CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — Katy Perry and Gayle King are headed to space with Jeff Bezos’ fiancee Lauren Sanchez and three other women.
Bezos’ rocket company Blue Origin announced the all-female celebrity crew on Thursday.
Sanchez, a helicopter pilot and former TV journalist, picked the crew who will join her on a 10-minute spaceflight from West Texas, the company said. They will blast off sometime this spring aboard a New Shepard rocket. No launch date was given.
Read More: Why Messy Rocket Launches From SpaceX and Blue Origin Are Actually Good News
Blue Origin has flown tourists on short hops to space since 2021. Some passengers have gotten free rides, while others have paid a hefty sum to experience weightlessness. It was not immediately known who’s footing the bill for this upcoming flight.
Sanchez invited singer Perry and TV journalist King, as well as a former NASA rocket scientist who now heads an engineering firm Aisha Bowe, research scientist Amanda Nguyen and movie producer Kerianne Flynn.
This will be Blue Origin’s 11th human spaceflight. Bezos climbed aboard with his brother for the inaugural flight.
It’s impossible to predict when you’re going to die. But if you’re aiming for a long and healthy life, it pays to worry less about your genes—which you can’t change anyway—and more about your lifestyle and surroundings. That’s the conclusion of a new study in Nature Medicine that takes a broad look at the longstanding environment-vs.-heredity debate, and comes down firmly in the environment camp.
The work was based on data from more than 490,000 people, all of whom are registered with the UK Biobank, a massive collection of participants’ detailed medical histories including gene sequencing; MRIs; blood, urine, and saliva samples; family health stories; and more. Researchers used this rich data to study the influence of genetics and more than 100 environmental factors on the risk of 22 diseases that make up most of the major causes of death.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]To do that, they focused especially closely on a subset of 45,000 people whose blood samples had been subjected to what is known as proteomic profiling: an analysis of thousands of proteins that help determine physical age compared to calendar age.
“We can get an estimation of how quickly or slowly each participant is aging biologically compared to their chronological age,” says lead author Austin Argentieri, a research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital. “This is referred to as the ‘proteomic age gap,’ since it’s the gap in years between protein-predicted age and chronological age. [It] is a very strong predictor of mortality…[and] it is also associated strongly with many important aging traits like frailty and cognitive function.”
Just knowing that age gap, of course, is only part of the picture. Equally important is the cause of that gap. To help determine that, the researchers analyzed people’s many environmental and behavioral exposures that contribute to disease and biological age. These factors include income, neighborhood, employment status, marital status, education, and diet, as well as whether people smoke or exercise regularly.
To cover the genetic side, researchers analyzed people’s genomes, looking for genetic markers associated with the 22 key diseases. In addition, they noted which individuals had already developed any of those diseases.
Read More: 12 Weird Symptoms Dermatologists Say You Should Never Ignore
The results were striking. Environment and lifestyle accounted for 17% of people’s disease-related risk of dying, compared to just 2% for genetics. Of the various environmental exposures, smoking was the riskiest behavior, linked to 21 diseases; socioeconomic factors such as household income, neighborhood, and employment status were associated with 19 diseases; and a lack of physical activity was linked to 17 diseases. Environmental exposures had the greatest impact on lung, heart, and liver disease, while genetics played the greatest role in determining a person’s risk of breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers, plus dementia.
Disturbingly, the study also revealed that the influence of environment begins early in life. High or low body weight as young as age 10 and maternal smoking around birth were found to affect health and mortality many decades later.
The investigators looked not just at the factors that increase the risk of dying from one of the chronic diseases, but also those that decrease it. Of those, living with a partner, being employed, and being financially comfortable had the greatest effect on extending lifespan.
“Our research demonstrates the profound health impact of exposures that can be changed either by individuals or through policies to improve socioeconomic conditions, reduce smoking, or promote physical activity,” said senior author Cornela van Duijn, professor of epidemiology at Oxford Population Health, in a statement that accompanied the release of the paper.
The researchers do not see the current study, for all its sweep, to be the end of their work. In the future, they recommend looking more closely at multiple factors, including diet, exposure to novel pathogens such as COVID-19 and bird flu, and environmental factors such as plastics and pesticides. All of those are potentially powerful—but understudied—influences on lifespan.
On Easter Sunday in 2022, a missile strike shattered a quiet town in Ukraine, Donetsk region. In the aftermath, Oksana, 40, was left clinging to life, her husband and young son killed in an instant. The following January, in Dnipro, a 23-year-old named Anastasia lost her parents in a missile attack on their apartment building. She had already lost her fiancé to the war. By September 2024, another family was obliterated, this time in Lviv: Yaroslav’s wife and three daughters were killed in their home by yet another Russian missile.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]These tragedies are not aberrations. They are the brutal, everyday reality of a nation under siege. Behind the names and dates lie lives undone, futures erased.
Three years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, justice is now the rallying cry of millions of Ukrainians. It is about accountability, ensuring that those who orchestrated this invasion are held responsible, and deterring others who might dare to follow Vladimir Putin’s example. It is also urgent as President Donald Trump vows to end the war and begins negotiations with Russia.
But justice is far from straightforward. The war in Ukraine has exposed profound fault lines in the international legal order, challenging its capacity to deliver on its most basic goal.
As world leaders and legal scholars debate how to respond, two primary paths have emerged. The first envisions a tribunal focused specifically on the crime of aggression—the deliberate decision to launch an unjust war. The second proposes a hybrid mechanism, one that would address the full spectrum of international crimes stemming from the Russian invasion, from war crimes to crimes against humanity.
The foundations have been laid to establish a special tribunal to try Russia for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, the E.U. said earlier this month. But this approach contains a significant gap. While well-intentioned, this approach risks framing justice as a European issue rather than a universal imperative.
Read More: Inside Ukraine’s Push to Try Putin for War Crimes
Russia has already seized on this detail. At the BRICS summit in October, Moscow portrayed global justice efforts as a Western plot, pitting the so-called Global South against the West. A regional tribunal might inadvertently play into this narrative, further polarizing the world.
For justice to carry the weight it must, it cannot be regional. It must be global. That means forging a coalition broad enough to lend legitimacy to the endeavor—one that includes nations from every corner of the world.
Modern international law emerged from the wreckage of world wars. After World War I, early attempts at accountability—like the Leipzig Trials—offered valuable lessons, albeit limited by weak legal frameworks. World War II brought the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, which were groundbreaking in their scope and symbolic power. Nevertheless, these efforts were fundamentally tied to the dynamics of victory: the Allies judged the Axis.
Ukraine’s situation is different. If the war ends in agreements or a frozen conflict, neither side will feel like a true winner or loser. Instead, it may culminate in an uneasy settlement, leaving justice adrift in uncharted waters. Compounding the challenge is Russia’s nuclear brinkmanship, which casts a long shadow over international decision-making.
Ukraine’s allies face a critical question: Will they prioritize justice, even if it complicates peace? Or will they ask Ukraine to set aside its quest for accountability in exchange for a fragile ceasefire? These concerns are especially pressing in the context of Ukraine’s exclusion from what is increasingly being framed as the negotiating process.
Read More: Ukraine Needs a Ceasefire Now
The U.S. has an ambivalent relationship with international criminal justice. At times, it has actively opposed the International Criminal Court, even resorting to sanctions—a move that directly undermines the fundamental principle of justice: holding perpetrators of international crimes accountable. Such actions create opportunities for Russia and other states to further discredit international law and weaken the global security system.
Now, the U.S. must decide whether it will lead or lag. A global tribunal for Ukraine offers America an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law and to counter Russia’s narrative of Western hypocrisy. However, doing so requires clarity of purpose and a willingness to embrace the messy, often frustrating, process of building international consensus.
This is not just Ukraine’s fight. It’s a litmus test for the entire international system. Can it adapt to address the realities of a multipolar world where aggressors are not easily subdued? Can it balance the demands of peace with the imperative of accountability?
Justice, in this context, is not merely an abstract ideal. It’s the bedrock of any durable peace. Without it, the scars of this war—on Ukraine, on Europe, on the international order—will fester.
For justice to succeed, it must transcend borders. It must reflect a shared commitment to a world where sovereignty is sacrosanct, where power is constrained by law, and where no nation is too mighty to be held accountable. And it must acknowledge that justice is not something that can be bargained with.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Ukraine’s call for justice is also a call to the world: to choose the rule of law over the rule of force, to build systems that protect the weak against the strong, and to ensure that, even in the darkest times, accountability prevails.
This is a moment of reckoning—not just for Ukraine but for all of us.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday largely blocked sweeping executive orders from President Donald Trump that seek to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion.
U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts they consider equity-related.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Abelson found that the orders likely carry constitutional violations, including against free-speech rights.
Trump signed an order his first day in office directing federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants or contracts. He signed a follow-up order requiring federal contractors to certify that they don’t promote DEI.
The White House didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment Friday evening.
The plaintiffs — including the city of Baltimore and higher education groups — sued the Trump administration earlier this month, arguing the executive orders are unconstitutional and a blatant overreach of presidential authority. They also allege the directives have a chilling effect on free speech.
“What’s happening is an overcorrection and pulling back on DEI statements,” attorney Aleshadye Getachew said during a nearly three-hour hearing Wednesday.
The Trump administration has argued that the president was targeting only DEI programs that violate federal civil rights laws. Attorneys for the government said the administration should be able to align federal spending with the president’s priorities.
“The government doesn’t have the obligation to subsidize plaintiffs’ exercise of speech,” said Justice Department attorney Pardis Gheibi.
Abelson, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, agreed with the plaintiffs that the executive orders discourage businesses, organizations and public entities from openly supporting diversity, equity and inclusion.
“The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order,” he said during the hearing.
Abelson’s ruling does allow for the attorney general to investigate and prepare a report on DEI practices in accordance with one of the orders, but it blocks enforcement.
In his written opinion, Abelson found reason to believe the orders are unconstitutionally vague, leaving federal contractors and grant recipients with “no reasonable way to know what, if anything, they can do to bring their grants into compliance.”
He described a hypothetical scenario where an elementary school received Department of Education funding for technology access and a teacher used a computer to teach about Jim Crow laws. Or if a road construction grant covered the cost of filling potholes in a low-income neighborhood instead of a wealthy neighborhood, “does that render it ‘equity-related’?” the judge asked.
Efforts to increase diversity have been under attack for years by Republicans who contend the measures threaten merit-based hiring, promotion and educational opportunities for white people. However, supporters say the programs help institutions meet the needs of increasingly diverse populations while addressing the lasting impacts of systemic racism.
Their purpose was to foster equitable environments in businesses and schools, especially for historically marginalized communities. Although researchers say DEI initiatives date back to the 1960s, more were launched and expanded in 2020 during increased calls for racial justice.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued in their complaint that Trump’s efforts to abruptly end such programs will cause widespread harm, not least because of the vague language in his executive orders.
“Ordinary citizens bear the brunt,” they wrote. “Plaintiffs and their members receive federal funds to support educators, academics, students, workers, and communities across the country. As federal agencies make arbitrary decisions about whether grants are ‘equity-related,’ Plaintiffs are left in limbo.”
The plaintiffs include the city of Baltimore, which receives federal funds for public safety, housing, the environment, infrastructure and more, according to the complaint.
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who won reelection last year, has championed efforts to increase opportunities for the city’s most vulnerable residents, including people of color. Scott became the subject of racist attacks online last year as some commenters labeled him a “DEI mayor,” and he recently coined the phrase “Definitely Earned It” to highlight the accomplishments of Black figures throughout history.
In addition to the mayor and the Baltimore City Council, the plaintiffs include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which represents restaurant workers across the country.
Their attorneys claim the groups are already suffering the effects of the executive orders as Trump encroaches on the powers of Congress and seeks to suppress views he doesn’t agree with.
“But the President simply does not wield that power,” they wrote in the complaint. “And contrary to his suggestions otherwise, his power is not limitless.”
The pandemic inspired new vigilance about germs, including more frequent and thorough house cleaning—changes that stuck with many of us years later. But while cleanliness is a virtue, germ fixation is not. Cleaning your house too thoroughly, or with the wrong kinds of products, can be harmful to health.
Of particular concern is the overzealous use of potent disinfectants that kill 99% of common bacteria. “The pandemic has had a long-term impact, and people use stronger disinfectants now,” says Orianne Dumas, a respiratory epidemiologist at the French Institute of Health and Medical Research.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]“We’re cleaning more than we ever have, for both good and bad, depending on how people do it,” says Jill Heins Nesvold, senior director of indoor air quality at the American Lung Association.
Here’s what researchers know about the risks and how to clean house effectively while protecting yourself and those around you.
Studies reveal that the air inside our homes is more polluted than the air outdoors, and a portion of these toxins come from household cleaners. They contain scores of chemicals linked to health problems, including those that affect breathing. However, these risks depend on the dose.
In 2023, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group researched 30 common cleaning products and found that all together, they contained 193 chemicals hazardous to health. Many are volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, such as acetone, methanol, and glycols like 2-butoxyethanol. These evaporate easily into the air, where they can be inhaled, trigger allergic reactions, and irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. Too much irritation can inflame and damage the airway, potentially resulting in breathing issues. Higher asthma rates have been observed in people who clean professionally and even in ordinary people exposed to these irritants as infrequently as once per week.
There’s also an association with lung weakness. One study found professional cleaners have a 43% higher risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than the general population. Dumas says that more research is needed to establish this COPD link in people who just clean their own houses, who have less exposure.
Read More: Are ‘Broken Skin Barriers’ a Real Thing?
The potential impacts go beyond the respiratory system. Once inhaled, VOCs can mimic the activity of hormones, disrupting the endocrine system. Such disruptions may increase cancer risk. As with COPD, some studies suggest higher cancer rates among cleaning professionals, but research hasn’t shown the same link among casual household users, Dumas notes.
Overexposure can mean different things. Big doses of harsh disinfectants can disrupt health rapidly, while lower amounts used too frequently over the years can also be harmful. “You could use a cleaning product once per week for 10 years, or two times per day for one year, and get the same exposure,” Heins Nesvold says. “With a lot of use, you’ll have the effects more quickly.”
To protect yourself while cleaning your house, start by using fewer products to limit contact with lots of chemicals. You could select a multi-purpose cleaner instead of the specialist approach: one for glass, another for the bathtub, a specific floor product, and so on. “Reevaluate your product arsenal to find places to cut back,” advises Samara Geller, senior director of cleaning science at EWG.
Another easy swap: Instead of a kitchen-specific cleaner, use dish soap and water on your counters. “You don’t necessarily need a unique kitchen product,” Geller says.
Don’t overdo it with bleach and other strong disinfectants. “Cleaning should not be synonymous with disinfection,” says Doug Collins, a chemist at Bucknell University who studies cleaning products.
You want the cleaning horsepower of a disinfectant when up against serious filth like bacteria, viruses, mold, and fungi. That’s why hospitals use disinfectants daily. For your home, though, plain soap and water will often work just fine. “Soap is really good at grabbing greasy stuff,” Collins says. He suggests alcohol-based products—ones without added chemicals for killing germs—as another example of basic cleaners that do the job.
Improper use of bleach is especially harmful. Bleach is a great disinfectant because it’s a strong oxidant, but this quality also makes it potentially dangerous. The body has antioxidants that “tamp down on bleach’s oxidative potential and counteract it,” Collins explains, but if you’re exposed routinely, “there’s leakage through that defense mechanism that can cause damage.”
Read More: Is Intermittent Fasting Good or Bad for You?
Collins’s two small children have a knack for turning his bathroom into a crud-filled wrecking zone. When they do, he reaches for bleach, but that’s the rare exception.
“We do need to disinfect, but not every day, and maybe not even every week,” Dumas says. A few times per month only, recommends Asa Bradman, an environmental health scientist at the University of California, Merced.
If there’s an immunocompromised person in the household, “that’s a different circumstance,” Geller says, warranting more disinfectant. Another example from Heins Nesvold: if an ill house guest sneezes repeatedly, a thorough cleaning is probably wise.
When you disinfect, do so in a targeted manner. Focus on high-touch surfaces like faucets and doorknobs, advises Akiko Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology at Yale University.
“While excessive use of cleaning products and disinfectants containing synthetic chemicals may harm the human body, when used properly, they can reduce transmission of infections,” Iwasaki says.
You could opt for other bleach alternatives besides soap and alcohol, such as hydrogen peroxide. “We recommend hydrogen peroxide because it’s effective, and pure forms break down into water and oxygen,” Bradman says. It’s easy to remove from surfaces, he adds, whereas bleach often leaves an irritating residue lasting several days after cleaning.
Vinegar breaks up dirt with less risk than bleach, too, though it’s not as powerful. Collins recommends distilled white vinegar and other acid-based cleaners like lactic or citric acid. You still have to be careful, though. Inhaling vinegar directly could cause “respiratory triggers,” says Bradman.
Read More: 6 Things to Eat to Reduce Your Cancer Risk
Avoid mixing products. Never combine bleach with vinegar, ammonia, or products that have hydrogen peroxide, such as toilet bowl cleaners. The resulting chemical reactions release gases that are toxic and damaging. One large exposure to chlorine gas—produced from mixing bleach and acidic cleaners—can cause reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), an irritant-induced form of asthma, Geller says.
Follow directions on the bottle that spell out safety precautions, including dangerous mixtures. “It’s key to choose the right product for the right job and follow the label,” says Nicholas Georges, senior VP of scientific and international affairs for the Household and Commercial Products Association, which represents companies making these products.
Products labeled fragrance-free may be preferable. This is a tricky one, as we often take satisfaction in cleaners with fresh scents, like pine or lemon—a reward for battling the dirt.
However, some of the chemicals responsible for these smells, such as limonene, are the very VOCs that groups including EWG have identified as potentially problematic. Research shows that 35% of Americans using fragranced products report symptoms like breathing issues and migraines.
Fragrance-free cleaners release fewer VOCs. “They’re healthier,” says Bradman, who steers clear of strong scents.
Georges notes that companies perform risk assessments on cleaners to ensure safety and reduce liability. Products must meet fragrance-ingredient standards for protecting health developed by the International Fragrance Association.
Several organizations certify specific cleaning products as better for health. The American Lung Association and EWG recommend looking for cleaners certified as Safer Choice, a label created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “We’re big supporters of Safer Choice,” Georges says.
In 2019, EWG developed its own EWG Verified certification for cleaning products. Specific ingredients can also be checked for toxicity against lists compiled by EWG and the EPA.
Another consideration is whether a product is advertised as “green,” suggesting it uses natural ingredients. Separate studies by EWG and Bradman found that green products tend to have fewer hazardous VOCs.
The quality of these products varies, though. “There’s a lot of diversity in these green products,” Dumas says. Some government regulations aim to control false product claims about being green, but there’s a lack of enforcement. Dumas has found that some green cleaners contribute to asthma risk, partly because natural ingredients aren’t necessarily good for you. For instance, some green cleaners include essential oils, which “may be natural, but could still be volatile” and therefore irritating, Bradman explains.
Read More: Green Tea Is Even Better For You Than You Think
Make sure to check the product’s chemical ingredients on its label and online. “Transparency is critical,” Georges says. When products have at least one chemical that’s an allergen—meaning it could affect people with sensitivities, such as asthma—the label has to disclose this, Georges explains. And the specific ingredients, both allergens and other ingredient types, must be listed on the company website or product-specific sites, in addition to on the label, he says.
In its 2023 study, EWG found some chemicals in the air that weren’t listed on product labels. “Oftentimes the label is only scratching the surface of what’s contained in the formula,” Geller says. This discrepancy doesn’t necessarily mean that companies are being deceitful. Rather, it’s hard to predict the byproducts of chemicals once they’re “in the bottle and co-mingling,” Geller says.
Another unknowable factor is what substances the chemicals will encounter after they’re released in people’s homes, such as particulate matter. These secondary reactions can form new substances like formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, Geller explains.
People can further reduce their exposures by circulating the air during cleaning and immediately after. Open windows, run fans, and keep the HVAC system on. “Really get that air circulating to move the chemicals out of the space,” Geller says. Collins runs the bathroom fan for at least 15 minutes after he’s cleaned his kids’ mess.
You can also reduce your chemical exposure by protecting your skin and airways while you clean. For heavy-duty cleaning, consider wearing gloves and an N95 mask. Limit use of sprays that contain chemicals called quaternary ammonium compounds, Collins says. These “quats” differ from VOCs in that they don’t evaporate quickly into the air, but when sprayed they’re easily inhaled, risking irritation and endocrine disruption. Even sprays without quats could harm health if they’re breathed in too much, so try spraying into a cloth first and then wiping surfaces with the cloth. This should reduce how much spray a person inhales, especially if they wear a mask, Collins says.
Read More: 6 Health Myths About Oils
Those who are especially sensitive to chemicals, including kids and people with asthma, should go outside during cleaning if possible. In a 2025 study, Dumas found that the overuse of cleaning products in daycares is associated with wheezing symptoms in children under age three. Bradman helped to develop a toolkit on safe cleaning protocols for daycare providers. Pregnant women, too, should take precautions, since some research shows a link between exposure during pregnancy and childhood asthma.
If you’re craving that fresh-as-morning-dew smell after you tidy, you can create it without fragranced cleaners. Geller recommends simmering a pot of water with your favorite herbs and spices.
Just don’t shy away from disinfectants when you’re looking to banish unhealthy mildews and other tough-to-clean causes of malodor. “The Lung Association isn’t anti-cleaning product,” Heins Nesvold says. “We just want people to be really knowledgeable about what they’re putting into the air they breathe.”
JENKINTOWN, Pa. — Schools were closed and residents were ordered to shelter-in-place Tuesday after a large fire broke out at an aerospace manufacturer’s facility in a town north of Philadelphia, officials said.
The fire broke out at SPS Technologies in Jenkintown around 9:30 p.m. Monday and witnesses said there was an explosion and flames could be seen inside the warehouse, the Abington Township Police Department said in a statement on social media. The building was evacuated, all employees were accounted for and no injuries were reported.
SPS Technologies describes itself as a developer, manufacturer and global supplier of a line of aerospace fasteners and precision components.
The Abington and Jenkintown school districts and all private and parochial schools were closed Tuesday.
The shelter in place order was in effect until the incident was under control because smoke and particulates from the fire were filtering across the area, officials said. Hazmat crews were monitoring air quality and advised all businesses within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) radius to remain closed until further notice.
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority warned that service was suspended on three regional rail lines to start the day due to the fire, noting that it could cause delays in other parts of the system.
European leaders gathered in Paris Monday for emergency talks on how to react to the U.S. diplomatic blitz on Ukraine, which has thrown a once-solid alliance into turmoil and left the Europeans questioning the reliability of their key transatlantic partner.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Shortly before the meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump, but Macron’s office would not disclose details about the 20-minute discussion.
Leaders of Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and the European Union arrived at the Elysee Palace for talks on Europe’s security quandary. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is also attending.
Last week, top U.S. officials from the Trump administration made their first visit to Europe, leaving the impression that Washington was ready to embrace the Kremlin while it cold-shouldered many of its age-old European allies.
Despite belligerent warnings for months ahead of Donald Trump’s reelection as U.S. president, leaders hoped somehow that Trump would stand shoulder to shoulder with Europe in opposing Russia’s war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the continent would finally start to beef up its defenses and become less reliant on American firepower.
But a flurry of speeches by Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week questioned both Europe’s security commitments and its fundamental democratic principles. Macron said their stinging rebukes and threats of non-cooperation in the face of military danger felt like a shock to the system.
The tipping point came when Trump decided to upend years of U.S. policy by holding talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in hopes of ending the Russia-Ukraine war. Then, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia on Saturday all but ruled out the inclusion of other Europeans in any Ukraine peace talks.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called the week “an existential moment … where Europe has to stand up.”
That’s where Macron hopes to step in with Monday’s meeting. Ever since World War II, the United States and Western European nations have basically moved in lockstep as they confronted the Soviet Union during the Cold War, right up to the increasingly aggressive actions of current-day Russia close to its borders. Even if there had long been U.S. complaints about the reluctance of many European NATO nations to step up their defense efforts, they never boiled up to the political surface as they have over the past days.
French officials said no firm announcements are expected, beyond a show of unity. More talks are expected at the broader EU level, they said.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said “negotiations are moving fast with Europe,” in a virtual news conference Monday in Kyiv, he said, “Everyone told me that what happened (at the Munich Security Conference) accelerated everything,” Zelenskyy said Macron had agreed to provide him with a briefing on the conclusions from the meeting in Paris.
A strong U.S. component, though, will remain essential for the foreseeable future since it will take many years before European nations can ratchet up defense production and integrate it into an effective force. That U.S. bond also applies to dealing with war in Ukraine, said U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer. “U.S. support will remain critical and a U.S. security guarantee is essential for a lasting peace, because only the U.S. can deter Putin from attacking again,” Starmer wrote in Monday’s Daily Telegraph.
While many EU nations are still mulling whether to contribute troops to a potential force in Ukraine after a peace deal, Starmer said that the U.K. was “ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.
“I do not say that lightly. I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm’s way,” he wrote.
Macron last year refused to rule out sending Western troops into Ukraine if necessary.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said it was clear that there wouldn’t be European troops in Ukraine while the war is ongoing. “The questions about the security architecture that then have to be discussed will be discussed when the time is right,” he said on the sidelines of an election campaign event, German news agency dpa reported.
“A ceasefire must not lead to Russian rearmament, which is followed by new Russian attacks,” warned Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen ahead of the Paris meeting.
European nations are bent on boosting Ukraine where they can, and EU nations see eye to eye when it comes to upping defense spending. However, even if there is a general consensus to move beyond the goal of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense, it is hardly clear how to get to 3%.
Some EU nations insist on an agreement on joint borrowing for massive defense projects, while others say the nations that lag behind on spending should first reach 2%. That issue is also set to be discussed at the meeting.
Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he plans to urge other leaders to invest more in defense, ahead of his departure for the Paris meeting. Poland spends more than 4% of its GDP on defense, more than any other NATO member.
“If we want to decide about the future of Ukraine together with Ukraine, the United States, Russia, we must also show that we are capable of much more serious investment in our own defense,” he said. However, he also said that he does not envision Poland sending its own troops to Ukraine.
But some of the EU nations balked at the thought of the restrictive Elysee meeting with only a few chosen leaders while others were left in the cold. For an uncomfortable number of decisions, the EU needs the backing of all 27 nations. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a staunch ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has already threatened to use his veto on a number of occasions.
Slovenian President Nataša Pirc Musar said the selective list of invitees was proof that the EU member states are not treated equally. “This is not Europe that commands respect abroad. This is not the Europe that would be a serious partner to the North American ally,” she said.
Slovakia’s populist Prime Minister Robert Fico questioned the presence of top EU representatives at the meeting, noting that the EU has no right to decide about any deployment of foreign troops in a country.
____
Casert reported from Brussels. Associated Press writers Geir Moulson in Berlin, Germany, Dusan Stojanovic in Belgrade, Serbia, Vanessa Gera in Warsaw, Poland, Justin Spike in Kyiv, Ukraine and Karel Janicek in Prague, Czech Republic contributed to this report.
If you like your romantic comedies like you like your pizza—that is, extra cheesy—then this is the list for you. Just like the mildly addictive dairy product, the best cheesy rom-coms on Netflix are hard to resist. They are the kinds of movies that will surely brighten up your day, possibly have you reaching for the tissues (to catch those happy tears of course!), and undoubtedly will make you laugh—even if it’s sometimes at their expense. Whether you’re folding laundry and only have one eye on the screen or need an escape after a long, difficult day, these movies are sure to satisfy your viewing appetite.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Since there are so many varieties of cheesy rom-coms to choose from, we’ve broken this list down into different categories to help you find the perfect one for you. So whether you’re looking for a romance with a punny title, a sweet teenage dream, a laugh-out-loud romantic getaway or something starring Netflix’s favorite romantic lead Christina Milian, we’ve got you covered. Below, the 20 best cheesy rom-coms on Netflix to watch right now.
Lola (Victoria Justice) is too busy launchingher own wine import company to even think about love. Yet when the L.A. exec heads to Australia looking to land her first major account, she finds herself vibing with a handsome ranch hand (Netflix’s resident Aussie hunk Adam Demos) who holds the key to her professional success—and, possibly, her heart.
Experience love Italian style in this rom-com from the director of Mean Girls. La Dolce Villa stars Scott Foley as Eric, a successful American businessman who comes to Rome with every intention of convincing his daughter (Maia Reficco) not to buy a dirt cheap villa with her life savings. Best laid plans though since the former chef quickly finds himself rediscovering his passion for cooking and falling for the town’s comely mayor (Violante Placido) who shows him that you’re never too old to love again.
After a disastrous breakup, Gabriela Diaz (Christina Milian) mends her broken heart the way anyone would: she takes over an inn she won in a contest. But that’s not all: the property is in New Zealand and it’s a real fixer upper. To get it back up and running, she enlists the help of Jake, a studly local contractor with a complicated romantic past of his own (Adam Demos, again). Falling Inn Love is an enemies-to-lovers rom-com that could be the tool to fixing your own romantic woes.
Happiness for Beginners, based on the bestselling 2015 novel of the same name, stars Ellie Kemper as Helen, a recent divorcée who embarks on a beginner’s Appalachian Trail hike with a bunch of eccentric strangers. (Yes, the source material is very Wild coded.) Helen’s hope is that this scenic hiking adventure will teach her how to tackle the world on her own. But when she finds herself falling for a fellow hiker, who happens to also be her younger brother’s friend (Luke Grimes), she begins to wonder if she’d prefer to tackle life’s challenges with someone by her side.
One year after her fiancé Jason (Jay Pharoah) suddenly calls off their wedding, aspiring pop star Erica Wilson (Christina Milian, once more) books a gig in paradise, the East African island of Mauritius, only to discover she’s been hired to perform at his nuptials. Oh, and his bride-to-be (Christiani Pitts) doesn’t know about their previous engagement so Erica will have to pretend they’ve never met before. But it’s when she develops a crush on Jason’s brother, a retired Navy SEAL played by Sinqua Walls, that things really get complicated in this rom-com that doubles as the perfect getaway.
Julia (Kat Graham) always dreamed of going to Verona, where Romeo and Juliet took place—just not like this. After getting dumped by her boyfriend of four years, the dogged third-grade teacher decides to turn her couple’s trip to Italy into a solo one. From the moment she lands, everything that could go wrong does. This includes her hotel double-booking her room, which now means she’s stuck sharing a villa with a complete stranger (Tom Hopper), who is as cynical as they come about relationships. Nothing a little quality time in the City of Love couldn’t cure, right?
Lindsay Lohan is already Netflix’s reigning queen of Christmas. With Irish Wish, she becomes its high priestess of St. Patrick’s Day, too. At the wedding of her secret crush, author Peter Kelly (Alexander Vlahos), Maddie (Lohan) wishes that she was his bride-to-be. The next morning, she magically is. (There’s a fairy involved, but don’t get too caught up in the logic.) As Maddie gets to know Peter better, she begins to question whether he really is the man of her dreams. Luckily, the wedding photographer she hired (Ed Speleers) is there to help her find the answer.
While celebrating her sister’s wedding in Rome, successful art curator Beth (Kristen Bell) falls for Nick (Josh Duhamel), the best man, who, like her, is comically unlucky in love. In hopes of changing her luck, she steals from the city’s fountain of love, which is so not what Romans do. Her theft results in the throwers of those coins—played by Will Arnett, Danny DeVito, Jon Heder, and Bell’s future husband Dax Shepard—falling madly in love with her. Now she must figure out if Nick’s interest in her is for real or just the result of her magical Italian faux pas.
What if you could get a do-over with the one who got away? Well, thanks to an enchanted photo booth, Noah (Adam Devine) is about to find out. With some Groundhog Day-esque enchantment, he is able to travel back three years to the first time he met Avery (Alexandra Daddario) and blew his chances of being more than friends. The next day, she goes on to meet her fiancé Ethan (Robbie Amell). Now, using everything he knows about her, all her likes and dislikes, he must steal her heart or end up in the friend zone forever.
For two years, Zara (Joey King) has been the personal assistant and personal punching bag to self-absorbed movie star Chris Cole (Zac Efron). But her job only gets more complicated once she discovers that her mom (Nicole Kidman) is hooking up with him. You can’t help but feel bad for the girl, but Kidman and Efron’s chemistry is so good, you may find yourself rooting for their May-December romance against your better judgment.
At a writer’s retreat in Morocco, broken-hearted bestselling author Katherine Loewe (Laura Dern) and adrift businessman Owen (Liam Hemsworth) have their meet-cute. While their more than 20-year age difference may give her pause, it’s his relationship status—he’s at the retreat as a plus one to his novelist girlfriend—that convinces her nothing can happen. Yet the two find themselves naturally drawn to one another, specifically their shared loneliness. Their forbidden love is what makes this late romance so thrilling.
Civil litigator Susan (Rachael Leigh Cook) doesn’t have time for anything other than work, which she often does pro bono. After a wealthy client, played by Damon Wayans Jr., convinces her to take on his case against a dating website that guarantees its users will find a match in less than a thousand dates—he’s gone on 986 and is still desperately single—she finds herself wanting to spend time with him outside of business hours, putting her professionalism at risk. It may just be a chance Susan is willing to take in this sweet rom-com that —like the Tiffany song heard throughout the film makes clear —wants you to feel less alone now.
This zany remake of the 2012 French rom-com Plan de Table follows multiple guests as they try to survive a wedding where everything that can go wrong does. When Marc (Jack Farthing), a former classmate of the bride, shows up high on cocaine and hell bent on ruining the nuptials, her brother Jack (Sam Claflin) is enlisted to stop him by drugging him with sleeping serum. As if he doesn’t have enough on his plate, he’s also trying his best to make nice with his vindictive ex-girlfriend (Freida Pinto) while attempting to reconnect with his missed connection (Olivia Munn).
First rule of wedding planning: don’t fall for the groom. But to be fair to Mary (Jennifer Lopez), a wedding planner so committed to her craft she hasn’t gone on a date in two years, she didn’t know Eddie (Matthew McConaughey), the guy who saved her from a runaway dumpster, was going to be her next client. Now that she does, she has sworn to put her feelings aside and get to work planning his spare-no-expense nuptials. What could possibly go wrong?
For fans of Beautician and the Beast: a kooky Cinderella story in which Laura Marano (channeling Fran Drescher right down to the leopard print) plays Izzy, a Manhattan hairdresser who is hired to work the royal wedding of Prince Thomas (Mena Massoud). His parents arranged the nuptials and he’s having major second thoughts. After Izzy puts the Prince of Lavania (a country east of Aldovia, FYI) in his place, he recruits the outspoken New Yorker to help him understand what life is really like beyond the palace walls.
American girl (Haley Lu Richardson) meets British boy (Ben Hardy) in JFK airport on her way to her father’s wedding in London. They spend the whole flight talking and he gives her his number when they land, but her phone dies, leading her on a wild goose chase to find him and tell him how she feels. By the end of the film based on the 2011 novel The Statistical Probability of Love at First Sight you will be reaching for the tissues and putting an order in for an extra phone charger.
After his latest album bombs, aging rocker John Allman (Harry Connick Jr.) moves to the idyllic Mediterranean island of Cyprus to escape his life only to have his past catch up with him in the form of an erstwhile love with a big secret.
Before heading off to college, high school seniors Clara (Talia Ryder) and Aidan (Jordan Fisher) make a pact to amicably break up. To celebrate their last night together as a couple, they plan the perfect final date in which they celebrate all their relationship firsts only to have it all feel so bittersweet. Think Before Sunset for Gen Z.
In this smooch-heavy rom-com based on the 2012 novel of the same name, Elle (Joey King) attempts to enlist her not-so-secret childhood crush Noah (a floppy haired Jacob Elordi), to take part in their school’s kissing booth fundraiser in hopes of impressing the cool girls. He says no, only to end up locking lips with her at the booth—her first kiss ever—under false pretenses. But that monumental makeout session results in the pair embarking on a secret relationship that puts Elle’s friendship with her bestie, who also happens to be Noah’s little brother, at risk. Be warned: you’ll have to watch The Kissing Booth 2 and 3 to see how this whole thing ends.
Desperate to raise money for college, Brooks Rattigan (Noah Centineo) gets paid to take wealthy outcast Celia (Laura Marano) to her high school semi-formal. He’s so good at faking their relationship, Celia suggests he launch a service where (mostly rich) girls hire him to be their plus one for any occasion. She also agrees to help him win over her classmate Shelby (Camila Mendes) by pretending to be his girlfriend. But when their fake relationship becomes a little too real, Brooks must decide what kind of guy he wants to be in this romance for Some Kind of Wonderfulfans.
Nothing about Donald Trump’s hasty and illegal attempted dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—and with it, the decapitation of American power—is remotely efficient. Just this week, USAID’s now-former Inspector General found that there is currently half a billion dollars’ worth of American-grown food stranded at ports and warehouses across the country, on the verge of spoiling. That’s corn and rice and lentils and soybeans, grown in Iowa and Kansas and Texas and Oklahoma, that would have otherwise fed children in a school in Bangladesh or famished refugees at a camp in war-torn Sudan. (The Inspector General was subsequently fired for disclosing this information.)
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Similarly, there’s no efficiency being achieved by obstructing one of the most successful global health programs in history—the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief—which has saved 26 million lives over the past two decades. PEPFAR currently provides HIV treatment to over 20 million people around the world, meaning every day aid isn’t flowing inches us closer to the very outbreaks we’ve worked so hard to prevent.
Whether it’s delivering clean water to communities across Africa; or promoting economic development through education in Mali and small business support in El Salvador; or providing life-saving care in Thailand and Syria; or fighting human trafficking in Nepal and Liberia, thousands of USAID workers and contractors make miracles big and small happen every day.
But USAID succeeds as more than just a moral matter. Each year, it pours billions of dollars back into the U.S. economy, supporting farmers and businesses that provide food and other supplies. It also helps fight terrorist groups and drug cartels that endanger Americans, while deepening American values and interests in every corner of the globe. But perhaps the most underappreciated aspect of USAID’s work is its singular ability to forge relationships with unlikely partners which help combat the harmful influence of adversaries like China and Russia.
It’s no surprise, then, that Beijing and Moscow are now cheering on our sudden retreat. They’re not wasting any time filling the void, either. Within days of USAID’s closure, China sent aid and dispatched workers to take on projects we’ve abandoned in the Indo Pacific and Africa. Intended or not, that will be the enduring consequence of this episode of chaos: an emboldened China, all-too-eager to exploit American isolation to grow its own power and influence.
Like any organization, USAID is not perfect. There are inefficiencies and redundancies, and evolving challenges and emerging technologies present opportunities for improvement. It’s also entirely legitimate to question whether U.S. funding is aligned with our current priorities and interests and seek to adjust it as needed within the four corners of the law. Doing that is one of Congress’ most fundamental responsibilities—and something I was eager to work on when I became the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign aid last month.
But the abrupt and total shutdown of USAID—in defiance of multiple federal laws through which it was codified and funded—reveals a simple truth: The Department of Government Efficiency is not actually about achieving efficiency. Rather, it’s about Trump trying to wish away whichever parts of the government he doesn’t like. Were a purge of this nature to happen in a country halfway around the world, we would rightly call it an authoritarian takeover. The fact that it’s happening at our own doorstep doesn’t change that.
Much of what DOGE claims to have newly unearthed are either outright lies or were already publicly available for all to see. Worse, there’s no telling what funding they deem unnecessary—except for vague, baseless descriptions like “woke” and “radical” and “criminal.”
The way to make reforms is through the lawmaking process—not the lawbreaking process. If you believe that a program needs to be narrowed in scope, reformed a great deal, or even eliminated altogether, the way to do that is by proposing a law—not by rampaging the federal government and stripping it for parts. Our government with three separate but co-equal branches exists precisely to prevent this kind of anarchy operating under a thin veneer of fiscal responsibility and shrewd cost-cutting.
Moving fast and breaking things may be an acceptable way to conduct business at a tech company. But a break now, fix later strategy doesn’t work when you’re the leader of the free world. What’s on the line is not advertising revenue and the user experience, but lives and livelihoods. Hundreds of millions of them, in fact. People will die, diseases will spread, and famine will grow. Trump is trying to hoodwink Americans into thinking the only way to achieve efficiency is by exacting maximum chaos and cruelty. It’s a false choice and we must reject it.
President Donald Trump announced on Air Force One Sunday that he would impose a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports, the latest move as part of the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and its allies.
Tariffs refer to taxes that are placed on imported goods, or products that come into the country. Importers have to pay tariffs to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which could cause companies to increase prices on their goods to make up for the additional taxes they have to pay.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]The move is meant to help domestic steel and aluminum companies, but could also cause local companies that rely on foreign steel to struggle.
The U.S. is the world’s second-largest steel importer, with the top three import sources being Canada, Brazil, and Mexico, although other countries, such as South Korea, heavily rely on exporting steel to the U.S.
Steel and aluminum are heavily used in the automotive and construction industry, but are also used to manufacture goods and appliances.
The decision mirrors the actions Trump levied during his first Administration, when he enacted a 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum, though some countries, including South Korea were exempt.
In response to the most-recent tariff announcement, shares of major South Korean steelmakers in the country fell on the stock market Monday morning, while that of U.S. steel companies rose.
On average, the U.S. imports more than 2 million metric tons of steel mill products per month, according to data by the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration, but only about a quarter of all steel in the U.S. is imported, as total steel imports have been decreasing year-over-year.
“You see these empty, old, beautiful steel mills and factories that are empty and falling down,” Trump said on the campaign trail in October 2024. “We’re going to bring the companies back. We’re going to lower taxes for companies that are going to make their products in the USA. And we’re going to protect those companies with strong tariffs.”
The U.S. imports about half of all aluminum it uses from other countries, mostly from neighboring Canada. The International Trade Administration reports that there’s been a significant increase of U.S. imports on aluminum, up 25% from 2015 to 2022.
Earlier in February, Trump threatened to impose a 25% tariff on most Canadian and Mexican imports, though he later decided to pause the tariffs for 30 days after negotiations with each country.
Trump also issued a 10% tariff on China which remains in place. The President said he will also charge retaliatory tariffs on other countries.
