The world is reacting after President Donald Trump authorized U.S. strikes on three three key Iranian nuclear sites, joining Israel in its conflict with Iran.
“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” Trump said in an address to the nation on Saturday night. “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Iran has since responded with a grave new warning, threatening “everlasting consequences” and calling for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.
As the world awaits to see what Iran’s next step will be, global leaders are reacting to the news of the strikes.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen posted on social media, saying that “the negotiating table is the only place to end this crisis.”
Von der Leyen maintained that “Iran must never acquire the bomb,” and said the Middle Eastern country should now “engage in a credible diplomatic solution.”
Secretary General of the United Nations (U.N.) António Guterres shared a strong statement on social media, stating that he was “gravely alarmed” by the strikes. He called for de-escalation and shared concerns that the conflict could cause a “spiral of chaos.”
“This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge—and a direct threat to international peace and security,” Guterres said. “I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the U.N. Charter and other rules of international law.
He continued by saying there is “no military solution,” and that he believes the only way forward is “diplomacy.”
Argentina’s President Javier Milei, a right-wing ally of Trump’s in Latin America, has yet to comment specifically on the U.S. strikes, but he re-posted a message in the early hours of the morning on June 22.
“Today is a great day for Western civilization,” read the post, authored by Argentine billionaire and businessman Marcos Galperin.
The Australian government, led by Anthony Albanese, has called for de-escalation but its statement, issued by a spokesperson, did not reveal much of whether or not the government supported the U.S. strikes.
“We note the U.S. President’s statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy.”
Chilean President Gabriel Boric condemned the U.S. strikes, calling them a violation of international law. He went on to “demand peace”
“We will defend respect for international humanitarian law at all times,” he said. “Having power does not authorize you to use it in violation of the rules we have established as humanity. Even if you are the United States.”
China “strongly condemns” the U.S. strikes, according to state media.
“The actions of the United States seriously violated the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter and international law, and have exacerbated tensions in the Middle East,” a spokesperson said. “China calls on the parties to the conflict, Israel in particular, to reach a ceasefire as soon as possible, ensure the safety of civilians, and start dialogue and negotiation.”
The French government released a statement clarifying that France was not involved in the attacks.
The European country reiterated “its firm opposition to Iran gaining access to nuclear weapons,” but also urged both parties to “to exercise restraint.”
“France is convinced that a lasting solution to this issue requires a negotiated solution within the framework of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation. We remain ready to contribute to this in conjunction with our partners,” the statement read.
During Trump’s address to the U.S., he thanked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stating that the two of them worked as a team on the Iran strikes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin praised President Trump for conducting the strikes in a video address.
“President Trump and I often say peace through strength. First comes strength, then comes peace,” he said. “And tonight President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength.”
Israeli President Isaac Herzog also thanked Trump, calling the evening a “decisive moment between the axis of terror and evil and the axis of hope.”
“This brave step serves the security and safety of the entire free world. I hope it will lead to a better future for the Middle East—and help advance the urgent release of our hostages held in captivity in Gaza,” he said.
Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi accused the U.S. of breaching international law and warned that the strikes will have “everlasting consequences.”
“The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations,” Araghchi said.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry shared a statement on Telegram condemning the airstrikes and calling them “a dangerous escalation… fraught with further undermining of regional and global security.”
The governmental body called the strikes “a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions” and called for an “end to aggression and for increased efforts to create conditions for returning the situation to a political and diplomatic track.”
According to the Saudi Press Agency, the country has expressed “deep concern” over the U.S. strikes and see them as a “violation” of the sovereignty of Iran.
“[The Kingdom] underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,” read a statement attributed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. “The Kingdom also calls upon the international community to intensify its efforts during this highly sensitive period to reach a political resolution that would bring an end to the crisis and open a new chapter for achieving security and stability in the region.”
Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said that he is mourning the civilian lives lost amid the conflict. He highlighted an “urgent need for restraint and de-escalation, for diplomacy and dialogue.”
“Iran must never have access to nuclear weapons, but stability in the region can only be achieved at the negotiating table, with full respect for international law,” Sánchez said. “We need a diplomatic solution that establishes a comprehensive framework of peace and security for all.”
Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for Iran to “return to the negotiating table” after the U.S. strikes and referred to Iran’s nuclear programme as a “grave threat to international security.”
“The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis,” Starmer said.
President Donald Trump hosted players from the Juventus soccer team at the White House on Wednesday, asking their opinions on transgender women in sports and discussing the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.
The meeting came ahead of the Italian club’s first match of the Club World Cup against Emirati team Al-Ain, which they ultimately won 5-0. The tournament is taking place across the United States, with the final being played at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey on July 13.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]While talking to reporters about the issue of trans athletes, Trump turned to the players, asking, “Could a woman make your team, fellas?” In response, Juventus teammates, including American players Timothy Weah and Weston McKennie, awkwardly smiled and shrugged without giving an answer.
The President then turned to the club’s general manager Damien Comolli, asking the same question. In response, Comolli said, “We have a very good women’s team.” The team won the latest Italian league championship.
In February, Trump signed an Executive Order banning transgender athletes from playing in women’s sports.
Weah spoke about the interaction afterwards, saying he was caught by surprise over the “weird” moment. “I was kind of like, I just want to play football … They just told us that we have to go, and I had no choice but to go. So I guess it was a cool experience, obviously being in the White House as a first time… But I’m not one for the politics, so it wasn’t that exciting,” he said.
The U.S. forward mentioned Trump’s comments on the conflict between Israel and Iran, which also took place during the visit.
The President also spoke to reporters about his feud with Tucker Carlson and their latest disagreements about the conflict. With Juventus players behind him, Trump said: “I asked Tucker, ‘Are you OK with nuclear weapons being in the hands of Iran?’ and he sort of didn’t like that.
“Maybe it [the conflict] will end very quickly, but there’s no way that you can allow, whether you fight or not, you can allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon because the entire world will blow up,” Trump continued.
Juventus News Live, a fan-operated site for updates on the team, reacted to the meeting, writing on social media: “Juventus squad in the background as Trump answers questions on Iran….. what a time to be alive.”
Trump has been regularly involved with engagements regarding the Club World Cup. In March, the President unveiled the tournament’s new trophy alongside FIFA President Gianni Infantino. Trump also announced a special task force for the 2026 World Cup, which will be hosted by the United States alongside Mexico and Canada.
Since then, the trophy has been on display a number of times during press conferences and gatherings in the Oval Office, including on Elon Musk’s last day working in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
There’s a sturdy formula at work in Joseph Kosinki’s hugely entertaining F1 The Movie, and it has nothing to do with the intricate Formula One racing regulations. The idea of the aging athlete, thief, or cowboy who has one last fill-in-the-blank left in him is at least as old as Sam Peckinpah’s magnificently bloody—and deeply moving—1969 western The Wild Bunch, and probably older. You can argue that there’s a double standard at work here: aging actresses usually get the far less glamorous, and far less proactive, fading starlet roles. Even so, there’s something touching about a storyline that involves an aging guy making one final, desperate grab for that big bank job, that high-stakes bounty, that shiny, emblematic trophy. Their egos are just as big as ever, but their bodies are failing them in ways they never could have imagined at age 20. These types of roles are great consolation prizes for male actors as they age out of straightforward leading-man roles; sometimes they represent an actor’s best work.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]To paraphrase an old and outlandishly sexist women’s hair-color advertising slogan, Brad Pitt isn’t getting older; he’s getting better. In F1, he plays a scruffy, aging driver who trundles from town to town in a van kitted out with life’s essentials—a bunk, a small bookcase, a pull-up bar—answering the call whenever anyone needs some random Joe to man a fast car. This is no way to make a living. As we watch him prepare for the movie’s first race, a small-town affair where his takeaway amounts to just $5,000, he’s a crazy wildflower bouquet of jangled nerves: he does a few desperate last-minute pull-ups, dunks his face in a tiny basin of ice water, and superstitiously slips a playing card into the pocket of his jumpsuit. Then he jumps into a car’s cockpit, and wins. Pitt’s character is Sonny Hayes, a perfect movie name for an almost-has-been if ever there were one. He takes his tiny check and drives off into the sunset—or, rather, to the laundromat, where an old friend and colleague, Javier Bardem’s Ruben Cervantes, locates him after having searched for him for ages. Ruben tries to tempt Sonny into one last…well, you know.
Read more: How F1 Went Hollywood
It turns out that Sonny was a racing phenomenon of the ’90s, a surefire champion, before flaming out in a crash that nearly killed him. In the years since, he’s just been a cool—yet stressed-out—guy tootling around anonymously from race to race. Sonny’s old racing teammate Ruben is now the owner of a failing F1 racing team, APXGP—Apex for short—and though Sonny at first resists his friend’s entreaties, he eventually succumbs, showing up for training in London wearing a rumpled shirt, with uncombed hair and a bag slung over his shoulder. In other words, he’s cooler than anyone—even if, under the surface, he’s also intensely stressed out. His future teammate, the rarin’-to-go hotshot Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris), is unimpressed by gramps. He later tells his mother this new guy he’s being forced to work with is “really old, like 80.”
These two are quite obviously going to clash, perhaps too many times. Kosinski recently directed another older-guy-gets-a-second-chance movie, 2022’s Top Gun: Maverick, and the script he’s working from here—which he cowrote with Ehren Kruger—keeps oldster Sonny and young punk Joshua sparring maybe a little too long. But all the intergenerational drama is really just an excuse for lots of fabulous driving. As an individual who has not been behind the wheel of a car since passing my driver’s test in 1986, I somehow adore racing movies. At one point during F1, as I watched Sonny navigate the twists and turns of a track the way a violinist sails through a tricky movement, I scrawled in my notebook, “It must feel like flying.” The metaphor is so stupidly obvious that it eventually becomes an F1 plot point, but no matter. The F1 Grands Prix races take place in glamorous locales around the world—Abu Dhabi, Monza, Las Vegas—and the organization allowed Kosinski and his cast and crew to film during the actual events, though only during downtime. That’s part of what makes F1 feel so vital, and so fun. Idris and Pitt do their own driving as well, hitting speeds of up to 180 m.p.h. (Pro drivers can go as fast as 220 m.p.h.) If they make race-car driving look incredibly cool and awesome, they also capture how emotionally stressful it must be. The crashes depicted in the movie are unnervingly realistic, multisensory symphonies of screeching tires and seemingly unquenchable flames. No wonder Pitt’s Sonny has so many superstitious rituals.
Read more: The 37 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2025
F1 is a Jerry Bruckheimer production, with all the attendant glossy, noisy earmarks. (Though Bruckheimer is best known for producing action films like Con Air, Armageddon, and both Top Gun movies, it’s worth noting that his oeuvre also includes pictures like Paul Schrader’s Cat People, the political drama Veronica Guerin, and the soap-opera spoof Young Doctors in Love.) It also benefits from the involvement of people who know what they’re doing: F1 racing champ Lewis Hamilton was an adviser and producer, and he also makes a cameo. There’s also a fine array of actors here: Idris makes a fine cocky young upstart. As the first F1 woman tech director (sadly fictional), Kerry Condon is spikily charming. (She rides a bike to work—the team’s training HQ is in the English countryside—explaining, “My job is wind, so it helps to feel it.”)
But really, Pitt is the guy. His face has weatherbeaten savoir-faire; it’s a map of mistakes and regrets. F1 also does not skimp on the mystique of racers’ gear-and-stuff: the flameproof zip-up jumpsuits, the soft, flat-soled driving booties, the giant helmets that make their bodies look tiny, wiry, and sexy in comparison, Daft Punk-style. Racecar driving is alluring and glamorous, but Pitt’s Sonny shows us another side, too: how a dream can come close to sapping the life out of you. You really need him to win that one last race. How many times have we seen this storytelling convention, and why don’t we get sick of it? It all boils down to the actor, and how good he is at vibing with universal aging-guy feelings, including the realization that your grandest achievements may be behind you. Brad Pitt, at 61, has finally aged into roles like these. And sometimes, as F1 proves, they’re the best thing that can happen to a guy.
The Trump Organization has announced the launch of a new “all-American” cellular service that will carry the President’s name.
Dubbed “Trump Mobile,” the mobile phone company will provide 5G service through all three major cellular carriers without the need for a contract or credit check, according to a Monday press release.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]The licensing deal was announced by President Donald Trump’s sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the latter of whom oversees the Trump family real estate, golf course, and luxury hotel properties as leader of the Trump Organization.
The Trump Organization and other family business ventures, including Trump’s social media platform Truth Social, have been the subject of ethics concerns during his Administrations. Multiple lawsuits have challenged Trump’s continued business ties under the Constitution’s emoluments clauses, which bar the President from receiving certain gifts or payments while in office. Courts had rarely weighed cases involving the clauses prior to Trump’s presidency, however, and the lawsuits against him have been dismissed on procedural grounds.
Here’s what to know about the new phone service.
The press release describes Trump Mobile as a “transformational, new cellular service” and “next-generation wireless provider.” A smartphone and phone plan that will be offered by the company beginning later this year were unveiled in the announcement.
The company is based in the U.S. and its products will be manufactured within the country, according to Donald Trump Jr.
Despite the name of the new cellular company and its association with the President’s family, the Trump Organization will not be directly involved in making Trump Mobile’s products or providing the phone service to customers. Instead, the company is using Trump’s name under a licensing deal.
“Trump Mobile, its products and services are not designed, developed, manufactured, distributed or sold by The Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals,” the press release says. “T1 Mobile LLC uses the ‘Trump’ name and trademark pursuant to the terms of a limited license agreement which may be terminated or revoked according to its terms.”
Trump Mobile will offer an “entire package of products,” Trump Jr. said during the Monday announcement of the company.
Subscribers to the company’s flagship “The 47 plan” will receive access to a number of services, including unlimited talk, text, and data, and access to 24/7 roadside assistance through a collaboration with Drive America Motor Club, according to the Trump Mobile website.
The company also says it offers telehealth services through a third-party partnership with Doctegrity. Doctegrity costs a minimum of $29/month. It is not clear whether that cost will be covered for Trump Mobile subscribers. Trump Mobile did not immediately respond to TIME’s request for comment.
Customers will also have free international calling to more than 100 countries, according to the press release. The Trump Mobile website, however, shows that free calls to other countries are time limited.
A “T1 Phone,” which will be gold and is “proudly designed and built in the United States,” is currently available for pre-order. The phone will be available come September, per the Trump Mobile website. Customers can also subscribe to “Trump Mobile” with their current mobile device, as the company offers to send a new SIM card to customers.
Trump Mobile’s “The 47 Plan” will cost $47.45 per month, a price tag that references Trump being the 45th and 47th President of the United States.
The T1 Phone costs $499 and can be pre-ordered with a $100 down payment.
Meta’s $14.3 billion investment in Scale AI, the leading player in the AI data industry, was a very strange deal indeed.
Meta acquired 49% of the company in the deal announced last Thursday. Scale announced that its CEO, Alexandr Wang, would quit to become an executive in charge of a new “Superintelligence” unit inside the tech giant. (The deal has yet to receive regulatory approval.)
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]The deal was good news for Meta, which was widely seen as falling behind in the AI race and in need of new AI leadership, and for Wang, who at 28 will become one of the most powerful AI players in the tech industry as part of the deal.
But the deal was less obviously beneficial for Scale itself, which is likely to lose lucrative business as a result of its new proximity to Meta. OpenAI and Google, two of Scale’s major clients and Meta’s major rivals, reportedly began winding down their work with Scale in the wake of the deal.
“The labs don’t want the other labs to figure out what data they’re using to make their models better,” says Garrett Lord, the CEO of Handshake, a Scale competitor, who says that demand for his company’s services “tripled overnight” in the wake of the Meta deal. “If you’re General Motors or Toyota, you don’t want your competitors coming into your manufacturing plant and seeing how you run your processes.”
Other Scale competitors say they have seen a similar flurry of dealmaking. “The last week has been completely insane,” says Jonathan Siddharth, CEO of Turing, a business that helps all the major AI companies connect with human experts to create proprietary training data. In the past two weeks, Turing has added potential contracts worth $50 million, Siddharth says, “as frontier labs recognize that advancing AGI requires truly neutral partners.”
“This is the equivalent of an oil pipeline exploding between Russia and Europe,” says Ryan Kolln, the CEO of Appen, another AI training data company, describing the disruption to the industry’s data supply chain. “Customers are really quickly evaluating: how do they get alternative supply?”
Kolln adds: “Now, with Meta being such a large owner of Scale, the ability for [Meta] to get information around what the other foundation model labs are doing becomes a lot more challenging to manage.”
Multiple Scale employees have signed contracts to move to two rival data firms in the last week, according to people with direct knowledge of hiring processes.
A Scale AI spokesperson had no comment, but pointed TIME toward a report that quoted OpenAI’s chief finance officer saying that OpenAI would continue to work with Scale following the Meta investment. OpenAI and Google spokespeople declined to comment, but each pointed TIME to reports that said they were winding down their work with Scale. Meta and Anthropic did not respond to requests for comment. (TIME has a technology partnership with Scale AI.)
The amount of money that could ultimately change hands as a result of the Meta deal is immense. Each of the leading AI companies now spends around $1 billion on human data per year, according to Lord — and their data budgets are increasing, not decreasing. As Scale’s competitors jostle to fill the void left by Meta’s dealmaking, the corporate drama points to a fundamental reshaping of how the world’s most valuable AI models get built.
Scale got its start as a data labeling company, marshaling armies of human contractors around the world — mostly in low-income nations like India, Venezuela and the Philippines — who would earn pennies per task to do things like labeling images or answering simple questions.
This type of work was useful in the early stages of AI development, when AI companies were still struggling to teach image models to tell the difference between cats and dogs, or teach language models to string together coherent sentences.
But as AI models have improved, the type of data that AI companies are seeking has changed radically. This shift became even more pronounced after the industry shifted toward so-called “reasoning” models: AIs that write down a train of thought before settling on an answer. These models are now better than most humans at writing code, carrying out research, and answering complex science questions.
This “reasoning” paradigm led the likes of OpenAI, Google and Anthropic to predominantly seek expert data. The most lucrative training data is now written by people with PhDs, who write down the exact steps they take while solving problems, so that AI models can learn to mimic this behavior.
“The industry is shifting towards needing smarter and smarter humans,” says Siddharth, the Turing CEO. “For some areas, even a single expert human is not enough to move the needle. You need a team of expert humans.”
What exactly each AI company asks its expert humans to do is a closely-guarded secret. All AI labs tend to converge around the same strategies over time, insiders say, but the longer each lab can keep its training processes secret, the more time they can spend at the “frontier” of the industry, with their AI model performing better than their rivals’.
That’s why Meta’s big investment in Scale seems to have unnerved all the frontier AI companies. Meta may currently be behind in the AI race — but if it can access some of its rivals’ most precious secrets, there’s a chance it could begin to rapidly close the gap.
In 28 Years Later, the zombies are evolving. Scratch that—the infected are evolving. It may seem like an insignificant distinction, but the word choice has long meant something to director Danny Boyle, who has returned to helm the highly-anticipated third film in the post-apocalyptic horror franchise, nearly a quarter century after unleashing his innovative outbreak thriller 28 Days Later.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]“We had this thing about, ‘No, they’re not zombies. They’re infected,’” he says. “We wanted them to behave in a different way physically, but they also weren’t undead. They could die and they will die, but so will you if they catch you.”
Proper terminology notwithstanding, 28 Days Later became a big old zombie success story anyway. After hitting theaters in the U.K. in November 2002 then making its way across the pond the following June, Boyle’s culture-shifting collaboration with screenwriter Alex Garland caught on like a contagion, earning more than $80 million worldwide against a reported budget of $8 million. Boyle’s second movie based on a Garland novel or screenplay—following 2000’s The Beach—28 Days follows Cillian Murphy’s bike courier Jim, who wakes up from a coma in an abandoned London hospital to find the so-called Rage Virus has devastated the U.K. The result of human experimentation on chimps gone wrong, it has left hordes of shockingly fast, uncontrollably aggressive, and rabidly bloodthirsty infected in its wake.
Now, over two decades later, 28 Years Later breathes new life into the franchise’s infection allegory in a world that is still recovering from a years-long global pandemic. The original film may have been a smash in part due to its propulsive new take on a genre, but its appeal was never just its thrills and chills. The story remains a cautionary political tale about the ways in which people, when failed by institutions, resort to violence against one another.
28 Days Later reinvigorated zombies for the modern era by reimagining how the undead, or infected, were allowed to move. Gone were the slow, shambling monsters that George A. Romero’s 1968 classic The Night of the Living Dead had established as the zombie status quo. Here instead were a new brand of barbaric creatures that could take chase at a terrifyingly relentless clip. “It made a lot of sense that they would be much scarier if they could move at enormous speed,” Boyle says. “But, at the time, that was quite a radical change.”
Boyle shot 28 Days’ deserted London scenes in July 2001, just a little over a month before 9/11, and says the circumstances surrounding its release changed the nature of the movie entirely. “It was the first film that came out after that was really about citywide terror and the idea that these cities, which seem so incredibly permanent and magnificent and omnipotent, could be changed just like that,” he says. “They could be robbed of the reason they have to be there, which is the people. Cities without people in them make no sense. So that’s part of the reason we resisted the word ‘zombie,’ because it allowed us to create our own identity.”
What followed was a decade-plus boom of, sorry, zombie-related media that capitalized on the public’s renewed interest in the horror subgenre. This period saw the release of horror hits like 2004’s Dawn of the Dead, 2007’s 28 Weeks Later (a sequel directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo on which Boyle and Garland served as executive producers), and 2013’s World War Z. It also gave rise to beloved parody films like 2004’s Shaun of the Dead and 2009’s Zombieland. And it led to the trend successfully spreading to other mediums, as evidenced by 11 seasons of The Walking Dead TV series and video games like Call of Duty: Black Ops and The Last of Us (which also went the infected route).
With 28 Years Later, in theaters June 20, Boyle returns to the scene of the outbreak nearly three decades after the Rage Virus first ravaged society. The new movie follows 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams) as he leaves the safety of the secluded Holy Island community—a section of land connected to the U.K. mainland solely by a tidal causeway—to explore what lies beyond the only home he’s ever known. Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Jodie Comer star as Spike’s parents, Jamie and Isla, while Ralph Fiennes plays Dr. Kelson, a mysterious survivor Spike encounters on his travels. Early on in the film, which was also written by Garland, we learn the infection was ultimately contained to the U.K., after it was quarantined and left to its own devices as the rest of the world moved on.
“We wanted to do something that forced us to look at our own land rather than having the virus become an international contagion, as was hinted at by 28 Weeks Later,” Boyle says. “So we said, let’s just make it based in the U.K. and, like in the first film, all the characters are British and they’ve all got to solve these problems themselves. There’s no external force that’s going to come in and save them.”
This narrative was partially inspired by Brexit, the U.K.’s 2020 withdrawal from the European Union, which Boyle refers to as the country “looking backwards.” But the film’s focus on the ways in which civilization would rebuild itself after an apocalyptic event was also greatly informed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
“When COVID first happened, we wore gloves, we disinfected groceries,” he says. “But gradually over time, you start taking more risks. You don’t stay in that super alert stage. You evolve. And so it is in 28 Years. They begin to take risks. Jamie takes his 12-year-old son to the mainland even though, as the mom says, that’s f-cking crazy.”
The specter of COVID-19 also played a role in how the film depicts its characters paying tribute to those who were lost to the Rage Virus, particularly in a stunning physical monument best left to discover while watching the movie. “That act of dignity humanizes us,” Boyle says. “They’re dead. They’re gone. But you remember them and you honor them.”
Isla’s concerns about Spike venturing away from home are justified. The infected are still everywhere, surviving after the virus acted like a steroid on certain individuals, resulting in a larger and stronger breed known as Alphas. “The virus is alive, so it will mutate,” Boyle says. “Because it expends so much energy in people, it has found hosts who have learned to hunt in order to feed that energy. And when you hunt, you organize. So they’ve begun to hunt in packs with Alphas as their leaders.”
Those types of primal instincts build on the infected archetype Garland and Boyle created: A far cry from mindless zombies limping along in search of brains, they’re an altogether more terrifying threat to Spike and the rest of his community.
28 Years Later may appear to be arriving on the tail end of the zombie fad. But the appetite for this particular property seems undiminished. In December, the official 28 Years trailer earned the second most views in the first 24 hours after its release of any horror movie trailer ever, behind only the trailer for 2019’s It Chapter Two. Following record ticket presales, it’s also tracking for a franchise-best opening weekend of $34 million at the domestic box office.
Its appeal is bolstered by the fact that, in the 23 years since 28 Days Later, Boyle hasn’t made anything remotely resembling a zombie movie. In the wake of 2004’s Millions, his dramedy follow-up to 28 Days, Boyle went on to direct such major award contenders as 2008’s Slumdog Millionaire (which took home the Oscar for Best Picture), 2010’s 127 Hours, and 2015’s Steve Jobs. To some, it may seem like there’s no thematic throughline to Boyle’s body of work. But the filmmaker says he was once persuasively informed otherwise.
“I was absolutely convinced that every film I made was completely different,” he says. “Then I met this French journalist who told me, ‘All your films are exactly the same. You have a protagonist, they’re almost always male, and they face insurmountable odds before overcoming them.’ And that’s true.”
This time, the journey to overcome those odds will take three movies, beginning with 28 Years Later. After waiting so long to deliver a follow-up to their original offering, Boyle and Garland decided the rest of the story deserved to be told over the course of a trilogy. “This idea came up of three films that are complete and satisfying in their own right, but are linked,” Boyle says. “There’s a character arc that runs throughout.”
While Garland is writing all three scripts, Nia DaCosta (Candyman, The Marvels) was tapped to direct the second installment, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, a decision Boyle says was intended to “break up the boys club.” The Bone Temple was filmed back-to-back with its predecessor and is slated to hit theaters in January 2026. Boyle will then return to the director’s seat for the third film, which he hints will be “a bigger story about redemption” centered on Murphy’s Jim, bringing the series full circle.
Three movies into this saga, with two still to come, does Boyle ultimately care how people classify his horror magnum opus? “You can call it whatever you like,” he says. “I just hope you enjoy it, and you feel it deserves to be there.”
This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
For years, Doug Pagitt has been sounding the alarm to fellow Democrats about a perceived hostility toward voters of faith within the party, flagging a fetishing of secularism that is reshaping the electoral map to their detriment. Now, he’s sending around the receipts to prove his point.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Pagitt is a progressive pastor and the executive director of Vote Common Good, which focuses on mobilizing voters of faith. Recently, he commissioned one of the largest polls of Christian voters ever to quantify the mood of the nation’s largest voting bloc. (Change Research, which counts major labor unions as clients and veterans of both Bill and Hillary Clinton as top hands, crunched the numbers last month. It runs with a standard margin of error of under 3 percentage points.) The results from more than 1,700 self-identified Christians—including Catholics and Mormons—offer plenty of reasons for Democrats still digging out from last year’s electoral thumping to question some of their foundational assumptions about the voters they are struggling to win over.
A shocking 75% of these Christian voters say that they have little or no trust in the Democratic Party, according to the data shared first with TIME. (By contrast, Republicans just about break even on that question.) A stunning 70% of these voters have little to no confidence in the federal government. And 61% of these voters think life in America is harder today for people of faith than it was 10 years ago.
Taken as a whole, this dataset on 60 specific questions should set off flares for Democrats, who lost this group by a two-to-one margin in last year’s presidential contest.
“You can’t be the majority party if you ignore the majority faith in this country,” Pagitt tells me. “We know there’s this tension in the party.”
Democrats have long struggled to make a space for faith within the party, or overcome a sense—especially in the consultant class and very-online activist set—that any embrace of religion is a threat to the party’s brand of inclusivity. For millions of voters who hold their faith as a core piece of identity, this has created a political stumbling block.
“Republicans have made a concerted effort,” Pagitt says. “Democrats have done everything they can never to name that identity. They have a built-in bias against these identities in the Democratic Party.”
Read more: Inside the Democrats’ Reboot
The polls are definitely trending away from Democrats on this question. In 2016, a full 75% of voters fell into the broad definition of Christian voters, according to exit polls. Trump carried the 27% of voters who identified as Protestants by a 59-36 margin and won the 23% of Catholic voters by a 50-46 split, while winning the 24% who called themselves “Other Christian” by a 54-43 margin. In 2020, these voters accounted for 68% of the electorate, with Joe Biden—the nation’s second-ever Catholic President—winning Catholics by a 52-47 split. Among other Christians, though, Donald Trump dominated with a 60-39 division, according to exit polls.
And last year, with Christians accounting for 64% of the electorate Trump dominated Kamala Harris: he carried the 21% of the electorate that identifies as Catholics by a 59-39 margin, and the 43% of the electorate that identifies as generically Christian by a 63-36 margin, according to exit polls.
To put all that in context, recall that Black voters are the most reliable members of the Democratic coalition and the Black Church is the only reason these numbers aren’t even worse.
While it is clear that the share of the electorate formally aligning with organized faith is shrinking, Pagitt smartly notes that membership with a local house of worship is not a prerequisite to being counted as a voter of faith. For a lot of Americans who have perhaps cut ties with local churches, that piece of their identity remains surprisingly durable. It’s why the imprint of faith traditions last longer than any church directory.
Grievance is certainly part of this puzzle. Pagitt’s survey finds a full 50% of Christians say religion is losing influence in American life. And 60% of these Christian voters say they reliably back Republicans; 62% say they would never consider voting for a Democrat.
Both the Democratic Party and its voters are seen as unfriendly toward Christianity. In Pagitt’s survey, 58% of Christians see the Democratic Party as hostile to Christianity and 54% see the same traits among Democratic voters. By contrast, the same voters say the Republican Party is friendly to the tune of 70% and say the same about GOP voters at the rate of 72%.
Read more: Here’s Who’s Vying to Lead Democrats Against Trump
Pagitt is clear-eyed about what is possible given how much partisanship is baked into all this and how tough it is for brands to reboot. He’s been working with candidates since Vote Common Good launched in 2018 to help progressive efforts connect with faith traditions and constantly has to face reluctance to tell their personal stories.
But in training sessions regardless of locality, Pagitt boils down his message on faith outreach to six very simple words: “I like you” and “we need you.” Once that respect is signaled to voters of faith, Pagitt says, a conversation on substance is a whole lot easier. Still, it’s not like Democrats are going to turn around trends in this super-majority voting bloc easily.
“They squandered it,” Pagitt says of the Democrats. “They just walked away.”
In turn, so too did Christian votes walk away from Democrats.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.
The search for Vance Luther Boelter, the FBI-wanted man who is suspected of shooting two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses at their residences in the early hours of Saturday morning, has entered its second day.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reports that Boelter was last seen on Saturday morning in Minneapolis, after the shootings, wearing a light-colored cowboy hat, a dark long-sleeve shirt, and light pants while carrying a dark cross-body bag.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were killed in an attack at their residence in Brooklyn Park in the early hours of Saturday morning. A short while before, state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, had been targeted at their home in nearby Champlin. They were shot multiple times, but survived the attack. They have since received surgeries and are recovering in hospital.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz referred to the attacks of the Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses as acts of “targeted political violence.”
Per the FBI, the suspect was impersonating a police officer when he carried out the assaults. Additional reports suggest he may have been wearing a realistic-looking latex mask.
“We would ask the public, if you do locate [Boelter], to call 911. Do not approach him. You should consider him armed and dangerous,” superintendent Drew Evans said in a press conference on Saturday evening.
The FBI has placed Boelter on its Most Wanted List, attaching a reward of up to $50,000 for information leading to his arrest and conviction.
When officers searched a fake police vehicle, believed to have been used by the suspect, on site near Hortman’s residence, they found a “manifesto,” which named a number of local lawmakers and organizations (including Hoffman and Hortman). This has led to fears the suspect may have additional targets in mind.
Read More: FBI Offers $50k Reward in Hunt for Man Suspected of Killing Minnesota Lawmaker and Her Husband
Here is what we know about Boelter as the manhunt continues.
The FBI has released biographical information to aid in the manhunt for Boelter.
Boelter was born on July 23, 1967, making him 57 years old. He’s described as having gray hair and brown eyes. He stands at 6 ft. 1 in. and weighs about 220 lb.
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat and friend of Hortman, has said the authorities believe that Boelter is still in the “vicinity” of the Midwest.
“He may be [in Minnesota]. They’ve also put an alert out in South Dakota,” Klobuchar said on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “When I [say] vicinity, I mean in the Midwest.”
Authorities have said that border patrol, TSA, and other transportation authorities remain on high alert about Boelter, in case he attempts to flee.
Boelter and Hoffman worked together in some capacity on the Governor’s Workforce Development Board. In a press conference, superintendent Evans was asked about the nature of the relationship between Boelter and Hoffman.
“There’s certainly some overlap with some public meetings with Sen. Hoffman and the individual, but we don’t know the nature of the relationship or if they actually knew each other,” Evans said.
It’s unclear if the suspect had previously crossed paths with state Rep. Hortman or her husband.
When officers arrived on the scene at Hortman’s residence, they spotted a fake police vehicle. When law enforcement eventually searched the SUV, they found a “manifesto” marked with 70 names of lawmakers and organizations. Hoffman and Hortman were named.
The list reportedly included several different lawmakers across Minnesota, the Midwest, and the Capitol, as well as locations for Planned Parenthood.
Superintendent Evans has said it would be “premature” to comment with any certainty on the motivation of the attacks based on the writing alone.
The authorities have sent extra security to those that they believe are in harm’s way with the suspect still at-large.
On Meet the Press, Klobuchar said that more security had been added to her team.
“It was politically-motivated, and there clearly was some through line with abortion because of the groups that were on the list, and other things that I’ve heard were in this manifesto,” Klobuchar said.
In an interview with NPR, Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, a Democrat, said she was on the manifesto list and that she is currently working closely with Capitol Police and local law enforcement.
There was also “No Kings” flyers, in reference to the protests that took place across the U.S. on Saturday. As a result, police urged the public not to attend the Minnesota “No Kings” demonstration. Despite the organizers canceling the event, large crowds still showed up.
Boelter’s known address was a home in Minneapolis, of which Brooklyn Park and Champlin—the locations of the attacks—are suburbs. The Police conducted a search of the home on Saturday.
David Carlson, a friend of Boelter, is quoted as telling CNN affiliate KARE that Boelter texted his friends in the lead-up to the shootings.
“I just wanna let you know that I love you guys and I wish it hadn’t gone this way. I don’t wanna say anything more and implicate you in any way because you guys don’t know anything about this, but I love you guys and I’m sorry for all the trouble this has caused,” the text reportedly said.
A LinkedIn page that seemingly belongs to Boelter states he has a doctorate in educational leadership and a master’s of science in management from Cardinal Stritch University in Milwaukee. The prefix “Dr.” is used across his online profiles.
That LinkedIn profile puts Boelter as the CEO of the Red Lion Group, a self-described security services company.
Boelter also appears to be listed as “director of security patrols” for Praetorian Guard Security Services, which is described on the company’s website as a security firm that provides residential security patrols, event security services, and uniformed security. The company also describes how it “drives the same make and model of vehicles that many police departments use in the U.S.”
Boelter appears to be an Evangelical Christian, who has delivered testimonials in Africa.
In one video reviewed by TIME, a man that resembles a strong likeness to Boelter can be seen criticizing the LGBTQ+ community, saying: “There’s people, especially in America, they don’t know what sex they are, they don’t know their sexual orientation, they’re confused. The enemy has gotten so far into their mind and their soul.”
Six years ago, a post on the LinkedIn profile believed to belong to Boelter urged people to vote, though it did not specify who people should vote for.
