saying SpaceXSI would “probably” do the same. Who gets that access could shape what solutions are prioritized—and what the public knows about future breaches.

The AI safety community comprises a loose network of organizations and researchers, many of whom staff safety teams at companies including OpenAI and Anthropic. In Berkeley group houses and at effective altruism conferences, they have spent more than a decade debating the odds of superintelligent AI takeover. Earnest, veering on grandiose, some members have organized their careers, relationships, and living arrangements around the belief they’re tackling one of humanity’s most pressing problems. 

Cybersecurity, older and more diffuse, is united by a culture of cynicism, pragmatism, and dark humor. Its roots lie partly in hacker culture: tinkerers finding ways to crack software. Having watched supposedly secure systems fail has given many an irreverence for authority and an impatience with grand theories. For years, the two groups had little contact with one another. The Hugging Face incident changed that. 

To them, the escape exposed a failure to plan for a breach. OpenAI’s agents exploited a zero-day vulnerability during their escape. But cybersecurity experts are trained to assume any layer can fail. Security best practices call for multiple layers, known as “defense in depth.” OpenAI had already built an additional layer: monitors—AIs overseeing the AIs. But, as OpenAI’s chief scientist later told TIME, for the evaluations that led to the Hugging Face breach the company hadn’t turned the monitoring layer on. “They did a terrible job,” Korman says of OpenAI’s security practices. Three OpenAI staffers say they warned the company of potential issues. They were later fired for sharing sensitive information, according to the company.

Jeffrey Ladish, executive director of AI safety organization Palisade Research, worries that the cybersecurity community is missing the bigger picture. Even if today's security weaknesses are fixed, he argues, increasingly capable AI could find vulnerabilities so subtle that humans would have to rely on other AIs to detect them—systems that may themselves be untrustworthy. To Ladish, the cybersecurity community's reaction to Hugging Face is like scientists resurrecting dinosaurs, watching them escape, then responding by recommending taller fences. 

Beneath their cultural differences, AI safety and cybersecurity have competing understandings of what AI is. To many in AI safety, AI resembles a digital organism. Its abilities emerge through training rather than being individually programmed. If that process produces human-level intelligence, they believe, it could resemble the arrival of an alien species. Cybersecurity experts see AI as more akin to software and are skeptical that AI agents will become impossible to contain, even if they become vastly more capable. “They're not magic, right? They still have to follow certain laws of physics,” Korman says. But the laws of physics don’t guarantee containment.Even computers physically disconnected from networks could communicate by generating patterns of heat that act like Morse code, OpenAI’s Noam Brown recently suggested.

So far, AI companies have responded to concerns from both camps. Following breaches, both OpenAI and Anthropic have sought to bolster security while continuing to invest in alignment research. But those efforts leave open the question of who gets to assess whether either approach is working.

Much of what’s known about the Hugging Face incident comes from an investigation by Redwood Research and METR, two organizations affiliated with the AI safety community. Critics argue that has skewed the narrative, as their investigation focused more on what AI did than the surrounding security infrastructure.

Chris Painter, METR’s president, says the organization tries to hire from diverse worldviews, but has struggled to recruit people skeptical of loss-of-control scenarios to work on guarding against those risks. Asked whether METR researchers, having anticipated dangerous AI behavior for years, might interpret new evidence as confirmation of their predictions, Painter acknowledges he is worried about the possibility

But METR’s findings don’t always bear out its researchers’ expectations, Painter says. While the organization is perhaps best known for measuring AI’s rapid rise, one study found that AI coding assistants slowed experienced engineers down. “Our goal is to inform the world, not persuade it of anything in particular,” he says. He welcomes calls for a wider range of independent evaluators.

Many AI safety researchers hope alignment can make even highly capable systems safe, but want development slowed to give that work time to catch up. Korman doubts AI will become impossible to contain. But if it does, he says, development will have to stop, not just slow down. He says alignment helps make AI systems more useful but rejects the idea of relying on a system’s training to keep it from harming people when no external safeguard could stop it. “That’s the most extraordinarily unsafe thing you could imagine,” he says.

Yet alignment itself depends partly on cybersecurity. During training, models learn from which actions succeed. If an AI can exploit a security flaw to get credit for completing a task without actually doing it, training can reinforce the tendency to cheat. Closing those loopholes helps prevent AIs from learning to cheat in the first place. Meanwhile, some of the tools that have emerged from AI safety research—like monitoring AI’s chains of thought—are of use to cybersecurity professionals, Korman acknowledges. 

Much of the evidence that might one day settle disagreements remains controlled by the companies both sides seek to scrutinize. 

In METR’s investigation, cybersecurity practices were outside the scope OpenAI had agreed to. With no legal requirement for OpenAI to share information, the nonprofit had little leverage to push for a broader inquiry. Painter wants legislation establishing standards for independent investigators. “Society shouldn't want to rely on us [...] doing this improvised process of guessing what the public wants,” he says.

The last time you went for a walk, you might have focused on your favorite podcast, a call to your sister, or the number of calories your Apple Watch said you were burning.

Meanwhile, on a walk around her neighborhood, Kim Bernard noticed everything that was yellow: “A manhole cover, a yellow rain jacket, a fire hydrant, the numbers on someone's mailbox,” recalls the Maine-based artist. A “children at play” sign, part of a Pennsylvania license plate, and even a bucket of cat litter became part of the neighborhood’s palette.

Bernard was on a color walk, a simple scavenger hunt organized around intentionally noticing a certain color—and how much of it is hiding in your ordinary surroundings. We asked experts why you should make the activity part of your routine and how it can brighten an otherwise ho-hum day.

Why a color walk can help you tune in

About a year ago, Bridget Campbell, a content creator in Venice, Calif., realized she had become tethered to her phone. Even as she moseyed along the Venice canals, she brainstormed business ideas instead of admiring the colorful homes and flowers along the water. That’s when she decided to do a color walk, a concept she had stumbled upon on social media.

“It was a way to get out of my mind and come back into my body, slow down, and be present,” she says. While an ordinary walk might leave her mind racing toward work, looking for a particular color gave it something else to do, effectively putting all that other mental chatter on mute.

That’s exactly why color walks work so well: They encourage focused attention, says Cheryl Fisher, a licensed clinical professional counselor in Annapolis, Md., and associate professor of clinical counseling at Alliant University. She describes a “skim-scan-scroll world,” where it’s easy to move through your surroundings without really seeing them. Searching for color gives you a reason to look up from your phone and pay attention to what’s in front of you.

It also gives people who don’t consider themselves particularly creative an easy place to start, says Mari Reisberg, a licensed professional counselor and creativity coach in Boulder, Colo. Choosing a color to focus on provides a bit of structure while leaving plenty of room for discovery.

Reisberg still finds surprises on neighborhood sidewalks she’s traveled many times. “Oh my gosh, I’ve never seen that before,” she’ll think. Even on the most familiar routes, “There’s so much joy that shows up,” she says.

Pick a color that makes you curious

There are lots of ways to play color roulette and figure out which shade to hunt for. You could, of course, opt for your favorite color. Fisher collects paint swatches, cuts them up, and tosses them into a basket so people can draw one before heading out. A teacher once shared an even simpler approach with her: Have kids pick a color from their clothing, then look for matches along the way. You can even choose midway through your walk. Campbell sometimes spots an orange flower and decides that’s the color she’ll look for the rest of the way.

How specific you get is up to you. Finding nine fuchsia objects on a 15-minute walk? “It’s pretty difficult,” Bernard says. Reisberg sometimes opts for a particular shade, like midnight blue or sky blue, to give her eyes a more precise target. On other days, green is plenty. “There’s no right or wrong way to do it,” she says.

Take your usual walk—and see what you’ve been missing

Once you’ve settled on a color, head outside and see where it turns up. You don’t need a picturesque trail or a neighborhood full of flower gardens. Campbell encourages people who think their surroundings are too gray to give it a try anyway: Color can pop out in places you’ve passed countless times without a second glance.

When you find a match, resist the urge to mentally check it off and rush toward the next one, Fisher says. Spend a moment looking at what caught your eye. “The real gift is sitting with it and not just finding it,” she says.

You don’t have to keep your discoveries to yourself, either. “You can do it with a friend, you can do it with your mom,” Campbell says. Searching together gives you something new to talk about.

If you want a souvenir, snap photos along the way. Bernard asked participants in a color walk she led to select their nine favorite images and arrange them into a grid. Together, the collections resembled a patchwork quilt of color. You could make your own collage or save a few pictures to revisit when you need inspiration.

Or simply enjoy the walk. “We live in a day and age where everything is content,” Reisberg says. Sometimes she takes photos to share; other times, the discoveries are hers alone. If the whole thing feels a little silly at first, that’s OK, she says. Adults aren’t always used to indulging this kind of curiosity. “Keep giving it a little more space, a little more opportunity to surprise you.”

Albertans voted overwhelmingly to remain in Canada on Monday, but the result may do little to quiet the separatist movement that helped bring the question to the ballot.

Preliminary results early Tuesday showed that roughly 76% of voters rejected beginning the process toward a future binding referendum on separation. While approval would not have authorized Alberta’s independence from Canada, it would have allowed the province to take the next steps in the process of separation.

Even before the vote, most Albertans expected the debate to continue. Polling from the nonprofit Angus Reid Institute, released last week, found that 62% of people in the province think that “there will never be an end to the separatist movement.”

Responding to former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s suggestion that the movement should end if the referendum were to fail, Keith Wilson, one of the most prominent separatist leaders, said at a rally on Oct. 17, “That’s not happening."

“We are going to build on our successes, build on our relationships," he added.

Speaking to TIME before the results came in on Monday, Jared Wesley, a professor of political science at the University of Alberta, said that even if the referendum were to fail, “it seems unlikely that separatism as a political strategy, if not an actual objective, is going anywhere soon.” 

He added that the next provincial general election is next year, so it’s possible that voters could be faced with a similar question on the ballot then.

“The country is very familiar with western alienation and western grievances—that is a very long-standing political phenomenon in Canada,” Andrew McDougall, an associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto Scarborough, tells TIME. “There’s been a long history of regional tensions in Canada where the west feels disaffected from what, historically, has been the larger and, in many ways, sometimes more prosperous central Canada.”

“The idea, though, of having a vote on separatism—that is a little bit new,” he continues.

The Alberta independence campaign got more traction after the Liberal Party, headed by Prime Minister Mark Carney, won the federal election last year, with many Albertans expressing frustration that their views aren’t sufficiently represented by the Liberal government.

That dissatisfaction, driven in large part by the federal government’s energy policies, comes as Canadian leaders are placing particular emphasis on national unity.

Why did Alberta hold this referendum?

Alberta is an oil-rich province; mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction made up about a quarter of the province’s GDP in 2025. But Albertans have expressed dissatisfaction with the level of support the industry has received from Ottawa, criticizing the federal government for blocking pipeline projects, among other industry initiatives.

The feeling among some residents in the province, McDougall says, is “that central Canada is taking advantage of Alberta; that the central government has, at times, through environmental regulations, for example, hindered the development of the oil resources that exist in Alberta.”

He adds that the independence campaign may also have been fueled by Albertans’ dissatisfaction with representation in the federal government. 

Alberta is considered a conservative stronghold, but the Liberal Party has led the country for over a decade. The western province has about 5 million residents, compared to 16 million in Ontario and 9 million in Quebec, which means “it could be difficult sometimes for the West to get representation in the government,” McDougall says.

At the beginning of May, separatists turned in a petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures to push for a vote on leaving Canada, while opponents collected signatures in support of staying. A court ruling on May 13 complicated matters: A judge halted the petition, finding that the province could not advance the discussion without consulting First Nations.

The government instead asked voters whether it should take the steps needed to hold an independence referendum later, leading to this month’s vote. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith supported staying in Canada.

Polling suggests that, for many voters, support for the referendum was not necessarily about wanting to leave Canada—it was a way to underscore dissatisfaction with the federal government. 

The Angus Reid Institute found that 60% of respondents who were in favor of holding a future independence referendum said their motivation was sending a message to Ottawa, compared with 37% who wanted Alberta to take the necessary steps toward secession.

As early results emerged Tuesday, Wilson, the separatist leader, observed: “It’s fair to say that at least a quarter of Albertans feel that Alberta needs to be treated better.”

Carney stressed unity amid tensions with U.S.

Alberta’s independence referendum came as Carney’s government promotes national unity amid a trade war with the U.S.

McDougall says that the issues behind the referendum are "longstanding grievances,” but the fact that it advanced at a time of strong pro-Canada sentiment is “a little out of step with the times.”

The trade dispute escalated after negotiations between the two nations broke down in August. On Sept. 8, Canada responded to new tariffs from the U.S. with matching, retaliatory levies.

Tensions have continued to escalate in recent weeks as Trump repeatedly insists that Canada is ripping off Americans and should join the U.S. He said at a rally in Arizona on Oct. 14 that Canada will “end up being the 51st state, because it’s the only way it works.”

The following day, Carney spoke at a rally in Calgary, emphasizing the importance of Canadian unity amid outside tensions, though he did not explicitly reference Trump’s remarks.

“The stakes are high. This referendum, it comes at the worst possible time. The world has become more dangerous and divided," Carney said. “There are some outside our borders who are working to break us, so they can own us.”

The speech was another effort by the Carney government to promote national unity, just days before the referendum in Alberta. 

The message became especially poignant that weekend when four service members died in a fire at a military base in Alberta. The nation came together to provide resources and support for the province. At a press conference on Sunday, Carney emphasized that “Canadians come together in crisis.”

Wesley says he believes that “the vast majority of Albertans are viewing this referendum through a broader global lens.”

“They know their votes send a message—not just to governments here in Alberta or Ottawa, but to Washington,” Wesley says. “Albertans are overwhelmingly opposed to Trump’s trade war and even more averse to becoming the 51st state. They know that voting to destabilize Canada makes it harder to weather the economic storm and easier to fall into the American orbit.”

“Albertans made a clear choice,” Carney said Tuesday after preliminary results became available. “They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other. Above all, Albertans chose Canada.”

Vice President J.D. Vance on Monday declined to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for re-election, a day after President Donald Trump publicly backed the embattled leader.

“The President has the most effective endorsement in American, or international, political history,” said Vance, when asked in an interview if he would also be extending an endorsement ahead of the election on Oct. 27. “I endorse American candidates and that’s where I'm focused on, is the midterms, so I'm not getting involved in the Israeli elections.”

When pushed for an answer, Vance added: “I'm not anti-endorsing [Netanyahu], I'm not pro-endorsing him.”

Vance’s response stood in stark contrast to Trump's endorsement, as he put his “complete and total” support behind the Israeli leader, while praising his endurance as a “great warrior” Prime Minister. 

Referencing the Iran war, Trump said: “If Israel has the wrong leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi [Netanyahu], America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so.” He went on to say that Netanyahu has been “strong, brave, and brilliant in the face of tremendous opposition, including that coming from even Israel” and “despite all of that, he has endured.”

Many are viewing the Israeli election as a referendum on Netanyahu, who has faced heavy criticism over his handling of the Hamas-led attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. The subsequent Israel-Hamas war has led to a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Netanyahu’s government has also been called to task over the reports of settler violence against Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank.

Read More: How Oct. 7 Changed Israel

Ahead of the elections, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly met with Netanyahu on Monday during an unannounced visit to Israel, Axios said, citing two sources with knowledge. 

The Pentagon declined to comment when contacted. TIME has also reached out to the Israeli embassy and Netanyahu’s office for comment.

Vance, meanwhile, has previously issued warnings to Israel regarding its relationship with the U.S. In June, he chastised members of Bibi’s cabinet who had voiced disapproval over Washington negotiating with Tehran to end the Iran war, which started in February with joint U.S. and Israeli strikes. 

“Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. And he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower,” Vance said as he led a White House press briefing. “If I was in the Cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”

While Vance has said his focus is on American candidates ahead of the U.S. midterms, he has previously campaigned avidly overseas.

Vance’s campaigning for international candidates

Vance traveled to Hungary in April ahead of parliamentary elections as the Trump Administration put its full support behind then-Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who was up for re-election against opposition leader Péter Magyar. (Pro-European conservative Magyar went on to win the election, ending Orbán’s 16-year rule.)

“Together the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Hungary have been able to do amazing things,” Vance told reporters at a press conference in Budapest. “We want to build upon those amazing things. And of course, I want to help as much as I possibly can, the Prime Minister, as he faces this election season.” Vance later delivered remarks at a rally for Orbán.

Vance also notably met with Alice Weidel, co-leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, in February 2025, days before a German election.

During that trip, Vance spoke at the Munich Security Conference and used the platform to voice his concerns about Europe, claiming that free speech across the continent was “in retreat.”

He criticized what is known as the “firewall” approach in Germany—the agreement among other political parties that they will not work with the AfD. “Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There is no room for firewalls,” he said.

President Trump’s complicated relationship with Netanyahu

Trump’s endorsement of Netanyahu comes after the pair have shared an, at times, contentious relationship in recent months.

Asked about possible endorsement last week, Trump told reporters “we haven’t even thought about it,” prompting many to wonder if he may stay silent ahead of the consequential Israeli election. 

Trump and Netanyahu have clashed, particularly over Israel’s war against the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon. 

In June, Trump told reporters that Netanyahu has to be “more responsible with respect to Lebanon,” amid concerns the renewed fighting with Hezbollah could derail the U.S.-Iran peace agreement. (Which later collapsed in light of continued clashes over the Strait of Hormuz.)

“I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and with Hezbollah,” Trump told reporters at the G7 summit in France. “It just goes on forever,” he continued, seemingly referencing the exchanging of strikes between Israeli forces and the Hezbollah militant group. “When that happens, it throws a negative light on the big deal, the deal with Iran.”

Trump said he has an “unbelievable relationship” with Netanyahu, but claimed “Israel would have been blown up a long time ago, had I not gotten involved.”

Days before his public remarks, Trump reportedly called Netanyahu “f-cking crazy” during a fraught phone call after Netanyahu ordered an attack on a Hezbollah stronghold in Beirut in retaliation for alleged attacks on Israel by Hezbollah. 

The legal battle over the Trump Administration’s plans to redevelop a golf course in Washington, D.C., escalated Monday after President Donald Trump said the Department of the Interior’s work would start “immediately”—despite a court order to temporarily halt tree removal.

“The United States Department of Interior wants to take a terrible and very unsafe golf course, and make it into a great, safe, and prestigious golf course. They have an absolute right to do so,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Monday morning. 

Read More: All the Things Trump Has Put His Name and Face on as President

He went on to attack Judge Ana Reyes, who is overseeing the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, saying that she is a “crazed lunatic” and “may be insane.”

About 430 trees had been cleared from the site as of Oct. 13. Reyes said that additional removals must halt while the case, filed by the DC Preservation League and two golfers earlier this year in hopes of stopping the renovation, underwent further review. The suspension is in place through Oct. 26.

On Sunday, Trump announced a plan to close the “old, broken, dilapidated” golf course and said that work would begin Nov. 15. He claimed that a new golf course would open in approximately 15 months. 

The golf course redevelopment is the latest project that Trump has taken on during his second term as he looks to leave his stamp on the nation’s capital. But the precedent of past legal disputes and rising tension between the President and Reyes leave some experts wondering if this project will advance.

Why Trump is clashing with a federal district judge over East Potomac Park

The Trump Administration filed a motion on Oct. 16 looking to disqualify Reyes, accusing her of “conduct [that] continues a pattern of animus against the Trump administration.” 

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. accused Reyes of having “repeatedly belittled and shouted at” a Justice Department lawyer during a heated hearing on Oct. 12 in which Reyes sought to understand who had instructed employees to begin the tree removal process despite her earlier demands for advance notice of significant changes at the site.

Reyes refused to recuse herself, writing in a 13-page opinion filed Sunday that it’s “easy to weaponize selective quotations to bring a baseless recusal motion.”

“But it is much harder to meet the demanding legal standard against a full record,” she continued. 

On Monday, Reyes grilled Trump Administration officials about the government’s plans. She accused officials of failure to communicate with the court amid ongoing proceedings and said they were acting in “bad faith.” 

The Administration, however, claimed the removal had nothing to do with renovating the golf course; it pointed to a 2019 Cultural Landscape Report calling for the removal of dead and hazardous trees in the park.

“There is no universe in which all of this just coincidentally happened at the same time,” she told the lawyers on Monday according to The New York Times. “There just isn’t.”

Why is Trump’s golf course renovation being challenged?

The legal battle began on Feb. 13, when the DC Preservation League and two local golfers sued the Administration over its redevelopment plans for East Potomac Park. They alleged that the government had dumped potentially hazardous debris at the site and begun pursuing the overhaul without legally required reviews of its environmental impact and effects on the park’s historic character.

The golf course is 106 years old, and its miniature golf course, which opened later in 1931, is one of the oldest continually operating miniature golf courses in the United States. It is currently open to guests of all income levels, and some golfers have rebuked Trump’s plans to turn the site into a luxury golf course.

“The finished product will be World Class, and bring income and great prestige back to D.C.,” Trump said in his Truth Social post on Monday, repeating sentiments he has shared since the renovation plan was announced. 

In May, Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy nonprofit representing the plaintiffs challenging the plan, filed an emergency motion asking Reyes to block the Administration from beginning work while the lawsuit was pending. 

At the time, Reyes declined to issue a temporary restraining order on the project, since the golf course remained open and the government had not announced any closures. She told the government’s lawyers that she was giving them the “benefit of the doubt that we’re not gonna be in a situation where we have bulldozers bulldozing down trees and no one has alerted me first.”

The Trump Administration felled over 400 trees at the East Potomac Golf Links on Oct. 10. 

Marissa Piropato, an attorney for the government, said it had given notice in a court filing shortly before 5 p.m. on Oct. 9. 

Reyes called the Trump Administration’s actions “inexcusable.”

“What has happened has cost the government all of its credibility,” Reyes said at the Oct. 12 hearing according to NBC News. 

David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, tells TIME that Reyes had done the Trump Administration a “favor” by not issuing a temporary restraining order in May. 

“Out of respect for the Executive Branch, because the Justice Department told her that no action was planned imminently, she only ordered them to give enough notice for her to decide the legal questions before they did irreplaceable damage,” Super says.

He adds: “I suspect judges in future cases will just enter injunctions, rather than trusting the Administration to keep their word.”

How the lawsuit echoes other Trump projects in D.C.

The golf course renovation is the latest Trump Administration project to land in court. 

According to The New York Times, Trump has undertaken at least 18 renovation projects in the city with the potential to cost over $1.2 billion. That includes plans for a ballroom at the former site of the White House East Wing, restoring and renaming the Kennedy Center, and constructing a towering Triumphal Arch.

The Administration has invoked national security in defending other projects. In the case involving the Triumphal Arch, it said that construction came at the “request” of the U.S. military “for National Security purposes.” The Administration similarly argued that the ballroom at the White House will be part of a military complex that is “vital” to national security.

Peter Byrne, a property and land use expert and a professor at the Georgetown Law Center, tells TIME that he would not rule out the possibility of repeating that strategy with the golf course.

“I'm sure the golf course will be important for national security in some way,” Byrne predicts. He says that judges are reluctant to dismiss outright claims of national security, so it has become a catchall for projects seeking latitude in the courts.

Trump has already said the golf course is “dangerous”—implying that it requires immediate intervention for safety purposes.

In a June Truth Social post, Trump described the course as “dilapidated, worn out, and very dangerous and outdated.” Then, in his Monday morning post, he reiterated that it was a “very unsafe golf course.”

Plaintiffs in the case have expressed concern that the planned renovation will introduce more issues than it would solve.

To bring a case like this in federal court, plaintiffs must show that the proposed renovation has harmed them or poses an imminent threat of concrete harm. They must also show that a favorable court ruling would likely remedy that harm—despite Trump’s claims that they have “ZERO STANDING.”

“In this case, you have all kinds of people who are suffering direct harm in the golf course case, you have golfers, you have bikers, you know, you have people who use the park and won’t be able to use it,” Byrne says. 

Those alleged harms could help distinguish the golf course case from the challenge to the White House ballroom. In August, the Supreme Court allowed construction to continue, finding that the preservation group likely lacked the right to sue based solely on its objections to the ballroom’s appearance.

After Trump’s announcement on Sunday, Democracy Forward said the course is a “national park and golf course for everyone to enjoy.”

“Our litigation is intended to protect this community jewel for the people and communities it serves,” the statement continued, “and we will continue to work with our plaintiffs to defend it from unlawful and harmful intrusion.”

The first time I was introduced to satire, my jaw dropped—and not just because it was the first time I’d ever seen a naked woman.

I was 8 when my older brothers snuck me into a London cinema to see Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Although my underdeveloped brain may not have fully grasped the critique of religion or inter­necine fights among political leftists, I loved the feeling of being surrounded by 300 people screaming with laughter.

Over the next few years, I inhaled an array of comedy greats: Peter Sellers, Peter Cook, and Not the Nine O’Clock News, with its biting commentary on Thatcherite Britain. Then came a personal breakthrough. At the age of 20, I spent six months studying with an intimidating French clown.

The late Philippe Gaulier was one of the all-time great teachers of clown and modern theater. Gaulier kept a drum handy while we were onstage, banging it to cut short a performance he considered “sh-t,” which was often. His goal, and greatest gift to us, was helping his students discover what he called their “inner idiot.”

Gaulier introduced me to the satirical archetype of the bouffon. In his telling, the tradition dated back to 11th century France, where societal outcasts—gay people, heretics, those with deformities—would be let back into their villages once a year to put on shows viciously mocking the ruling class. It was the humor of the dispossessed. Whereas clowns were naive idiots, bouffons savagely undermined the people in power. They were doing something important: using biting and at times cruel humor to undermine systemic injustice.

It’s what satirists have done throughout history. And along the way, some people, instead of laughing, wince—or worse, take offense. The Greek playwright Aristophanes brilliantly lampooned the militarism and demagoguery of his day. Yet because he deployed phallic jokes so obscene they would make even Ali G blush, critics like Plutarch sneered at Aristophanes’ “coarseness ... in words, vulgarity, and ribaldry.” We celebrate the Roman satirist Juvenal, but his contemporaries barely acknowledged him. Nearly two millennia later, Lenny Bruce’s four-letter comedy was branded “sick” in the pages of this magazine in 1959. Note to editors (and to Plutarch): you missed the point.

Yes, satire can offend people other than the intended targets. Like that of my bouffon predecessors, mine definitely has. As someone who has opposed bigotry and injustice throughout my life and partnered with civil rights groups, I don’t recognize myself in the warped portrayals of me that I sometimes see on social media, lumped in with the bigots I lampoon.

I’ve always designed my characters and comedy as vehicles to expose prejudice, bias, and stupidity, though I realize not everyone sees them that way. Ali G is a white imbecile—a delusional cultural appropriator—who steals the fashion and lyrics from his favorite gangsta rap and dancehall idols, from Compton to Kingston. The joke is on him, and on the predominantly white male establishment who take him seriously enough to believe that HBO would hire the stupidest man in the world as an interview host. Like a good bouffon, he undermines that establishment—not the culture he loves and borrows from.

I admit that most of my humor is indeed juvenile. That’s because satire works best not when it preaches, but rather when it lives among the laughter. Then, once you walk out of the theater or switch off the TV, it makes you think.

What makes satirical comedy so effective is what it lays bare. I’ll never forget a fox-­hunting rally I attended the first time I created Borat—which involved me rummaging around in the trunk of my car for two minutes, finding a hat I’d bought in Astrakhan, Russia, and sticking it on my head. “Jagshemash,” I proclaimed, riffing off a Polish greeting.

I asked the English toffs, “In my country we hunt criminals—do you think we should do that here?” Shockingly, even though on camera, they said yes. A light bulb exploded in my 25-year-old brain. Real people believed this ridiculous character—and they would speak to him more freely than in any documentary.

Each of my characters has a specific mechanism to encourage people to drop their guards and show what they really believe, prejudices and all. Borat, an antisemitic journalist, exposes Jew hatred, xeno­phobia, sexism, and casual racism. Erran Morad, a stereotype of a tough-guy Israeli commando—“I’ve been in 14 terror attacks,” he says in my new movie Ali G: Who Iz I?, “and started two”—exposes Islamophobia and the ludicrous things people will do when they’re gripped by an irrational fear of “the other.”

Ali G works on another level. He’s not extreme—he’s just extremely dumb. But his absurd questions lead powerful people to underestimate him and answer in earnest, revealing their own biases.

Other characters highlight the problems facing our society without engaging real people at all. The Dictator’s Admiral General Aladeen—the cartoonish ruler of a fictional Horn of Africa nation and a mash-up of personality-­cult authoritarians from Kim Jong Il to Idi Amin—warned, in 2012, how easily democracies could fall into autocracies.

Regardless of the madness, the method is the same: make the audience laugh as hard and as much as possible, while holding up a mirror to reflect back things that aren’t always comfortable to see or warn of trends we’d rather look away from.

Done well, brutally honest satire can be cuttingly effective. At a time when Hollywood largely avoided anti-Nazi content, Charlie Chaplin—then one of the most famous movie stars in the world—used The Great Dictator to point to the destruction that Nazism would bring. Peter Sellers’ sinister Dr. Strangelove showed the insanity of mutually assured destruction. Abbie Hoffman, who became a hero of mine while I researched my undergraduate thesis on civil rights—and whom I later played in The Trial of the Chicago 7—deployed outrageous stunts to oppose the Vietnam War.

In fact, satire doesn’t just needle politicians or regimes—it occasionally helps bring them down. In Hammer & Tickle, the historian Ben Lewis credits Soviet joke-­telling with helping to topple communism, by making it impossible for even the system’s own enforcers to take it seriously. Volodymyr Zelensky was a Ukrainian comedian who once pretended to play piano with his penis—a stunt Aristophanes would have loved. Yet Zelensky’s TV show parodied the country’s corrupt oligarchy so effectively that, just four years after Servant of the People premiered, he was elected President himself. “Every joke,” George Orwell observed, “is a tiny revolution.”

Of course, comedy has its limits—more satirists in Weimar Germany could not have prevented Nazism. Still, satire—along with a free press, independent institutions, and a robust civil society—does play a role in promoting free societies.

That’s exactly what so many governments seem afraid of. In Nazi Germany, mocking Hitler could be a capital offense. Stalin sent an estimated 200,000 citizens to the gulags for making political gags. In our own time, Chinese censors have scrubbed social media of a meme comparing President Xi Jinping to Winnie the Pooh; one student who shared that and other unflattering posts got six months in prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” Last year in Tehran, the comedian Zeinab Mousavi was sentenced to six months simply for parodying an Iranian epic poem.

Even in democracies, satirists, instead of getting a laugh, sometimes face sanctions. In the U.S., Lenny Bruce and George Carlin were arrested for uttering obscenities. Because of its irreverent treatment of Christianity, Monty Python’s Life of Brian—the very film that introduced me to satire—was banned in half a dozen countries, and even parts of the U.K.

Today, some believe the times have overtaken Orwell’s “tiny revolutions.” In an era when the U.S. President and his ilk seem impervious to shame and ridicule, is satire all but dead?

Absolutely not. In fact, I believe that satire is more important than ever. The Trump Administration’s own actions show why. If ridicule is now irrelevant, why did CBS cancel Stephen Colbert’s show just days after he mocked his parent company for paying Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit? Why did Trump’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission appear to threaten ABC’s broadcast license—leading ABC to briefly suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live!—after Kimmel’s comments about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk?

Even Trump doth protest too much. Asked in 2020 about Borat outing his attorney Rudy Giuliani as a creep, Trump dredged up the time I tried to scam him as Ali G two decades earlier: “That’s a phony guy and I don’t find him funny.”

So why does my new movie bring back that phony and unfunny guy, which some have criticized as “microwaving a relic from a generation ago?”

The fact that Ali G is outdated and problematic is the very reason I resurrected him. The world he’s returned to is, in many ways, worse than the one he left 20 years ago. All the prejudices my characters are designed to expose haven’t just lingered—they’ve metastasized. They’re fueled by the greatest propaganda machine in history—social media—and now by its monstrous child, AI.

Back when I first created Borat, it took a few minutes—or a few drinks—to get people to reveal the racism that often simmered below the surface. Now, those views have gone mainstream—whether it’s fans hurling slurs and abuse at Black players during the World Cup or hundreds of white nationalists marching through Washington, D.C., on July 4.

In 2004, also as Borat, I got a bar full of people to sing “Throw the Jew Down the Well.” Today Jews make up just 2% of the U.S. population, yet are the targets of nearly 70% of religion-­based hate crimes in America. Whatever your politics, the trend is undeniable.

In 2018, disguised as Dr. Nira Cain-N’Degeocello, an ultra-woke developer planning to build a mosque in a small town, I showed people’s hostility to Muslims. One even declared, “I’m racist—towards Muslims.” Now, right-wing U.S. Congressmen readily admit as much.

On my 2018 show Who Is America?, I convinced three men to host a fake quinceañera to trap undocumented immigrants. Now, stoked by far-right agitators and viral social media posts, anti-­immigrant protests and riots have erupted across England and in Belfast. Meanwhile, ICE agents are running amok—terrorizing cities and, yes, detaining people at a quinceañera.

Then there’s the explosion of misogyny. Six years ago, in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, a plastic surgeon cheerfully discussed giving my fictional 15-year-old daughter Tutar breast implants to appeal to important men. In today’s “manosphere,” that’s nothing compared with how Andrew Tate advises his millions of followers to treat women. Nor was overturning Roe v. Wade and a women’s right to control her own body apparently enough. Christian nationalists are now calling for “household voting”—effectively taking the right to vote from many women and giving it to their husbands.

Twenty years ago, Ali G would sit next to world experts spouting absurdities. Today—fed a steady diet of disinformation and conspiracy theories by social media influencers and TikTok news—we have created an entire world where ignorance reigns and truth is inverted.

Thanks to this toxic brew of lies, conspiracies, and hate, right-wing authoritarianism is on the march. Intolerance and extremism have surged on the left as well. Political violence has increased, as has our tolerance for it. In one survey, one-fifth of Americans agreed that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

We are once again entering an age of “virtuous” violence, where any atrocity—by racists, Jew ­haters, or Islamophobes, the right or the left—can be somehow justified. It is not a place any of us should want to live.

Where, then, do we go from here?

In a world where social media and AI hypercharge lies, who decides what’s considered truth? In a culture seemingly obsessed with dividing people by identity, how do we find commonality in our shared human experience?

I made this latest film for the same reason I’ve always done this work. Not only to make people laugh, but also to bring them face-to-face with the danger of fanaticism and conspiracy theories.

I’m not naive. One film won’t stamp out age-old prejudices or stop the extremism that’s fueling the slide from democracy to autocracy and mass violence. But, as satire has done since ancient times, it can help sound the alarm. It can remind people about the very real dangers of ludicrous lies—whether spread by a thin-­skinned authoritarian or an extremist with an online following. With the U.S. midterm elections just weeks away, perhaps it encourages citizens to mobilize against these dangerous falsehoods—at the ballot box and beyond. Maybe it can even help shame more of our governments into finally making our Silicon Valley overlords—unelected billionaires who decide what billions of people see and believe—liable for the lies, conspiracies, and hate on their platforms that have already gotten people killed and will likely kill many more.

Satirists can expose hypocrisy. Bouffons can shed their clothes and show that the emperor has none. But after the credits roll, it’s up to all of us to decide what comes next. If our pluralistic democracies are going to survive, we need to create societies where we stop the hate and tolerate those different from us—no matter who they are, where they come from, whom they love, or how they pray. Because the only way out of this mess is to treat everyone with what Ali G has always preached: Respect.

The protagonist of Phony, a delightfully genre-defying Hulu series best miscategorized as a thriller, is the kind of teenage boy any mother would brag about. Played by Sam Nivola, who’s best known for portraying gentle sons of privilege in The White Lotus and The Perfect Couple, Sonny Cooke is that one kid everyone in school knows and likes. He’s as comfortable with the jocks as he is with the theater set; his friendly, nonjudgmental presence sets his peers at ease. You’d think this would be especially tough to achieve when your mom, Connie Britton’s Ellen, is the principal, but if anything, the proximity of a single parent with whom he shares a fierce bond adds to his ease. “I actually love high school,” he narrates over a montage of happy moments that opens the show. “I know what people need to hear, and people trust me with their sh-t.”

That’s before one anxiously anticipated night upends Sonny’s pleasant life. Driving to his girlfriend Chloe’s (Mahaela Park) house, with plans to have sex for the first time and a blue vibrator in tow as a sort of talisman against performance anxiety, he crashes into an eerie pond. When he awakens in the hospital a week later, banged up but healing, the woman who greets him looks slightly yet decisively different from the mother he knows better than anyone. (Britton’s subtle transformation is rendered, quite effectively, through a combination of makeup and visual effects.) No one else seems to notice the change. They chalk up Sonny’s insistence that this new Ellen is a phony to the lingering effects of his accident. He fights with his skeptical best friend, Vogel (Maliq Johnson), and drifts toward outsiders Mallory (Grace Brennan), a junior-high love interest who’s back in class after years of being homeschooled by evangelical parents, and her geeky cousin, Weldon (Colter Lee), who are bored enough to help investigate.

With its cliffhangers and deceptions, Phony has the bones of a thriller. But since a big part of the mystery is whether Ellen’s new face is the result of a crime, some supernatural occurrence, or truly all in Sonny’s head, it can’t lean on the overused conventions of any particular thriller subgenre. Instead, its comedy-veteran showrunners, creator Nick Paley (Marcel the Shell With Shoes On, Broad City) and Anthony King (The Afterparty, Rooster), give their half-hour series the vibe of a coming-of-age dramedy, albeit a decidedly uncanny one. There’s a lot of humor, often of the awkward-adolescent variety, in the characters, performances, and dialogue. “I decided to go vegan when I found out that cows have best friends,” Chloe rambles to Mallory, in a stiff early interaction. “And then I saw this cow get its head cut off.” A party that spans most of a midseason episode recalls the shambolic outdoor rager in Dazed and Confused, with groups of kids intoxicatedly yapping and clumsily flirting. 

That this atmosphere feels natural—grounding Sonny’s crisis in the real social world of teens’ funny, stressful, horny, mundane, phone-mediated daily lives—rather than painfully quirky, is a testament to the show’s delicate execution. People have idiosyncrasies. Sonny and Chloe call each other Bobo; his mom used to cook him a dish they refer to, without expository intervention, as Chicken Nummers. The school counselor (Kelvin Yu) is a frustrated musician, and his faux-casual attempts to get students to listen to his record are played for laughs, but he’s not just a joke. In fact, Paley and King almost always resist tired tropes. Nothing would be easier than a Chloe-Sonny-Mallory love triangle straight out of every teen drama ever. But that’s not the way these relationships are written. The characters are too specific to disappear into clichés.

Because Hulu provided half of the eight-episode season to critics (and because only a monster would put a spoiler of that level in a review even if they did have access to the information), I don’t know how the mystery of Ellen and her doppelgänger is resolved. While early signs do point to an explanation more compelling than, say, it was all just a dream, I’m pleased to say that, midway through, the possibilities still seem endless. I don’t think I’d be too upset about an anticlimax, anyway. The vividness and humor Phony finds in the school community makes the process of getting to the big reveal a pleasure in itself. As is watching Britton and Nivola, the prototypical TV mom and son, alternately playing into and against their respective types.

Besides, there’s a perceptive story of self-discovery unfurling in the background that may prove to be more important, thematically speaking, than what became of Ellen. Sonny’s conviction that his mom is a fake destabilizes his personality and habits enough to illuminate how he’s been faking it, in a social sense. So eager is he to make others happy that he shifts views depending on who he’s talking to and worries about Chloe having a good first sexual experience to the exclusion of valuing his own. “I don’t even have strong opinions!” he insists. The idea that growing up means developing a self distinct from the person other people want you to be isn’t new to the coming-of-age canon. Yet here it’s approached from an angle, and with a degree of perceptiveness, that I didn’t see coming. In our rigidly genre-bound times, when few shows that call themselves thrillers surprise us in any way, Phony is something genuinely new on TV.

Demonstrations have swept across India in recent weeks, fueled by anger over what protesters say is a politically motivated purge of electoral rolls. 

The protests were sparked by the removal of some 130 million names from the rolls by election authorities, who have defended the process, saying the exercise was intended to weed out ineligible voters. 

But critics of the process, known as the Special Intensive Revision, said it was designed to bolster Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). They have demanded the resignation of the chief election commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar. 

The demonstrations have been met with a heavy-handed response from Indian authorities, who locked down the capital, New Delhi, and detained leaders of the burgeoning Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a youth-led movement that emerged earlier this year. An Indian court on Monday extended the detention of two Cockroach movement leaders, Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das.

The movement proved itself a powerful force in Indian politics this summer when it successfully campaigned for the removal of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who resigned on July 25. 

To discuss the protests and what they mean, TIME spoke with Mukul Kesavan, a historian, novelist, and one of India’s best-known writers. 

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Q: What are these protests actually about? Are they a natural progression from the Cockroach movement’s earlier protests, or something different?

MK: It’s related to the Cockroach movement (CJP) sit-in at Jantar Mantar [a traditional site of protest in the Indian capital] that led to the resignation of the education minister, in that the sit-in created a space for dissent by making Modi’s government back down. But [the Oct. 12 march] was distinct because it was organized by the Congress Party along with other conventional political parties. The CJP had no hand in organizing it, though one of its progressive/left stars, Neha Bora, participated in the march to the Supreme Court. It was also about a distinct issue: the Election Commission’s fiddling with voter rolls. 

Q: Police detained the movement’s leaders before the October 10 rally, then detained two of them again at Jantar Mantar days later. What does that tell you about how the government sees this movement?

MK: There has been a reversal of the government’s attitude towards the CJP. At Jantar Mantar 1.0, the government underestimated the cockroaches, thinking it was a sit-in that would peter out. They were ambushed by the massive turnout of the young on July 20. The lesson the government learned from the police violence that discredited it was that it couldn’t afford to let the cockroaches occupy a space where massed citizens confronted the police for phone cameras to record. We’re seeing a strategy of pre-emptive detention to head off that possibility. 

Q: India’s elections have long been a source of national pride. Has this episode damaged that image, at home or abroad?

MK: India’s elections were a bit iffy until a man called T.N. Seshan became chief election commissioner in the early 1990s. He was an awkward egomaniac who took his office seriously enough to clean up the whole election process. The Election Commission became a three-member body that was more or less impartial till the Modi government passed a law that gave the government the majority in the three-member panel that appoints the election commissioners. Gyanesh Kumar has been grotesquely partisan and the Special Intensive Revision has so obviously tried to shape the electoral roll to favor the BJP that the institution has been publicly discredited. India begins to resemble electoral autocracies elsewhere like Turkey. 

Q: What do these protests tell you about Modi’s position?

MK: It’s the conventional thing to say, but it’s palpable that Modi’s aura of menace and authority has dissipated. The mockery and rudeness of young cockroaches, especially the young women who crowded into Jantar Mantar, did something that solemn ideological opposition had failed to do: it made him seem ridiculous, old and out of touch. I don’t know if the protests tell us anything about his electoral reach: we’ll have to wait for an election to find out. Opposition parties have to find a way of turning this fizz into votes. 

Q: Modi has now been in power for 12 years. What are his real achievements? What will historians credit him with?

MK: Some achievements in infrastructure: road building, airports, etc. The kind of things authoritarians do well. It’s hard to know what the economic growth figures mean in terms of general wellbeing. Geopolitically, his time in office has been a disaster: India is on bad terms with all its neighbors, in denial about China and in the doghouse with Trump. It might be more useful to talk about how he has degraded the republic’s institutions—the press, the courts, the election commission—than his achievements. His greatest "achievement" has been to normalize the rhetoric of Hindu supremacy. 

Q: India has one of the largest young populations in the world, yet the quality of its education and the prospects for its young people are grim. How does the situation compare to other places where young people are protesting? 

MK: With the possible exception of Sri Lanka, all South Asian countries, including the ones that have seen youthful insurrections in recent times like Nepal, Bangladesh and India, have school and university systems that are generally poor, with a few exceptions: elite institutions. This would be bad in itself, but the success of China in improving its educational system at every level makes our failure demoralizing.

President Donald Trump said on Monday he wants to hold a trilateral summit with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in China to discuss “denuclearization.”

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said such a meeting, which would be the first time the three leaders met outside of a larger multi-leader gathering, would be a “very positive thing for the world.” The U.S. President added: “If they’d like to have it, I think it would be held in China.”

The three leaders are expected to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit next month in Shenzhen, the southern Chinese tech hub.

Trump was responding to Putin’s reported proposal for a three-way meeting with Trump and Xi. The Wall Street Journal reported, citing unnamed sources familiar with discussions, that Putin suggested the idea to Trump in an Oct. 9 call, seeking the summit to potentially broker an end to the war Russia started in Ukraine more than four years ago, without having a Ukrainian representative at the table. 

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed to the Journal that discussions of a potential meeting were underway, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also suggested publicly that talks about a meeting were happening.

Trump, however, said that a trilateral summit would focus less on Ukraine: “We would have it to talk about nuclear weapons and denuclearization.”

Since his first presidential term, Trump has mused about scaling back the three countries’ defense spending. In a 2018 social media post, Trump said that he was “certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race.” He’s also made clear a goal to “de-nuke the world.”

A possible summit of the 3 biggest nuclear powers

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), of the estimated 12,187 nuclear warheads in the global inventory as of January 2026, about 9,745 were in military stockpiles for potential use. Of these, Russia has the world’s largest, with the U.S. a close second—together making up 83% of the global stockpile.

China is third with more than 600 nuclear warheads, representing only 6% of the global stockpile, though SIPRI notes Beijing is “expanding its nuclear arsenal faster than any other country.” 

The research institute says Russian and U.S. deployments of new nuclear warheads “are likely to rise in the years ahead,” with Moscow’s increase mainly due to military modernization allowing missiles to carry more warheads. Washington’s increase, on the other hand, “could happen as a result of more warheads being deployed to existing launchers, empty launchers being reactivated and new non-strategic nuclear weapons being added to the arsenal.”

Future nuclear proliferation in the U.S. and Russia is also uncertain after the bilateral Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) expired in February this year. That treaty placed verifiable limits on all Russian and U.S. deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. 

“The whole thing is a shame, because I’d love to denuclearize if possible,” Trump told Newsmax on Oct. 15. 

In the interview, Trump said the U.S. was discussing denuclearization with Russia and China, but he added that Beijing “was probably less inclined.” During his first term, amid negotiations to extend the New START pact, Trump tried—and failed—to bring China into nuclear arms reduction talks. The U.S. is trying to bring China into the fold again, but Beijing has rejected past U.S. efforts, arguing that the U.S. and Russia must first reduce their larger arsenals.

A possible summit on Ukraine, without Ukraine

Putin’s suggestion of a trilateral summit on Ukraine would leave out a key player in the ongoing war: Ukraine, which unsurprisingly rejected the idea.

“A trilateral meeting between the leaders of Ukraine, the U.S., and Russia could help end the war sooner,” Ukraine’s foreign minister Andrii Sybiha posted Monday on X. “A trilateral meeting between the leaders of Russia, China, and the U.S. would do only the opposite: encourage Putin to continue this war.”

Speaking to reporters Monday, Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson, said a final peace deal would obviously involve Ukraine​: “Of course, a final settlement is impossible without the participation of someone in Kyiv who is prepared to take responsibility.”

But the proposal comes as Russia increasingly appears to be in Trump’s favor. Trump unveiled a diesel deal with Russia earlier this month in an attempt to lower fuel prices, and he also stopped implementing scheduled sanctions on Russia—moves that his allies have criticized. Meanwhile, Trump has pushed Kyiv to stop striking Russian refineries, one of its advantages in the war. He’s also blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for rising diesel prices and has called on Ukrainians to replace him.