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.
Around 700 Marines are deploying to the Los Angeles area to protect federal buildings and law enforcement in the wake of protests over the Trump Administration’s immigration raids.
The troops will join the thousands of National Guard members who were already activated by President Donald Trump over the weekend without the consent of California’s governor Gavin Newsom.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]“If I didn’t ‘SEND IN THE TROOPS’ to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. due to an incompetent Governor and Mayor,” Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday morning, referring to the January wildfires that were caused by dry conditions and strong winds.
Read more: Inside Donald Trump’s Mass-Deportation Operation
The deployment of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines—based at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif.—marks the first time in over three decades that Marines have been mobilized inside the United States to respond to civil unrest. Their presence represents a striking escalation of federal involvement in what began as local protests over immigration enforcement.
Asked if he would invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used 1792 statute allowing the president to use the military to suppress domestic unrest, Trump told reporters Tuesday that “if there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We’ll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible.”
Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, he is relying on a broader presidential authority to protect federal property. Legal experts say that distinction may ultimately determine whether the deployments are deemed lawful. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement without specific legal authorization—a principle the Trump Administration insists it is not violating, since the Marines will not be arresting or directly interacting with protesters.
“There were certain areas of Los Angeles” on Monday night that “you could have called it an insurrection,” Trump said. “It was terrible.”
The estimated cost of deploying the National Guard and the Marines to the Los Angeles area is $134 million, according to Bryn MacDonnell, a top Pentagon official testifying before the House on Tuesday.
While the Marines are expected to avoid direct engagement with demonstrators, the symbolism of active-duty troops patrolling the streets of Los Angeles has reignited deep political tensions and legal debates over the limits of federal power. The Marines are tasked with protecting federal facilities and personnel, according to a statement from U.S. Northern Command, and will operate under Task Force 51—a contingency unit created to coordinate military support for domestic emergencies.
Read more: Can the President Activate a State’s National Guard?
“We believe ICE agents should be allowed to be safe in doing their operations, and we have deployed National Guard and the Marines to protect them in the execution of their duties,” U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during a hearing in Congress on Tuesday when asked about the deployment of Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles.
Newsom, who has publicly condemned the federal response as both unlawful and inflammatory, described the Marine deployment as “unprecedented” and “completely unwarranted.”
“They shouldn’t be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President,” Newsom said on X. His office filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to block the deployment, arguing that Trump had “trampled” the state’s sovereignty by bypassing both the governor and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
The protests began Friday after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents carried out coordinated raids across Los Angeles, detaining dozens of workers at warehouses and other worksites. The arrests sparked immediate backlash, with demonstrators converging outside federal buildings, blocking freeways, and in some cases clashing with police.
Read more: Why Waymo’s Self-Driving Cars Became a Target of Protesters in Los Angeles
By Sunday, as images of burning self-driving cars and confrontations near the downtown federal detention center spread across social media, Trump issued a presidential order deploying 2,000 National Guard troops. A second order followed Monday night, calling for an additional 2,000 troops. Pentagon officials confirmed that about 1,700 Guard members were already active in the greater Los Angeles area by late Monday, and the Marines would be joining them in a “support” capacity.
The deployments have touched a raw nerve in California, where Democratic leaders say Trump is overstepping his constitutional authority in pursuit of political spectacle. The governor’s office said that only a fraction of the initially deployed Guard members had been given orders, and many remained inside federal facilities awaiting direction.
“This isn’t about public safety,” Newsom said on X. “It’s about stroking a dangerous President’s ego.”
Mayor Bass echoed those sentiments, calling the influx of troops “a deliberate attempt to create disorder and chaos in our city.” She urged the federal government to halt the raids and allow local authorities to manage the situation.
Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell also expressed frustration with the federal operation, warning that the sudden arrival of troops presented “significant logistical and operational challenges.” In a statement, McDonnell emphasized the need for clear communication between agencies, noting that the LAPD had successfully handled large-scale protests in the past.
Sheheryar Kaoosji, the executive director at Warehouse Workers Resource Center, a nonprofit that seeks to improve working conditions in the warehouse industry, warns that both the immigration raids and the Administration’s response to the protests could deal a blow to businesses in the area—and the broader economy.
“Between the actual ICE activity and then the escalation by the Administration to suppress protest, it’s not just affecting people going to work, but there’s not gonna be tourism in L.A.,” he says. “It’s going to kill the economy of not just California but the country.”
The federal government has framed the move as a necessary precaution amid what it says are credible threats to federal personnel and infrastructure, claiming the military’s presence was meant to deter violence and protect immigration officers working in increasingly volatile conditions.
The last time Marines were deployed to the streets of Los Angeles was in 1992, following days of rioting after the acquittal of officers in the beating of Rodney King. In that case, President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of then-Gov. Pete Wilson and invoked the Insurrection Act.
Read more: The Most Memorable Photos of Protests Erupting in Los Angeles Over Immigration Raids
Despite the dramatic federal presence, most of Monday’s demonstrations remained peaceful. Thousands gathered at City Hall for a union-led rally demanding an end to immigration raids. Outside the federal detention center, protesters held hands and chanted, “Free them all!” and “National Guard, go away.”
Still, by evening, confrontations had resumed. Police began using tear gas and flash-bang grenades to disperse crowds near the Little Tokyo neighborhood, where at least a dozen people were detained. In nearby Paramount, where more arrests had occurred during earlier raids, family members of detainees held a press conference demanding information about their loved ones.
Additional protests against immigration raids have continued in several other cities, including San Francisco and Dallas.
Andrew Chow contributed reporting.
In an escalation of Elon Musk’s fractured relationship with President Donald Trump and his Republican allies, the Tesla CEO has floated the idea of starting a new political party to rival the two-party system.
Musk conducted a poll via his social media platform X (formerly Twitter), asking his 220 million followers: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” The public results show that around 80% of respondents voted yes.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]“The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80% in the middle!” Musk said, reacting to the results of his Thursday, June 5, poll. “And exactly 80% of people agree…This is Fate.”
On Friday, Musk shared a potential name: “The America Party.” The moniker echoes that of his super political action committee (PAC), America PAC, which was founded in 2024 to support Trump’s efforts to return to the White House. The super PAC reportedly spent around $200 million to help elect Trump. Musk’s donations made him Trump’s largest, and most prominent, donor in the 2024 election.
Read More: 5 Things To Watch As the Trump-Musk Meltdown Proceeds
During the 2022 midterm elections, Musk said he intended to vote Republican, and that later developed into him becoming Trump’s close ally, which was cemented when the President positioned him as lead of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a role he held until recently.
However, Trump and Musk have now had an explosive fall-out, which has played out in the public arena via social media over the past few days. It started with Musk’s disapproval over Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which he called an “abomination” and told his social media followers to “call your Senator, call your Congressman… kill the bill.”
On Thursday, the back-and-forth between the two influential men escalated, with Musk alleging that Trump is listed in the files related to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “That is the real reason they have not been made public,” Musk said. He did not provide evidence pertaining to this and, as of early Saturday morning, the post has been deleted.
Musk also, in another since-deleted X post, endorsed a message that said: “Trump should be impeached” and that Vance “should replace him.”
Trump has argued on his own social media platform, Truth Social, that “Elon was wearing thin” and that he asked the Tesla CEO to leave the White House.
Read More: Musk’s Major Allegation Against Trump Disappears From Social Media: ‘That Post Has Been Deleted’
Meanwhile, when talking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday night, Trump said he didn’t have any plans to speak with Musk.
But some lawmakers are convinced that the feud between Trump and Musk will soon thaw, and that the latter’s idea for a new political party won’t come to fruition.
On Friday, Republican Rep. Jimmy Patronis of Florida told NewsNation’s Blake Burman: “Elon Musk is not gonna create a new political party… Trump knows that sometimes you’re going to have [a] falling out with those that you trust, you like, that you’re friends with. It happens with us in D.C. all the time. Mark my words, about a month from now, these guys will be hanging around again.”
Call Coco Gauff the queen of clay.
The American phenom, just 21 years old, won the second Grand Slam championship of her career on Saturday, outlasting world No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka of Belarus 6-7 (5), 6-2, 6-4 at the French Open final in Paris. She’s the first American to win the French since Serena Williams did so in 2015: no American man has won a singles title on Roland Garros clay since Andre Agassi in 1999.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Gauff’s effort was remarkably resilient. She trailed in the first set 4-1, with Sabalenka on serve and up 40-0. Viewers could be forgiven for looking ahead to the second set. Or wondering if Gauff’s experience at the 2022 French Open final, where she lost to Iga Świątek in straight sets, was haunting her. Gauff said she had anxiety attacks before that match, and was never really in it.
On Saturday, however, Gauff countered by winning twelve straight points. As the 2023 U.S. Open champion, Gauff is now a more experienced competitor than she was three years ago. And an improved player. The windy conditions in Paris seemed to bother Sabalenka’s serve more than it did Gauff’s. They played a grinding first set, featuring a few long games and impressive rallies. Serving for the set at 5-4, Sabalenka couldn’t finish off Gauff, who saved two set points and finally broke Sabalenka on her fifth chance. Later, a Gauff backhand winner, on the run, sent the set into a tiebreaker, where Sabalenka did prevail.
But Sabalenka couldn’t carry the momentum over to the second set. Gauff’s love break put her up 5-2 in the set, and she held serve at love to finish it out. Sabalenka could only shake her head in dismay.
Read More: Coco Gauff Is Playing for Herself Now
In the third set, Sabalanka double faulted to give Gauff a break, allowing the American to go up 2-1. Sabalenka charged on Gauff a short ball, but smashed it into the net to give Gauff a 3-1 advantage. Sabalenka fought back to tie the set up at 3-3, but while on serve she double-faulted and shouted at her coaching box. Gauff won the game to go up 4-3.
Both players held the next two games. With Gauff serving for the title at 5-4, she got down to business. Collected all match long while Sabalenka seemed to lose her cool at times, her serve was on point. Sabalenka kept battling, but on Gauff’s second championship point, she sent a cross-court shot wide, ending the match. Gauff’s back fell to the Roland Garros clay.
She went up into the stands to hug her mom Candi, dad Corey—who doesn’t sit in the courtside box during matches, his nerves too frayed—her coach and others.
The match took two hours and 38 minutes. Sabalenka committed 70 unforced errors, to Gauff’s 30.
“You’re a fighter,” said Sabalenka to Gauff after the match.
The next major tournament for Gauff is Wimbledon, where she first burst onto the global stage a half dozen years ago, when she beat Venus Williams and reached the fourth round, aged just 15. Then the U.S. Open in New York City, to try to regain that throne.
Sabalenka seemed minutes away from running away from that first set, and perhaps the match; a win would have given her two of the last three Grand Slam titles, and made her the unquestioned dominant player in tennis. Not so fast. Gauff’s just too fast—and right now, the best—on clay. And she’s all set for a monster summer.
Getting enough fiber is crucial for optimal health, yet more than 90% of Americans don’t. Federal dietary guidelines recommend 25–34 grams of fiber per day for adults, depending on age and gender—but the average American adult eats only about 8 grams a day, “which is far below recommended intake regardless of age or sex,” says Dr. Michelle Hughes, medical chief of quality and safety for digestive health at Yale New Haven Health and Smilow Cancer Hospital.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Should people seek to fill that gap with fiber supplements? Here’s what experts say you should know about supplementing this essential nutrient.
Fiber is a type of carbohydrate that your body can’t digest. It’s found in plant foods, and “instead of being broken down and absorbed like other carbs, fiber moves through the digestive system, adding bulk to stool, feeding beneficial gut bacteria, and slowing the absorption of sugar into the bloodstream,” says Bree Phillips, a registered dietitian at University of California, San Francisco Health.
Read More: Is Beef Tallow Actually Good for You?
Eating too little can slow down the colon, says Dr. Omar Khokhar, gastroenterologist at OSF HealthCare, based in Illinois and Michigan. That may lead to diverticulosis and hemorrhoids. A low-fiber diet can also contribute to constipation, weight gain, obesity, bloating, and gas, and an increased risk of chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and colorectal cancer.
It’s best to get fiber from your diet. “Whole-food sources of fiber are ideal because they provide additional nutrients,” says Phillips. Whole foods also tend to contain a combination of both soluble and insoluble fiber. Soluble fiber, like the kind found in fruit and vegetables, dissolves in water to form a gel, while insoluble fiber—which comes from sources like grains—doesn’t dissolve.
But experts agree that some people who struggle to meet their daily fiber needs through food may benefit from supplementation. “This may help with GI function, and also with health benefits outside the GI tract, such as lowered cholesterol and regulation of blood sugar levels,” Khokhar says. Psyllium husk, found in powdered products such as Metamucil, and methylcellulose, found in Citrucel and its generic counterparts, generally have the most data supporting them, he adds.
Read More: Why Your Breakfast Should Start With a Vegetable
Some fiber supplements, such as psyllium husk and beta-glucans, have been shown to support health by improving cholesterol, digestion, and blood sugar levels, says Phillips. But the source and dose both matter. “Not all fiber supplements, even if they contain the same type of fiber, are created equal,” cautions Phillips. “Some may not contain the effective amount shown in research, and added ingredients like sugars or artificial sweeteners can impact tolerance and effectiveness.”
For instance, taking supplemental inulin—a type of soluble fiber found in plants—has been shown to cause gastrointestinal distress in some people and did “not consistently demonstrate protective effects” against colorectal cancer, says Hughes. Consult with a health care provider to choose the best supplement for you and to ensure it doesn’t interact with any medications you take.
From gummies to powders, there’s a dizzying array of fiber supplements—in part, because there is no one “perfect” fiber supplement, says Dr. Anne Mongiu, co-director of the colorectal cancer program at Yale School of Medicine’s department of surgery. Considerations include taste, texture preferences, and tolerance, she says.
If a doctor advises you to take a fiber supplement, they can likely recommend an exact type and brand. In general, here’s how to pick the right fiber supplement, Mongiu says—and what to avoid.
Many experts lean toward the powder form. “Fiber powders tend to be more versatile since they can be mixed into water, smoothies, or food, making it easier to consume a larger amount at once,” says Phillips. “They also often contain soluble fiber, which helps regulate digestion and support gut health.” Fiber pills can be more convenient for some but may contain smaller amounts of the nutrient per dose, meaning multiple pills may be needed to reach the same benefit as a scoop of powder.
Powdered formulations also allow for flexible dosing, so you can control exactly how much you’re getting and if you’re consuming it in one or more doses, Mongiu says. Above all, “I tell my patients that the best fiber supplement is the one that they are willing to take.”
Various chemicals, from those in plastics to food additives, have made headlines lately for their potential roles in triggering diseases. Pesticides are unique among chemicals, though, says Melissa Perry, an environmental epidemiologist and dean of George Mason’s College of Public Health. “They’re deliberately manufactured to kill things.”
By poisoning weeds, pesticides clear the way for farmers’ crops to thrive. But their deadly design may undermine human health, too. A recent report by a new federal advisory board, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission chaired by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., calls for further investigation of pesticides’ effects to determine if their use should be limited.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Some evidence does suggest that long-term exposure could lead to cancer and several other serious health problems. More research is needed to better understand these risks, but in the meantime, experts recommend simple, practical steps to reduce intake.
Here’s what we know about the risks of pesticides and how to lower your exposure.
The MAHA report assesses “root causes” of poor health in U.S. children. It describes pesticides as one of eight types of chemicals giving rise to chronic diseases.
The report specifically takes issue with two weed killers, glyphosate and atrazine. They’re the most commonly used pesticides by American farmers, and research has focused on them in lab experiments on animals, with several concerning findings.
Other studies have drawn links between glyphosate exposure—mainly by consuming trace amounts in food—and health problems, including earlier death. In 2019, a large research review identified a “compelling link” between glyphosate intake and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans, though in 2024 a federal judge criticized this study’s design and approach.
Additional research points to a range of diseases potentially related to glyphosate, but a recent review by Italian researchers on glyphosate was inconclusive and called for further research.
Read More: Seed Oils Don’t Deserve Their Bad Reputation
Based on the evidence, the World Health Organization (WHO) has described glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans,” citing a dataset the agency considered more thorough than WHO’s.
The second widespread pesticide highlighted by the MAHA report is atrazine. Like glyphosate, it’s been used by farmers since the 1960s, but research on animals in the 1990s began to show it could disrupt reproductive health and hormone regulation. Tyrone B. Hayes, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, found that atrazine interfered with the sexual development of frogs. Subsequent studies showed similar effects, as well as weight gain, in mice.
Researchers have also observed that women in certain agricultural communities experience higher rates of abnormal menstrual cycles, compared to places with fewer farms. Other human studies show increases in several kinds of birth defects. Still more research links atrazine to breast cancer, but researchers at the National Institutes of Health have concluded “no evidence of an association” with cancer.
The EPA estimated that atrazine adversely affects 54% of all species and 50% of all critical habitats. “I don’t know how an Environmental Protection Agency can make a statement like that and then re-register the chemical,” Hayes says.
In 2023, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data showed that 99% of food samples tested below the EPA’s safety limit for pesticides. However, U.S. limits are considerably higher than what’s allowed in the European Union, where atrazine has been effectively banned.
Read More: The Best Longevity Habit You’re Not Thinking About
Pesticides called organophosphates have been studied by the EPA and others for links to neurological disorders such as ADHD. “Research clearly shows that children exposed to higher levels did have more neurobehavioral problems,” says Jason Richardson, professor of physiology and pharmacology at the University of Georgia’s Isakson Center for Neurological Disease Research.
Overall, uncertainty and debate about pesticides continues partly due to research challenges. People are typically exposed to multiple types of chemicals, so it’s “hard to attribute disease to one pesticide or pinpoint the definitive dose or exposure time” that makes people sick, Perry says.
“Just because a chemical is present doesn’t mean it’s doing anything bad, but in combination with other chemicals, it may be,” Richardson says. “Efforts are underway to measure these combinations.”
“The country’s agricultural policy follows science, not fear, speculation, and fringe narratives,” says Becky Langer-Curry, director of innovation at the National Corn Growers Association. The Corn Growers were “perplexed” by the MAHA report, she adds. “We need faith in the EPA’s regulatory system to review the science. They’re ensuring our food is safe, well below human risk.”
In an email to TIME.com, EPA spokesperson Mike Bastasch said the EPA“typically regulates pesticides at least 100 times lower than where no adverse effects are seen in safety studies.” The agency is “confident that the fruits and vegetables our children are eating are safer than ever,” Bastasch wrote. However, he added that the EPA is updating its evaluation of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential, and it’s currently working on an Updated Mitigation Proposal for atrazine.
In the meantime, researchers including Perry, Richardson, and Hayes think pesticides are dangerous enough that people should take precautions—but especially young kids, people who are pregnant, those who live close to farms, agricultural workers, and seniors.
The first step is to become aware of pesticides in your environment. They’re more common than people think, Perry says. “Exposures happen routinely for most members of the American public.”
Experts recommend contacting the environmental office of your county or city to learn whether you’re close to a food production facility that uses pesticides. In 2017, kids and teachers at a Hawaii middle school reported unusual throat irritation and dizziness. They suspected the symptoms were caused by pesticides applied in nearby fields, and researchers found residues in the school’s indoor and outdoor air samples.
Read More: What to Do If Fluoride Is Removed From Your Water
The detected levels were deemed below concerning thresholds. Bastasch says that, for communities near farms, the EPA studies potential exposure through the air and other pathways to make sure safety levels are based on sound science.
Still, Hayes worries about the long-term effects of pesticide contact and absorption. “For someone living in a farming community that’s constantly exposed to estrogen mimics like atrazine, you’re more likely to develop adverse effects,” he says.
People take in atrazine mainly through their drinking water, after farm runoff carries the pesticide into local water systems. But some utilities are more effective than others at removing pesticide residues. The Environmental Working Group rates local water utilities. For people on well water, the federal government provides guidelines for testing it.
Pesticide use is widespread enough—and disperses at such distances—that everyone should probably use a high-quality water filter, experts say. Atrazine can travel as far as 600 miles, Hayes says. As far back as 1999, USGS noticed that pesticides, including atrazine, were detected in places where farmers hadn’t applied them.
Even for residents of areas where a water treatment plant removes the chemicals, buying a filter certified to the NSF/ANSI Standards 42 and 53 provides some additional assurance of water safety. Look for filters in refrigerators and water pitchers that meet this certification.
Eating organic foods can also help to reduce intake of pesticides, especially glyphosate. About 90% of pregnant women have detectable amounts of glyphosate in their bodies, according to one study. “But when you put people on organic diets, you start to see that they no longer have pesticides in their urine,” Perry says.
Research in 2020 found that eating an organic diet dropped glyphosate levels by 70% in children and their parents. In 2023, researchers put pregnant women on an organic diet for one week. Those who went all-organic decreased glyphosate in their urine by 43%. A 2019 study found a 95% reduction in organophosphates.
Richardson calls these studies on organic foods “intriguing” while noting that natural compounds used in organic farming may also be toxic beyond certain thresholds. Even when eating organic, “make sure you wash your fruits and vegetables very well,” he says.
Read More: Dermatologists Have a Dirty Little Secret
One study found that soaking apples in baking soda mixed with water for 12-15 minutes eliminated more residue than water alone. However, according to another study, washing produce with running water is superior to baking soda, sitting water, and vinegar. Other research shows a gentle rubbing action during washing is effective. Aim for 20-30 seconds or longer if you have time.
Peeling the skin and outer pulp will get rid of additional residue that penetrates into some produce. There’s a major downside, though: you lose a portion of the beneficial nutrients and compounds, like fiber and vitamins, that help protect against pesticide toxicity.
Some research suggests that replacing processed foods with diverse whole foods can reduce how many pesticides you ingest (but some research suggests there may be fewer benefits if they’re not organic).
Aside from nutrition, other lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, stress management, and good sleep may build a baseline of health that helps thwart the cumulative effects of pesticides and other pollutants. Overall, they influence how someone’s body responds to their “exposome,” Richardson explains—your total environmental exposures and how they interact with lifestyle behaviors and risk factors like age and genetics.
Bastasch says the EPA assesses the combined risks of groups of pesticides that affect the body in similar ways, adding that the agency is continuing to advance research in this area.
The exposome probably matters more than any one chemical type, but “we’re really just breaking the surface of understanding these interactions,” Richardson says.
Until more definitive science emerges, maintain smart practices like scrubbing produce and striving for a healthy lifestyle.
