“All the President’s Men” was released 50 years ago this month, an anniversary that’s been greeted with equal parts rue and reverence by the journalists, political junkies and discerning cinephiles who have worshiped the film for five decades.

As a member of all three of those constituencies, I’ve done my share of genuflecting, most recently as chief film critic at the Washington Post, whose city room was as vivid and fully realized in the movie as Robert Redford’s Bob Woodward and Dustin Hoffman’s Carl Bernstein.

Like so many Posties of my generation, I’ll never forget the so-real-it’s-surreal experience of walking into the fifth-floor newsroom for the first time in 2002. By then, standard-issue electric typewriters and six-ply carbon paper had been replaced by far less visually interesting computers. But the office’s pervading atmosphere of hard work and quiet focus felt uncannily similar to its big-screen analog.

For the last two years, I have been researching a book about the making of “All the President’s Men,” whose production involved almost as many contingencies and unresolved questions as Watergate itself. Among the film’s many mysteries, one I’ve found particularly intriguing has to do with Katharine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post and CEO of its parent company during the Watergate investigations. As the movie amply demonstrates, it took guts for Woodward and Bernstein to persevere with their reporting in the face of terrified sources and their own growing paranoia. But, unbeknownst to many observers at the time, Graham was enduring even more withering pressures, with determination that was all the more impressive for being almost entirely invisible.

I’m still in the process of discovering why she remained invisible in “All the President’s Men.” For now, it’s clear that the backstory is more nuanced than mere oversight or, as many are quick to assume, simple sexism.

In fact, William Goldman’s first script of the film featured a sequence with Graham and Woodward, a scene that appeared in every subsequent draft. Based on an actual meeting between the two, it’s a cagey game of cat-and-mouse, with the publisher taking the measure of a nervous, still-inexperienced journalist, looking for reassurance that his reporting will prove out.

Earlier this year, at a January staged reading of “All the President’s Men” at Harmony Gold Theater in Hollywood — a fundraiser for the Stella Adler Academy — it was possible for fans to conjure what might have been. Mark Ruffalo played Woodward and Ethan Hawke played Bernstein in a version of the movie assembled from different Goldman drafts.

A high point of the evening was when Ruffalo and actor Susan Traylor brought the Graham-Woodward scene to tentative, tense and teasingly playful life. After grilling Woodward about his sources and coyly asking him about Deep Throat’s identity, Traylor’s Graham asked him if the truth about Watergate would ever be revealed. “It may never come out,” Ruffalo’s Woodward replied. “Don’t tell me ‘never,’” Graham laments, before bringing the meeting to a close with a gently peremptory “Do better.”

In poring over director Alan J. Pakula and Goldman’s papers, I’ve probably read that scene dozens of times. But when I heard it play out in real time, I was ambushed by the emotions it stirred — a mixture of pride in Graham’s legacy and deep sadness at how that legacy has been so inexplicably ignored in recent years.

I was also sad that Redford, who died in September, wasn’t there. He often expressed regret that Graham wasn’t a featured character in “All the President’s Men.” Keenly aware of how her spine and steadfastness made Woodward and Bernstein’s work possible, he wanted to honor that crucial support. When I interviewed him for the first time in 2005, he insisted that fearless owners were every bit as important in preserving democracy as the reporters he and Hoffman helped glamorize.

Over the next two decades, every time I saw Redford, he bemoaned the “downward slide of this thing,” by which he meant the constellation of institutions “All the President’s Men” celebrates: not just journalism and a robust First Amendment but a Washington where investigators, prosecutors, judges, the Senate and Congress did their jobs regardless of partisan loyalties, and a Hollywood where a studio as mainstream as Warner Bros. would agree to finance a tough-minded film about a contentious and still-raw period in recent history.

Granted, that film was based on a bestselling book and anchored by two huge stars. But today, with political and corporate leaders — including media companies — falling over each other to curry favor with President Trump, “All the President’s Men” feels like an artifact from a vanished age.

Nowhere is this more distressingly true than at the Post itself, where the newsroom immortalized by the movie has been slashed by more than a third, and where Jeff Bezos, who bought the paper in 2013, seems intent on erasing Katharine Graham’s legacy until it vanishes completely. During the first Trump administration, Bezos stood up to threats against the Post and the press at large that would make Nixon blush, or at least pea-green with envy.

Now, Bezos has become a one-man meme of what author Timothy Snyder calls “obedience in advance,” quashing an endorsement of Kamala Harris, ostentatiously grinning his way through Trump’s second inauguration, vastly overpaying for a promotional film about First Lady Melania Trump and staying conspicuously mum (at least publicly) when a Post reporter’s home was raided by the FBI in January.

All of this has come at an enormous moral and material cost, with thousands of readers canceling their subscriptions and an alarming number of the Post’s finest reporters and writers leaving for other publications and platforms. As my former boss Marty Baron told my former colleague Ruth Marcus in the New Yorker in February, Bezos’ turnaround has been “sickening” to witness: “a case study in near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction.”

Of course, that brand was built, in no small part, by “All the President’s Men,” which taught a generation how to walk, talk, dress and act like real reporters. (Hint: A good corduroy jacket and a pen in your mouth can’t hurt.)

In 1976, Pakula was interviewed about his dealings with Graham, whom he admired tremendously and with whom he would become close friends. “I could do a film about the Katharine Graham story,” he enthused. “It’s a superb story.”

Thirty years later, Steven Spielberg would bring Pakula’s idea to fruition with “The Post,” about Graham’s decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, a dress rehearsal for the even higher stakes of Watergate a year later.

“The Post,” which starred Meryl Streep in a shrewdly judged performance of aristocratic assurance and creeping insecurity, premiered in Washington less than a year into Trump’s first administration. Bezos attended that screening, which many of us saw as tacit acknowledgment that he was taking her lessons in character, comportment and competence to heart.

That was clearly wishful thinking. Graham may have finally assumed her rightful place in the newspaper-movie canon, but we’re still left to ponder her absence from the most iconic journalism movie of the 20th century.

It’s no longer the shoe-leather reporters who need a big-screen tutorial in how to do their jobs. It’s their bosses. A simple place to start would be to memorize the best two-word speech to never appear in a major motion picture: Do better.

Ann Hornaday was a film critic at the Washington Post from 2002 to 2025, when she retired. “All the President’s Men” plays at TCM Classic Film Festival Saturday at 2:45 p.m.

Wrexham’s dream of reaching the Premier League is over, for this season anyway.

And for Ryan Reynolds, it was tough to stomach.

“I am completely gutted by today’s result but incredibly proud of our season,” the actor wrote on X after the Welsh club he co-owns missed out on a place in the playoffs in the second-tier Championship by drawing 2-2 with Middlesbrough in a dramatic final round of the regular season on Saturday.

That allowed Hull to jump ahead of Wrexham and into sixth place — the fourth and final spot in the playoffs — courtesy of a 2-1 win over Norwich in a match played at the same time.

The winning goal for Hull, by Oli McBurnie in the 67th, appeared to be scored from an offside position but there are no video reviews in the English Football League.

It ended Wrexham’s unprecedented run of three straight promotions under its famous owners — a streak that began by getting out of the fifth tier in the 2022-23 season and has been documented in the globally popular, Emmy Award-winning “Welcome to Wrexham” series.

Still, seventh place marked the Wrexham’s highest finish in its history, bettering the 15th position it achieved in the second tier in the 1978–79 season.

“We’ve come a long way in five years and this was the best result in our 150+ year history,” Reynolds wrote alongside a graphic that showed how Wrexham has risen from the National League. “More to do. But for now, we have so much to be proud of, Reds.”

Elsewhere, Ipswich secured the second automatic promotion spot behind champion Coventry — and an immediate return to the Premier League — by beating Queens Park Rangers 3-0.

Ipswich is owned by U.S. investment group Gamechanger 20 Limited and counts pop star Ed Sheeran as a minority shareholder.

Joining Hull in the playoffs, which begin next week and are over two legs, are Millwall, Southampton and Middlesbrough.

Millwall will face Hull, and Southampton will meet Middlesbrough.

Best-ever finish by Wrexham

It was a memorable campaign by Wrexham in its first season in the second tier since the 1980s.

However, the short-term pain was acute, and Wrexham’s players sat on the ground and looked disconsolate after the final whistle — even though the Hull-Norwich match hadn’t finished.

Wrexham started the day in sixth place, ahead of Hull on goal difference, and conceded in the fourth minute to Middlesbrough, only to score through Josh Windass and Sam Smith for a 2-1 lead by the 41st.

Middlesbrough hit back immediately with a 43rd-minute equalizer but Wrexham finished the stronger, squandering a string of great late chances for a winner that would have secured a playoff place on goal difference.

Wrexham’s Josh Windass squats on the field and looks dejected following a draw with Middlesbrough on Saturday.

(Michael Steele / Getty Images)

In the end, Wrexham finished two points behind Hull.

“This squad as it stands, with a preseason together, will be even stronger next year,” said Wrexham manager Phil Parkinson, who oversaw a summer spend of around $40 million last year.

“Of course we’ll always look to add to that to try and give ourselves an even better chance … we know where we’d like to strengthen and what we need to improve on. We’ll do that and we’ll make this squad as strong as we possibly can to mount a challenge next year.”

Douglas writes for the Associated Press.

May 2 (UPI) — The Pentagon announced Friday that the United States would draw down 5,000 troops from Germany, and Germany responded Saturday that the move was anticipated.

The decision came after Chancellor Friederick Merz made comments criticizing the war with Iran, saying the United States has been “humiliated” by the war.

“The Secretary of War has ordered the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 troops from Germany,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement. “This decision follows a thorough review of the Department’s force posture in Europe and is in recognition of theater requirements and conditions on the ground. We expect the withdrawal to be completed over the next six to 12 months.”

President Donald Trump lashed out at Germany on Truth Social Thursday after Merz made the comments.

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine (Where he has been totally ineffective!), and fixing his broken Country, especially Immigration and Energy, and less time on interfering with those that are getting rid of the Iran Nuclear threat, thereby making the World, including Germany, a safer place!” the president said.

At a visit to a school in Germany on Monday, Merz said U.S. officials had entered a war without a clear strategy, saying the “whole affair is ill-considered to say the least.”

“The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skillful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any result,” CNN reported Merz said. “An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so-called Revolutionary Guards. And so I hope that this ends as quickly as possible.”

On Tuesday, Trump said that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

In response to the announcement of the drawdown, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius downplayed the news and called it “foreseeable.”

He said it illustrated the need for Germany to take more responsibility for its own security and said the country is “on the right track.”

As of December 2025, there were 36,436 active-duty U.S. military personnel permanently stationed in Germany, according to the U.S. Defense Manpower Data Center.

After the removal of 5,000 troops, Germany will still host more than 30,000 U.S. personnel.

Trump also threatened to remove troops in 2020 when Angela Merkel was the chancellor.

On Friday, Trump told reporters in the White House that Italy had “not been of any help to us,” and accused Spain of being “absolutely horrible.” He said he may remove troops from those countries, too. Italy and Spain have denied any U.S. military planes that are used in the war against Iran from using their bases.

Germany has allowed limited use of its military infrastructure, though it hasn’t allowed its use as staging grounds for strikes.

Merz has said Germany will help if the war moves to a post-war stage, such as a stabilization mission, CNN reported. Berlin recently announced it was sending a naval minesweeper to the Strait of Hormuz once a lasting cease-fire deal is in place.

Lawmakers of both parties have opposed the decision to remove personnel from Europe.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Rep. Mike D. Rogers, R-Ala., chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, issued a joint statement Saturday against the decision and telling the Department of Defense to work with the oversight committees. They said they were “very concerned” about the move.

“Rather than withdrawing forces from the continent altogether, it is in America’s interest to maintain a strong deterrent in Europe by moving these 5,000 U.S. forces to the east,” the statement said. “Allies there have made substantial investments to host U.S. troops, reducing costs for the U.S. taxpayer while strengthening NATO’s front line to help deter a far more costly conflict from ever beginning.

“Any significant change to the U.S. force posture in Europe warrants a deliberate review process and close coordination with Congress and our allies. We expect the Department to engage with its oversight committees in the days and weeks ahead on this decision.”

House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said that pulling the troops isn’t “grounded in any coherent U.S. national security policy, strategy, or even analysis.”

“It is counter to what is needed and will embolden Russia,” Smith said in a statement Friday. “It doesn’t matter that our presence in Germany is essential to our national security. … It doesn’t matter that withdrawing a brigade combat team from Europe runs counter to the intent of the law that Congress passed overwhelmingly last year. All that matters are the hurt feelings of a president who is seeking political vengeance.”

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked Trump to reverse the decision.

“Weakening our military footprint in Europe at a time when Russian forces continue to mercilessly attack Ukraine and harass our NATO allies is a priceless gift to [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and suggests American commitments to our allies are dependent on the president’s mood,” Reed said in a statement Friday.

In August 2026, Kazakhstan will hold an unusual election. The newly established unicameral parliament—the “Kurultai”—will, for the first time, be formed entirely through party lists. Independent candidates and regional representatives will no longer enter the core of state power. As a representative institution of so-called “steppe democracy,” the Kurultai has undergone multiple transformations throughout history, both in its functions and in the composition of its participants. According to recent constitutional arrangements, this mechanism has been elevated to an unprecedented level. This raises a key question: what direction does this transformation reveal in the current round of political modernization?

Historically, the Kurultai functioned as an important mechanism of consultation in steppe society, not as a system of mass participation, but as a platform composed of multiple layers of elite actors. Its participants included khans and sultans who held political authority, biys who were responsible for adjudication and governance, military leaders who organized mobilization in times of war, as well as tribal elders and influential akyns and zhyrau who shaped public discourse. In addressing critical issues such as succession, warfare, and internal conflict, the Kurultai did not rely on formalized procedures or fixed institutional rules. Instead, decisions were reached through authority, negotiation, and consensus. Although ordinary people did not possess direct institutional channels of participation, their interests and attitudes indirectly constrained decision-making through tribal structures, public opinion, and their willingness to comply with and implement decisions.

During the Soviet period and the early years of Kazakhstan’s independence, the Kurultai gradually lost its function as an operative political institution and became a symbol of historical memory and cultural identity. It was not until 2022, amid a serious crisis of political trust, that this traditional symbol was revived and institutionalized as the “National Kurultai,” reintroduced as a new format of public dialogue within the framework of state governance. Its declared purpose is to strengthen interaction between the government and society. In terms of composition, the National Kurultai formally continues the tradition of “broad participation,” including regional representatives, members of parliament, professionals from various sectors, and leaders of social organizations with a degree of public influence. However, this diversity is largely structural rather than functional. It reflects broad inclusion, but does not necessarily translate into a substantive mechanism for reconciling competing interests. The institution lacks the capacity to independently coordinate diverse social demands.

Moreover, the agenda-setting process and operational logic of the National Kurultai remain distinctly top-down. Key issues are primarily defined by the state, while participants tend to act as interpreters and endorsers of pre-established policy directions. In this sense, “consultation” often takes the form of explaining and legitimizing the state agenda. Through the participation and symbolic endorsement of elite actors, the state is able to construct an image of “broad public dialogue,” thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of its reform agenda. In this respect, the National Kurultai should not be seen as a simple continuation of a traditional consultative institution, but rather as an institutionalized platform for political communication and discursive integration. Its core function lies not in generating genuinely competitive policy alternatives, but in organizing a process of “consensus production” aimed at shaping values, mobilizing society, and reproducing the legitimacy of ongoing reforms.

In 2026, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev announced a major reform of Kazakhstan’s parliamentary system, proposing the transition to a unicameral “Kurultai Parliament.” Its members will be elected entirely through proportional representation based on party lists. The reform abolishes both the presidential quota and the special quota previously allocated to the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan. At the same time, quota guarantees for women, youth, and persons with disabilities will be retained, but incorporated into party list mechanisms rather than being directly allocated by the state.

From the perspective of institutional design, this reform strengthens the role of political parties as key intermediaries within the political system, positioning them as the primary channel through which social demands are transmitted to the state. In the context of electoral competition, parties are expected to secure support by more effectively representing public interests, while also integrating fragmented social demands. Compared with the previous mixed model of representation, which included multiple categories of actors, a party-centered system enhances the coherence of political positions: social demands are systematically aggregated and restructured before entering the political arena, thereby improving, to some extent, the efficiency of policy articulation and decision-making.

Building on this, if meaningful and substantive competition among political parties can be established, this model has the potential not only to integrate social interests but also to more fully reflect the diversity of social groups. Political parties could function not merely as instruments of organization and coordination, but also as a crucial link between diverse societal demands and the process of state decision-making—balancing efficiency in representation with breadth and inclusiveness.Under such conditions, the consultative model of the Kurultai may gradually evolve from an elite-driven mechanism of integration into an institutionalized system of interest articulation grounded in party competition, thereby enhancing, to a certain extent, its capacity for bottom-up representation.

The new ITV quiz show is fronted by Danny Dyer and Emily Atack

ITV has unveiled the first look at its new reality quiz show with a surprising twist.

Fronted by Danny Dyer and Emily Atack, Nobody’s Fool has been billed as a “unique reality event packed full of drama and deception.”

In this ruthless contest, participants’ survival depends not on their actual intelligence, but on how clever their rivals perceive them to be.

Throughout the series, ten competitors from across the UK will share a purpose-built “Smart House,” taking part in a game where perception, tactics and trickery matter just as much as brainpower.

With challenges completed behind closed doors, assumptions, biases and initial impressions will prove crucial, as hasty conclusions and deliberate misdirection keep both contestants and audiences second-guessing.

The show will feature daily individual quizzes testing various forms of intelligence, with correct answers contributing to a collective prize fund.

However, in a clever twist, only the participants themselves will know their actual performance – leaving them free to share as much or as little truth as they wish with their housemates.

As the series progresses, players must identify the weakest link among them and vote them out.

Discussing the programme, Danny Dyer enthused: “this is a blinder of a game show and unlike anything I’ve seen before. Emily and I had a brilliant time making it and much like the audience at home will be, we kept guessing right until the very end.”

Emily Atack added: “It’s so exciting to be part of something this new and fresh. The chance to work with Danny again was a no brainer for me. We had such a laugh. Can’t wait for everyone to watch, it’s an absolute must see.”

Sue Murphy, Director of Factual Entertainment at ITV, and Kate Teckman, Head of Development and Commissioning Editor at ITV, said: “Nobody’s Fool is an innovative reality/quiz crossover show that puts preconceptions, stereotypes and judgements to the test.”

They continued: “Danny and Emily are the perfect pairing to host this game of surprise and prejudice, that will no doubt have audiences on the edge of their seats.”

Meanwhile, Richard Cowles, MD, and Tom Gould, Director of Entertainment and Formats at Lifted Entertainment, added: “Nobody’s Fool takes a simple premise – How do you really determine how smart someone is?

He added: “Trust your preconceptions and judgement or what they tell you? – and turns that into a high stakes reality game show with up to £100k up for grabs.

“There is drama at every turn but with Danny and Emily on hosting duties, the fun and laughter is also never far away.”

Nobody’s Fool is coming to ITV soon

Environmentalists had something in their arsenal for Tuesday’s election they never did before: a billionaire benefactor willing to empty his pockets of tens of millions of dollars to bring climate change to the forefront of political debate and elect candidates committed to fighting global warming.

But California hedge fund titan Tom Steyer’s $74-million bet — most of it from his own wallet — yielded little payoff. On Tuesday, voters elected the most hostile Congress environmentalists have faced in years.

The Republicans who won control are already making plans to roll back President Obama’s signature emission reduction efforts, green-light the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would transport Canadian tar sands oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast, and cancel subsidies for renewable energy.

Steyer says he has no regrets.

“I feel great,” he said by phone from his organization’s San Francisco office. “We set out to put climate on the ballot in a bunch of states, to build an organization and to build a relationship with a bunch of voters.”

He argued that all of that happened, pointing to hundreds of thousands of climate-minded voters newly enlisted in his organization, NextGen Climate, the emergence of global warming in the debate in several races, and the retreat by various GOP candidates from a platform of outright denial of climate science.

He chalked up Tuesday’s results to “that part of the world we don’t control.” Steyer said there was no approach that would have overcome the Republican tide that gave the party control of Congress and defeated several of the candidates NextGen backed.

But the election results raise new questions about the approach deep-pocketed, green-minded donors are taking toward electoral politics. Despite their best efforts, and the huge amount of money invested, they are failing to get voters to set aside other concerns and cast their ballots on environmental issues. This time out, the president’s record and the economy were the forefront issues, with all others receding.

“The take-away here is this was not a successful strategy,” said Josh Freed, vice president for clean energy at Third Way, a group that seeks a middle path between the two warring parties. “Candidate positions on climate do not move the overwhelming majority of voters to pull the lever for or against them. I hope these organizations take a step back and come up with a different approach.”

Steyer’s group saw its candidates victorious in U.S. Senate races in Michigan and New Hampshire, and in state legislative races, including in Oregon. But candidates they backed lost in hotly contested Senate races in Colorado and Iowa. NextGen also failed to unseat the governors of Florida and Maine, targeted by the organization for their outspoken skepticism of climate science.

The unpopular GOP governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, which Steyer’s group campaigned against, lost. But even in that race — won by NextGen’s candidate, Democrat Tom Wolf — global warming hardly was a factor, according to G. Terry Madonna, who directs the Franklin & Marshall College Poll in Lancaster.

Steyer’s impact was “Zero. None. Zero,” he said. Climate change “was not an issue at all. It has literally no salience with voters. It didn’t ever come up.”

University of New Hampshire pollster Andrew Smith said much the same with regard to the Senate race in his state, which Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen won. “I don’t think anybody paid any attention to global warming this election,” he said.

In part that is because much of Steyer’s money was spent airing ads on issues his organization thought were more likely to turn out the Democratic faithful. But that too sometimes backfired.

In Colorado, independent pollster Floyd Ciruli suggested Steyer’s heavy TV advertising, which seized on a Democratic theme emphasizing abortion rights, may have actually hurt Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, who lost to GOP Rep. Cory Gardner.

“It was probably a net negative,” Ciruli said. “It turned out to be one of those things that threw Udall on the defensive. He was being parodied and mocked for it and criticized for it.”

Even Steyer’s strategists acknowledge that climate change is not a top-tier issue now. The question is whether it ever will be. Advocates such as Freed say the push seems to be futile, and well-funded green political groups should shift their strategy to more narrowly focused efforts with bipartisan appeal. They might start, he said, by being more open to such GOP-favored options as nuclear energy.

The green campaign efforts instead focus on getting Congress back to where it was in 2010, when it almost passed a California-style law that would have capped greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.

NextGen officials say they are confident in their strategy — and persistent. “This is a multi-cycle effort,” said Chris Lehane, Steyer’s lead political strategist. “If it was easy, it already would have been done…. Social change like this is not like switching on a light bulb.”

The GOP takeover of the Senate occurs as the science of climate change has grown more definitive and the predictions of widespread effects more detailed and dire. On Sunday, a panel of hundreds of climate scientists convened by the United Nations warned that climate change driven by the burning of fossil fuels was already affecting life on every continent and in the oceans and that the window was closing rapidly for governments to avert the worst damage expected later this century.

Yet skepticism of climate science remains Republican orthodoxy. North Carolina Sen.-elect Thom Tillis said in a primary debate that climate change is not “a fact.” Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, who is expected to take the helm of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” and dismissed the U.N. science panel “as a front for the environmental left.”

Obama moved to cut greenhouse gas emissions by issuing new rules for power plants and the nation’s vehicle fleet. The GOP-run Congress will not be able to nix the rules outright. But it could so thoroughly weaken or delay them through riders to key legislation that they’d be rendered ineffective, analysts said. Deeper cuts to the nation’s emissions would probably require congressional action, and the current GOP position on climate change makes such action improbable.

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune acknowledged there was a “copious amount of bad news” in Tuesday’s election. But he says there was “significant good news” as well.

“Candidates who formerly denied climate science are now saying they are not scientists and instead talk about clean energy and associate themselves with it,” he said.

“The money from Tom Steyer made a difference in elevating climate science and pushing all these lawmakers to move off a denial platform,” Brune said.

evan.halper@latimes.com

mark.barabak@latimes.com

Halper reported from New Orleans, Barabak from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Neela Banerjee in Washington contributed to this report.

ANAHEIM, Calif. — When Joel Quenneville took over the long-suffering Ducks nearly a year ago, the veteran head coach cautiously said he hoped to get his new team into contention this season for its first playoff spot since 2018.

His young, hungry Ducks made it to the playoffs, all right — and they’re clearly not just happy to be here.

After nearly winning the Pacific Division in a surprisingly strong regular season, these Ducks ended the franchise’s eight-year postseason drought — and now they’ve eliminated Connor McDavid, Leon Draisaitl and the two-time defending Western Conference champion Edmonton Oilers with a six-game series victory in the first round.

Anaheim finished it off with a 5-2 victory in Game 6 on Thursday night, calmly dispatching its more experienced opponents with the poise and potency that this team has shown for long stretches this season. Quenneville could only applaud as his team took the next step on its journey.

Ducks center Leo Carlsson celebrates with left wing Chris Kreider after scoring an empty net goal during Game 6 of their Stanley Cup playoff series against the Edmonton Oilers on Thursday in Anaheim.

(Mark J. Terrill / Associated Press)

“It’s a huge win,” Quenneville said. “I’m happy for the players. I’m happy for the fans. And now we’ve got a taste of playoff hockey, and I think we can feel at this moment that it’s so much fun playing games that have the meaning, and the building being as loud and excited as it is. It seems to grow from this level on.”

The future has finally arrived in Orange County, and the raucous sellout crowds that have supported this team all season long are loving the return of playoff hockey for the team that won California’s first Stanley Cup in 2007.

The Ducks also had one of the NHL’s best teams while winning five straight division titles through the middle of the 2010s, but those teams twice lost in the Western Conference finals before Anaheim fell into a rut of seven straight years without a playoff berth.

Those years of high draft picks have led to a roster with impressive high-end talent in its young core, and general manager Pat Verbeek added a slate of veteran signees to bolster it. Quenneville was the next huge piece of the puzzle, and the three-time Stanley Cup winner as a head coach has guided the Ducks to a first-round postseason upset.

“We know that (at) our best is a really good team when we’re playing the right way,” said Troy Terry, the longest-serving Ducks player since 2018. “We proved it to ourselves that we can do it consistently in a series, and our group should have a lot of confidence going forward in what makes us a good team.”

After stumbling into a 2-6-2 slump down the stretch and blowing the division lead, the third-place Ducks drew the playoff-tested Oilers in the first round. It looked like a nightmare matchup for an inexperienced team — but the Ducks were ready.

Anaheim stormed to a 3-1 series lead while pumping 20 goals past the Oilers, who looked slower and creakier than the Ducks. Edmonton showed off its postseason poise in Game 5, throttling the Ducks in a 4-1 victory and putting the onus on their inexperienced opponents to finish off the series.

And that’s exactly what the Ducks did: They scored three goals in the first period, jumped to a 4-1 lead after two, and never allowed the Oilers to get up enough momentum to seriously threaten a comeback.

“I’m just proud with the maturity level of that game,” Terry said. “For how inexperienced and young our team is, it’s exciting moving forward.”

Anaheim also got a star-making performance from defenseman Jackson LaCombe, who led the team with nine points while also leading its defensive effort against McDavid and Draisaitl. LaCombe, a late addition to the U.S. Olympic team last winter, led the Ducks with a plus-6 rating while playing 22 1/2 minutes per game and taking just one penalty.

“A lot of us young guys are learning a lot as we go along, and I thought we got better throughout the series,” LaCombe said. “It means a lot for us.”

The Ducks have extended their breakthrough season for at least another couple of weeks, and they’re relatively healthy. Their next opponent will be the Vegas Golden Knights — another experienced playoff team loaded with veterans.

The Ducks and their fans are thrilled to take the next step on this unlikely journey.

“Now we get to experience another round, and I think this is healthy for us,” Quenneville said. “We’ve got a young group that … you don’t know how they’re going to play, but you’re certainly excited what the upside is.”

Beacham writes for the Associated Press.

May 1 (UPI) — May Day demonstrations are expected Friday, as organizers call for boycotts of school, work and shopping in protest of the Trump administration’s policies.

The May Day Strong protests are to mark International Labor Day. While Labor Day in the United States is in September and is a celebration of the achievements of organized labor, May Day — May 1 — is traditionally a day of protest.

The message this year is that the United States should be “focusing on workers over billionaires,” National Education Association President Becky Pringle told NPR.

“We know there are bus drivers in New York and teachers in Idaho and nurses in Louisiana who are feeling the impact of a system that has decided … to put billionaires ahead of everyone else,” she said.

More than 500 labor unions, student groups and community organizations are expected to participate, organizers said.

A student group, Sunrise Movement, said on X that more than 100,000 students were expected to miss school in the one-day strike. The organization said it is made of “young people fighting fascism to win a Green New Deal.”

This year, rising prices and stagnant wages make this year’s protest especially important, Terrence Wise, an organizer with Missouri Workers Center in Kansas City, Mo., told USA Today.

“If you want to see real change, you’ve got to be a part of the solution. Because if you’re not out organizing and you’re not out in the streets and you’re not talking to your neighbors, you’re part of the problem,” Wise said.

May Day began in Chicago in 1886 as a protest demanding an eight-hour workday and is celebrated around the world.

“People have figured out who’s rigging the game and are taking action,” People’s Action Executive Director Sulma Arias told USA Today. “What we expect is people to come out and deliver a clear message. … They understand that they’re seeing broken promises by an administration that promised to make things more affordable. And yet none of that has happened for everyday people who are still struggling.”

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the administration of President Donald Trump supports workers.

“The Trump administration has never wavered from standing up for American workers, from renegotiating broken trade deals to securing trillions in manufacturing investments to slashing taxes on overtime to securing our border. President Trump will always have the backs of American workers,” Desai said.

In Nigeria’s North East, the Boko Haram insurgent group once carved out territory and declared a caliphate. In the North West, terrorist groups operate as fluid, profit-driven networks, embedding themselves in local economies. In the Middle Belt, communal violence reflects deeper contests over land, identity, and survival. In the South East, separatist agitation by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has fused with armed enforcement and criminal opportunism. Along the southern waterways, oil theft and piracy threaten economic lifelines.

Across all these theatres, one institution has remained consistently engaged: the Nigerian military, often as the default responder in the absence of effective civilian governance. Public perception often frames this engagement as a failure as attacks continue and civilians remain vulnerable. A closer, evidence-based reading tells a more complex story, however, though available data remains incomplete and, at times, contested. 

The Nigerian military appears to have adapted under pressure and recalibrated aspects of its doctrine, and, in key moments, helped reverse trajectories that once pointed toward state collapse. It has delivered tangible gains, some strategic, others tactical, many costly. Still, those gains sit on unstable ground because governance gaps, political interference, corruption, and weak institutional follow-through have repeatedly blunted them. Communities liberated from one threat find themselves exposed to another. 

The North East war: reversing a collapse

By early 2015, Nigeria was on the brink of losing control in the North East. Boko Haram had evolved from an insurgent group into a territorial force controlling large swathes of Borno State and parts of Yobe and Adamawa. It administered territory, collected taxes, and imposed its authority over local populations. Gwoza was declared the headquarters of a so-called caliphate. Entire communities were displaced, and military formations overrun.

The turning point came with a shift in military posture, in which command structures were reconfigured, and the operational headquarters was relocated to Maiduguri, the Borno State capital, bringing leadership closer to the frontline. Coordination with regional forces under the Multinational Joint Task Force (MJTF) also intensified as air and ground operations were synchronised.

The results were immediate and significant, though the durability of these gains has varied across locations. Key towns like Monguno, Bama, Dikwa, and even Gwoza, the symbolic heart of Boko Haram’s territorial claim, fell back under government control in rapid succession. Data from ACLED shows that between 2015 and 2025, the military recovered at least 259 territories. 

With this territorial success, supply routes were disrupted, and fighters were killed in large numbers. Civilians began to return to these areas, in some cases under fragile security conditions. 

It marked the collapse of Boko Haram’s experiment with territorial governance, and the battle for Sambisa Forest reinforced this shift.

For years, Sambisa had functioned as a strategic sanctuary where fighters trained, hostages were held, and leadership structures operated with relative security. It also carried psychological weight. As long as Sambisa remained intact, Boko Haram retained a sense of permanence.

The military’s assault on the forest required sustained effort involving navigating difficult terrain, dealing with improvised explosive devices, and confronting entrenched fighters. Airstrikes softened targets while ground troops advanced in phases, enabling special forces units to penetrate deeper into the forest.

The symbolic impact was significant, though not decisive in ending insurgent capacity. Boko Haram could no longer claim a fixed territorial base for as long as was once the case. Its command structure was disrupted, and its image of invincibility weakened.

And so Boko Haram fragmented into factions. The Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) emerged as a more structured and strategic actor while the Shekau-led faction became more erratic, marked by extreme violence and unpredictability.

The military adjusted again.

Operations shifted from territory holding to mobility and disruption. Intelligence-led raids targeted leadership and logistics. Airpower became central to deep strikes in difficult terrain. Operation Lafiya Dole, the codename for the counter-insurgency operation, transitioned into Operation Hadin Kai, reflecting a recalibrated effort.

Today, the insurgency remains active, particularly in remote areas and along the Lake Chad basin. But the scale and nature of the threat have changed.

The North West: fighting a war without frontlines

The North West posed a different challenge. Armed groups here are diffuse. It lacks a central command and is driven by economic incentives rather than ideology, so groups form, splinter, and realign quickly. Local grievances and criminal enterprise also intersect here.

Estimates suggest tens of thousands of terrorists operate across this region, covering multiple states including Zamfara, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, and Kaduna. This fragmentation complicates the military response, as frontlines, headquarters, and leadership structures (the usual strategic targets) are not clear. The military has responded by leaning heavily on airpower and targeted ground operations. This has not gone without major problems, such as the repeated “accidental bombing” of civilian populations, which have drawn criticism from rights groups and affected communities. 

Still, airstrikes have been used to hit camps deep within forested areas that are difficult for ground troops to access. Intelligence plays a critical role in identifying targets. Data shows that the sustained air campaign has yielded at least 909 strikes and 10,237 fatalities in 10 years. ACLED data shows that about 560 of these fatalities were civilians.

Ground forces usually conduct follow-up operations to recover weapons and temporarily secure areas.

Large numbers of kidnapped victims have been rescued during coordinated operations. Livestock, often a key economic asset for communities, has been retrieved. Such attacks have also killed some high-profile terrorist leaders, but they have also led to the loss of officers. 

In some areas, these operations appear to have had a temporary stabilising effect, though violence frequently resurges. Communities report periods of reduced attacks, farming activities have resumed in limited corridors, and confidence in security presence has improved, though often temporarily. 

Still, armed violence regenerates as the effects of weak governance in the North East are the same in the North West: new leaders emerge, and fighters disperse and regroup. Economic incentives remain strong. 

The Middle Belt: stabilising a political conflict

Violence in the Middle Belt is often described as a farmer-herder conflict, but the region’s violence reflects a complex mix of land disputes, ethnic tensions, and environmental stress. Armed militias operate alongside opportunistic criminal actors, while cycles of reprisal deepen mistrust between communities. 

There are too many dynamics in play here to reduce the crisis to a “military versus any specific group” conflict. Most of the time, softer kinetic actions, such as arrest and deterrence, are used. 

In certain corridors, the presence of military forces has reduced the frequency of mass casualty events. But the limits are clear. Several parts of the region still depend on self-help vigilante groups, who are often outgunned during terror attacks. 

There is also a growing distrust between communities and security operatives, who are sometimes accused of slow response and complicity. In April, residents of Gashish, a rural community in Barkin Ladi Local Government Area of Plateau State, staged a protest over continued attacks in the community despite military presence. A checkpoint manned by troops of Operation Enduring Peace was destroyed during the demonstration. 

The military has denied such accusations, but independent verification remains limited. 

However, in other areas, the visibility of armed forces has also had a deterrent effect on opportunistic attacks. 

At its core, the conflict in the region is driven by political and environmental factors. It revolves around identity and access to land and water. While military deployments can suppress violence temporarily, they cannot resolve competing claims or rebuild trust between communities. Without political solutions, stability remains provisional.

The South East: managing a hybrid threat

The South East presents a hybrid security challenge. Separatist agitation, particularly linked to IPOB, has evolved into a mix of political mobilisation and armed enforcement. The group has enforced sit-at-home orders through violence and intimidation while the Eastern Security Network (ESN) operates in forested areas.

The military’s response has been presented as targeted and intelligence-driven. Operations focus on dismantling camps, intercepting arms, and arresting key figures. Urban centres are secured to prevent escalation into wider insurgency.

Yet the approach carries risks.

Heavy-handed operations have generated grievances. Allegations of abuses have eroded trust in some communities. This complicates intelligence gathering, which is critical in a conflict where fighters blend into civilian populations. 

The Niger Delta and maritime domain: securing economic lifelines

In the South South and along Nigeria’s maritime corridors, the military, particularly the navy, has delivered some of its most visible successes. A decade ago, the Gulf of Guinea was a global hotspot for piracy. Sustained operations, including improved surveillance, increased naval patrols, and collaboration with international partners, have changed that landscape. These have led to the destruction of illegal refining sites and to arrests that disrupt networks involved in oil theft.

These gains have helped to protect revenue streams, stabilise energy production, and reinforce Nigeria’s position in regional maritime security, although illegal activities have not been fully eradicated. 

“The Nigerian military is overstretched”

According to World Bank data collected from development indicators in 2020, Nigeria has roughly 223,000 active personnel across the army, navy, and air force. The army, which carries out most internal operations, has about 140,000 to 150,000 troops.

In the battlespace, there are simultaneous operations in at least six theatres. That constitutes multi-domain internal security warfare. Nigeria has about 0.1 per cent of its population under arms. When compared to countries facing sustained internal conflict, which often exceed 0.3 to 0.5 per cent, the country is operating below the threshold needed to dominate territory.

On the geography front, Nigeria is over 923,000 square kilometres, with vast forests, porous borders, and ungoverned rural space. It is impossible to hold ground everywhere with the limited available personnel. So troops are cycled, which then leads to fatigue because units stay deployed for long periods with limited rest.

Retired Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, the country’s former Chief of Army Staff, recently said, “The military is overstretched, defence budgets are diverted to routine policing duties, and the Armed Forces’ preparedness for conventional threats is reduced.”

However, there are also welfare issues and equipment gaps, especially at the tactical level in remote theatres. The result is predictable: Tactical wins, like killing terror commanders or rescuing hostages are visible, but strategic stagnation remains because you cannot sustain presence everywhere.

The structural constraint: why gains do not hold

Despite these efforts, Nigeria’s security situation remains volatile. 

In many areas, once the military has cleared armed actors, there is limited follow-through by civil authorities, as local administration is weak. So, communities do not experience the full return of the state, allowing armed groups to exploit this gap to re-enter or reorganise.

Economic conditions sustain conflict. Studies have shown that high levels of poverty and unemployment, particularly among young people, create a pool of potential recruits when armed groups offer income, however precarious.

Trust deficits also weaken intelligence because communities that distrust state actors are less likely to share information. This limits the effectiveness of intelligence-led operations and increases reliance on force.

Finally, strategy remains fragmented. Nigeria faces different types of violence that require tailored responses. Yet policy often treats them through a similar lens. Counterterrorism approaches are applied to terrorist attacks, while military solutions are prioritised in conflicts that require political negotiation.

The Nigerian military has played a significant role in preventing state collapse in multiple regions.

At the height of Boko Haram’s expansion, the possibility of sustained territorial loss was real. That threat has been largely reversed. In the North West, despite persistent violence, terrorist groups have not been allowed to consolidate into a territorial authority. In the South East, tensions have been contained below the threshold of full insurgency. In the maritime domain, economic lifelines have been secured.

However, good governance remains the only real pathway out of a cycle of violence. 

Yet the reality remains harsh. Lives are still lost daily. Families continue to sell everything they own to pay ransoms. The military has contributed to pushing back elements of the threat with measurable, though uneven, success, but it has not eliminated them.

Additional data provided by Mansir Muhammed. 

Love Island presenter and Entrepreneur Maya Jama is heading in to the Traitors castle for the new series for Celebrity Traitors but she is pleading with fans to do this one thing…

The BBC has revealed the full line-up of 21 celebrities joining series two of Celebrity Traitors – with this year’s “big dogs” appearing to be Jerry Hall and Miranda Hart, or possibly Michael Sheen and Richard E Grant.

Another huge name for the show is Love Island presenter and entrepreneur, Maya Jama, who will join the stars to work out the traitors from the faithfuls. Filming for the programme, which takes place at the stunning Ardross Castle in the Scottish Highlands, begins next week with celebrities expected to arrive today.

Maya, who is currently on a break from filming Love Island, took to Instagram to react to the news of her being a part of the iconic TV game show, which will air later this year.

Posting the announcement on her Instagram Story, she said: “Secret’s out,” before pleading with fans with a hand over the eye emoji and said: “wish me luck”.

This message suggests that the star might not be the most confident, with the presenter herself unaware just yet whether she will be a goodie or a baddie in this game.

Once filming begins this weekend, the 21 contestants will be divided into Traitors and Faithfuls, following extensive interviews with host Claudia Winkleman and production staff.

From then on, their objective will be to identify which participants are making nocturnal trips to the turret dressed in those distinctive hooded cloaks – selecting which remaining contestants will be murdered.

Also taking part is BBC presenter Amol Rajan, The Last of Us actress Bella Ramsey and comedian James Acaster – not to be mixed up with You’re Beautiful singer James Blunt, who has also signed up.

This comes after Maya recently admitted she “is ready to move on” from presenting, as she eyes up a new career in acting. Drama was actually the TV star’s first love, with Maya, 31, auditioning for Channel 4 ‘s hit teen series Skins when she was just 15.

Despite getting to the final stages, she didn’t make it into the cast, which launched the careers of the likes of Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel and Daniel Kaluuya. And now the Bristol-born star, who is in a relationship with Man City footballer Ruben Dias, is ready to leave presenting to go back into acting.

Speaking to the BBC , Maya revealed she got “disheartened” after having to many unsuccessful auditions as a teen, leading her to give up on her dream. But now, after filming has wrapped for the upcoming release of the second season of Netflix crime thriller The Gentlemen, Maya’s love for the art has been reignited.

She told the broadcaster that her “dream role” would be to play a villain, but she “naturally fell into presenting roles” after starting out on YouTube . After a few years on social media, she made the move to TV to co-host ITV game show Cannonball, as well as MOBO Awards in 2017.

The year after she booked to host reality show The Circle and then ITV2 panel show Don’t Hate the Playaz. Of course, Jama’s big break came in 2022 when she replaced Laura Whitmore as the host for hit ITV reality dating show, Love Island.

Maya added: “I always remember when I started being like ‘how on Earth am I going to get on primetime TV as a girl from Bristol doing YouTube videos’ – it seemed like a massive reach.”

She added: “I naturally fell into presenting when I was young because I got to be myself on camera and I’m interested in humans”, adding: “Now it just feels like the doors opened up again [to get into acting]”. Maya said she is “ready to do something else after presenting for so long.”

Maya reportedly plays the glam wife of a friend of lead character Eddie Horniman, alongside the likes of Vinnie Jones and Ray Winstone. She spent time in 2025 filming at Gloucestershire’s Grade II listed building Badminton House, which is Eddie’s home.

The TV personality soft-launched her new gig with the streamer on social media at the start of last year. She teased her followers on Instagram when she posted a snap of a cast list with the Netflix logo on it.

She also shared a peek of a Netflix script, and posted a photo of her and Skins star Kaya, who plays mob boss Susie Glass in the show. Further adding to the speculation around what is next for Maya, she posted a photo of a Netflix mug, with fans then certain she was working on something big.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

WASHINGTON — President Clinton consulted congressional leaders Wednesday on his policy toward Bosnia but continued to avoid a firm commitment to seek congressional approval before deciding to send American forces there.

The 1973 War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress in most cases before sending troops into areas of potential hostilities and requires that the troops be withdrawn within 60 days if Congress does not authorize their presence.

The law was enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto. Each successive Administration has argued that it represents an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s powers as commander in chief.

During the last 12 years of Republican administrations, Democrats in Congress have made a major issue of support for the War Powers Act. That puts Clinton and his aides in a potentially difficult situation, which they have tried to avoid by evading questions about precisely where they stand.

Clinton continued that approach Wednesday. “Ask my lawyer, I don’t play lawyer,” he said when asked at a White House photo session whether he believes the law is constitutional. “I think it’s worked reasonably well.”

Later, White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos said: “The President is reviewing the War Powers Act at this time. That is under review by the National Security Council and the counsel’s office.”

White House aides have fallen back on carefully worded pledges to consult with Congress in a manner that is “consistent with” the war powers law but not necessarily “pursuant to” it. Once Clinton decides on a course of action, he “will go to the Congress if it is required,” Stephanopoulos said.

President George Bush followed a somewhat similar path before the Persian Gulf War. Bush argued that he did not need congressional authorization before sending troops to the Gulf but urged Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq before the actual war began. Bush insisted, however, that he had the power to go ahead with the attack if Congress voted against him.

Clinton’s less clear-cut position appears to be acceptable to congressional leaders.

Although members of Congress have often touted the War Powers Act as an important safeguard against unbridled executive power, few over the last 20 years have relished the prospect of using it.

One indication of the weakness of the law came in the House on Wednesday when it finally got around to approving a resolution authorizing the sending of U.S. troops to Somalia. The authorization came five months after the troops were dispatched and the day after U.S. forces turned over control of the relief effort to the United Nations.

At a ceremony at the White House to honor troops returning from the African nation, Clinton linked their experiences with the events that may soon unfold in the former Yugoslav republics.

“Your successful return reminds us that other missions lie ahead for our nation,” he said. “You have proved again that our involvement in multilateral operations need not be open-ended or ill-defined, that we can go abroad and accomplish some distinct objectives and then come home again when the mission is accomplished.”

At a later White House ceremony, where he talked about the importance of rapid action on health care reform, Clinton defended his Administration against the charge that monitoring developments in Bosnia-Herzegovina has interfered with his other activities and that it has tried to do too many things at once.

“One of the most challenging things we have to do in this city at this time is to break a mind-set that we have one problem at a time and we’ll get on it and we’ll only think about that,” Clinton said.

HOUSTON — Marcus Smart’s block. LeBron James’ dominant second quarter. Deandre Ayton’s relentless rebounding.

The individual performances in the Lakers’ ugly, but decisive, 98-78 series-clinching win over the Houston Rockets on Friday were almost too numerous for coach JJ Redick to focus on each one.

That collective spirit is also what makes him so confident heading into the Lakers’ first Western Conference semifinal appearance since 2023.

“For us to be written off a few weeks ago and to win a playoff series is a big deal,” Redick said after the Lakers polished off their first-round playoff series in six games. “And it just speaks to the character of our team and the leaders of our team. They didn’t let go of the rope.”

After winning a series in which they were underdogs for every game they won, the Lakers return to the scene of their lowest moment to face the Oklahoma City Thunder in the Western Conference semifinals beginning Tuesday.

The last time they were in Oklahoma City, the Lakers lost by 43 points. Their two best players sustained regular-season ending injuries, with news of Luka Doncic’s hamstring injury and Austin Reaves’ oblique strain coming on consecutive days after the loss. Still dazed from the emotional hangover, the Lakers lost their next two games.

“There was a lot of question marks,” Reaves said. “And just the way that we responded as a group, I think it just tells you a lot about the people that we have in our room. There’s no quit.”

The Lakers finished the regular season with three consecutive wins. They leapt out to a 3-0 series lead against Houston before letting doubt creep in again. After the Lakers squandered two chances to end the series, including a disappointing home loss Wednesday when Reaves returned from injury, critics wondered if the Lakers would really be the first team in NBA history to blow a 3-0 playoff lead.

James wouldn’t allow it.

The superstar forward dominated with 28 points on 10-of-25 shooting, seven rebounds and eight assists. He outscored the Rockets by himself in the second quarter 14-13 as the Lakers went on a 27-3 run to open a 19-point lead.

“We understand that he’s the guy that brings energy, but also we have to help him,” forward Rui Hachimura said, “especially you know, he’s old now.”

Hachimura didn’t try to suppress a smile.

Lakers forward Rui Hachimura blocks a shot by Rockets forward Jabari Smith Jr. during the first half of Game 6.

(Ashley Landis / Associated Press)

The Japanese forward did his part with 21 points, including five three-pointers. Smart leapt for a jaw-dropping block against 6-foot-8 Tari Eason and drew three charges. Ayton had 16 rebounds, helping the Lakers outrebound the best rebounding team of a generation 54-45.

Ayton, often maligned for his inconsistent effort, has been a force in the postseason, averaging 11.8 points and 10.8 rebounds while often guarding Rockets All-Star Alperen Sengun one-on-one.

“He’s been saying it all year: ‘Wait till I get to the playoffs,’” Smart said of Ayton. “It’s a different side of him that fans haven’t seen, that we expect, that we know he can give. He knows it and he’s ready.”

In his second game back from injury, Reaves had 15 points on seven-of-14 shooting with three blocks. He missed all four of his three-point attempts, still searching for his shooting rhythm after a long layoff. But the way Reaves attacked his treatment and returned before the typical four- to six-week timeline was his own form of leadership, Redick said.

Reaves sometimes left his house at 7:30 a.m. and didn’t return until more than 12 hours later. He drove all over L.A. looking for different treatment options. He did everything short of following Doncic to Europe, Reaves joked.

Doncic’s status is still unknown for the beginning of the conference semifinals. He has yet to progress to live play on the court, although he recently started incorporating movement into his on-court drills instead of just stationary shooting. He is still out indefinitely.

Without the star point guard, the Lakers could confidently turn to James to steer them through choppy waters. He averaged 22.8 points, 7.2 rebounds and 8.3 assists in the first-round series. At one point during Friday’s game, Reaves approached him to just tell him his performance was “insane.”

“I don’t think you can say in words how special he was,” Reaves said, “not just tonight but this series, this year.”

In the locker room after the game when the Lakers prepared to break their last huddle, the lights suddenly clicked off. Players started bleating, serenading James with sounds deserving of the G.O.A.T. — greatest of all time.

The provided text highlights the annual public holiday in Bhutan commemorating the birth of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck, the nation’s third monarch. Recognized as the Father of Modern Bhutan, the late king is celebrated for ending the country’s isolation and initiating significant socio-political reforms. His legacy includes transitioning the government toward a parliamentary democracy and establishing a contemporary educational framework. Consequently, the date also serves as Teachers’ Day, honoring his commitment to balancing global progress with the preservation of local heritage. This overview illustrates how his twenty-year reign successfully integrated the Himalayan kingdom into the twentieth century

Ruben Rocha Moya again denies allegations he shielded cartel, says taking ‘temporary leave’ to defend self.

The governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state has temporarily resigned days after being charged by United States authorities in a sweeping drug trafficking indictment that has further strained relations between the two countries.

In a brief video statement posted late Friday, Ruben Rocha Moya again denied any wrongdoing, but said he was taking “temporary leave” to defend himself against the US allegations.

The indictment unsealed by US prosecutors earlier this week claimed that Rocha Moya and nine other officials directly aided the Sinaloa drug cartel in its smuggling operations in exchange for political support and bribes.

That support included members of the powerful cartel kidnapping and threatening opposition candidates in the 2021 election and stealing paper ballots cast for those running against Rocha Moya, the indictment charged.

Rocha Moya is a member of President Claudia Sheinbaum’s progressive Morena party.

“My conscience is clear,” Rocha Moya said in the video message. “To my people and to my family, I can look you in the eye because I have never betrayed you, and I never will.”

Juan de Dios Gamez Mendivil, the mayor of the Sinaloa state capital Culiacan who was among the other officials charged by the US, also announced he would step down on Saturday. He has denied the allegations.

Sheinbaum has also pushed back on charges, which come at a time when she has sought to navigate tense relations with the administration of US President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, she said her government had not been provided with any concrete evidence to back up the claims, suggesting the information laid out in the indictment was insufficient.

“My position on these events is as follows: truth, justice and the defence of sovereignty,” Sheinbaum said.

She added that if “clear and irrefutable evidence” is presented, the US still must proceed “in accordance with the law under our jurisdiction”.

Sheinbaum maintained her government will not “shield anyone who has committed a crime”.

“However, if there is no clear evidence,” she added, “it is evident that the aim of these charges by the [US] Department of Justice is political.”

Tense US-Mexico relations

Since taking office in January of last year, the Trump administration has heaped pressure on Mexico to do more to address migration and drug smuggling.

The approach has included Washington imposing a host of tariffs as leverage against Mexico’s government.

The US State Department has also labelled several Latin American drug cartels as “Foreign Terrorist Organisations”, an unorthodox move in line with the administration’s more militaristic approach to Latin America.

The administration has broadly argued that the criminal groups are driven, in part, by efforts to destabilise the US, a claim rejected by many longtime experts.

Sheinbaum has walked a careful line with Trump, increasing cooperation in countering cartels while pledging to protect Mexico’s sovereignty. Notably, she has staunchly opposed the prospect of any US military action on Mexican soil.

But experts have said charging elected officials in Mexico represents a major escalation in the Trump administration’s strategy.

Speaking to Al Jazeera this week, Vanda Felbab-Brown, an expert on non-state armed groups at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, DC, said the approach had “long been considered a very big step, almost a ‘nuclear option’”.

She predicted more US indictments were likely to come.

We can analyze China’s current stance on the escalating Iranian conflict by understanding its true position. China does not desire a full-scale war that would destroy its oil interests, but it is not averse to the continuation of the neither-peace-nor-war situation that drains its adversaries, such as Washington. This positions China as a player that pushes for calm during critical times, while simultaneously providing Iran with the economic lifeline it needs. Here, China plays a dual and complex role in the Iranian conflict (the Iranian-American/Israeli conflict), balancing its strategic support for Tehran to safeguard its energy interests and undermine American influence with its pursuit of a ceasefire to avoid widespread economic chaos.

Based on current developments up to early May 2026 and statements by Iranian officials that war is a possibility, the regional and international landscape reveals a divide between actual military escalation and cautious diplomacy. The Chinese position and the likelihood of war can be analyzed based on several factors. China views the current conflict with Iran as a proxy war, prioritizing stability over stability. China considers Iran a strategic partner, and its stance is characterized by a delicate balance. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly called for de-escalation and a complete ceasefire to prevent further escalation in the Middle East, while simultaneously condemning American escalation. China has stated that American and Israeli military operations against Iran violate its sovereignty and has expressed grave concern about the potential imposition of a blockade on Iranian ports and the Strait of Hormuz. While Beijing seeks to protect its investments and economic interests, China is deeply concerned about any disruption to oil and energy supplies, especially since a direct war would lead to imported inflation, negatively impacting its economy. Therefore, China’s current stance is characterized by a cautious, mediating role. China is attempting to play the part of a peace broker but is also wary of the potential damage a war could inflict on its relations with the United States, especially given the ongoing diplomatic exchanges between the two countries.

Regarding the likelihood of war (and the expected scenarios), despite the tense rhetoric, a full-scale, direct war between the United States and Iran remains a risky prospect for all parties. Current indicators suggest that a war is already underway (indirectly), particularly since the start of direct military operations (US/Israeli strikes) against Iran and its allies in February 2026. This indicates that a direct war remains a strong possibility. The option of blockade and proxies also remains a possibility. Chinese intelligence and military assessments suggest that Iran might prefer to carry out its threats through proxies in the region or by disrupting oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz, rather than engaging in a direct war, to avoid a conventional military defeat. Despite Chinese diplomatic efforts to contain the situation, and despite the escalation, attempts are still underway, such as Pakistani mediation, to reach a ceasefire. This indicates a desire among the parties to keep the door open for political solutions.

As for my perspective on the proxy war between China and Iran against the United States and Israel, the current conflict is likely to continue as a proxy war of attrition, with limited and precise strikes, rather than a full-scale ground invasion. China will likely exert further pressure, continuing to push for diplomatic solutions because any large-scale war would threaten the stability of global energy supplies, on which it depends. It’s worth noting that the region is going through a critical moment and a dangerous phase of mutual deterrence. Iranian officials’ statements are as much messages of deterrence as they are an acknowledgment of the potential for escalation.

Regarding China’s role in the continuation of the war or its support for Iran (strategic and economic support), China considers the Iranian Strait of Hormuz and its purchases of Iranian oil as a vital economic lifeline. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil (approximately 80-90% of exports), providing Tehran with crucial funding to sustain its activities. China also seeks to help Iran circumvent US sanctions, assisting Iran in bypassing these sanctions through an unofficial oil fleet, thus keeping the Iranian economy afloat. Furthermore, there is a strategic Chinese-Iranian partnership opposed to the West and US sanctions against Tehran. China views Iran as a partner in undermining the US-led global order through organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Moreover, China is exploiting the current situation to its advantage. Chinese intelligence, military, defense, and security analyses suggest that the continuation of the Iranian war drains US resources and provides China with an opportunity to enhance its influence, absorbing the shock of the war and potentially emerging with strategic gains.

At the same time that China is playing a role in halting the Iranian war through mediation diplomacy to de-escalate tensions, with China acting as a hidden mediator to urge Tehran to cooperate and reach a ceasefire with the United States to protect its economic interests, despite China’s support for Iran, the war harms China by closing the Strait of Hormuz and threatening its energy security. This prompts Beijing to urge an end to the war and the reopening of waterways. Therefore, China is pursuing a policy of diplomatic pressure, consistently calling for restraint and believing that the best solution is an immediate ceasefire, according to statements by its permanent representative to the United Nations.

Accordingly, we conclude that a full-scale war is theoretically possible but practically unlikely as a final option due to the exorbitant cost to all parties. However, the continuation of retaliatory strikes and economic sanctions remains the most probable scenario at present.

We are living in an era of dissent, but what does that mean in 2026? According to writer Gal Beckerman, to be a dissident is as much a way of being as it is an act of resistance. In his new book “How to Be a Dissident,” Beckerman, a staff writer for the Atlantic, unpacks dissent as a kind of rough art. His book is both an instruction guide and a primer.

In nine short, potent chapters, Beckerman lays out the essential traits of an effective dissident — loyalty, recklessness and watchfulness, among them — to illustrate how communities of resistance are built from the ground up. I recently chatted with Beckerman about playwright and former president of the Czech Republic Václav Havel, President Trump and AI.

✍️ Author Chat

You have written three books that deal with dissent — political, cultural and societal. It’s clearly a big issue with you.

I don’t think of myself as an activist; I don’t approach these topics with an activist’s fervor. I’m genuinely curious about how change happens in society. All four of my grandparents survived the Holocaust, and I think the notion of a society that can change that quickly and turn on you was always very shocking and interesting to me.

In reading your book, it’s really inspiring and extraordinary to read about individuals putting their lives on the line to make change happen.

They genuinely fascinate me as these bizarre human beings who are able to act in ways that I find really mysterious. There’s a mystery as to how people’s minds actually change, and how society can change.

You write about making moral choices, and doing something bold because of some strongly held belief. This is not the same thing as joining the crowd, which can be the path of least resistance.

I had this feeling during the first few months of the current Trump term (and I share this sentiment with a lot of people) that we were just bowled over by the degree to which people in elite places were acquiescing to the exercise of executive power and being willing to bend the knee in ways that felt shocking to me. This prompted me to wonder, what would I do in that situation? Would I say “no” and not succumb to the will of executive power? Would any of us do so? It’s a question we all have to ask ourselves.

You cite Iris Murdoch’s notion of “radical humanism” as a key trait of effective dissent.

Radical humanists are attuned to the messy and wonderful ways that beings just are. They are defending those conditions for human beings to have a normal life, whether that means being able to listen to whatever music you like, or to wear your hair in a certain way, or to take care of a neighbor that is being ill-treated. Václav Havel called it the “pre-political” way of thinking and acting. And we saw this recently in Minnesota, with people standing up to ICE, regardless of what their political affiliations might be. Something pre-political was going on.

Another important factor you cite is civic mindedness, which feels like a difficult goal given how our communities have been dissolved by our screen addictions.

The communication tools that we use are dehumanizing in many ways because they don’t allow us to really see each other. Instead we preconceive each other and just scream a lot. And we know this at a gut level even as we continue to use them. That’s why I do think it takes an almost dissident sort of energy to insist on thinking in a different way and scrambling the assumptions that our modes of communication have foisted upon us.

What about AI? It feels as if there is a lot of resistance to accepting AI into our lives just because technology companies are investing billions of dollars to make it so. You are seeing communities protesting against the construction of data farms in their neighborhoods, for example.

The money behind the ideology pushing AI is about letting us feel that the only way to have an efficient life is through AI. And I feel like the 20th century taught us that there are lots of ideologies that come around to promise this sort of thing. And so we need to learn from that. I think there are a lot of overwhelming powers that try to flatten us. But we have to take that wonderful human element, that radical humanism, to say no, maybe there’s a way to do it better.

📰 The Week(s) in Books

Monica Lewinsky as a saint offering solace to the lovelorn and abandoned? Julia Langbein’s wild conceit works beautifully in her novel “Dear Monica Lewinsky,” according to Julia M. Klein, who calls the book “smart, poignant and involving.”

Among the casualties of the Vietnam War were the Appalachian communities whose male populations were decimated on the frontlines. This is the subject of Pamela Steele’s “taut, lyrical” novel “In the Fields of Fatherless Children,” a book that delves into the “poverty, racism, environmental degradation and despair suffered in the Appalachian ‘holler’ during the Vietnam era,” writes Meredith Maran.

The Times’ Deputy Entertainment and Arts Editor Nate Jackson sat down with the rapper, actor and K-Town native Jonnie Park to discuss his memoir, “Spit: A Life in Battles.”

Finally, Maddie Connors answers the question, “why are novels getting shorter?” Welcome to the age of the Adderall novel.

📖 Bookstore Faves

The inside of Mystery Pier Books

(Mystery Pier Books)

Established in 1998, Mystery Pier Books is L.A.’s prime destination for rare books and signed editions across a wide range of genres and forms, including Shakespeare folios and vintage sci-fi paperbacks. Located right alongside its Sunset Strip neighbor Book Soup, Mystery Pier was established by character actor Harvey Jason and his son Louis, who continue to run the store together. I chatted with Harvey about the treasures to be found in his store.

What is the market like for rare books right now?

Very strong, in fact. We just sold a beautiful edition of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy to a private collector for $55,000. And that is actually a reasonable price for those books. We have a long list of serious collectors all over the world that contact us for books, customers that have been coming to us for years. We also sold a first edition of “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” for $17,500.

Why should one own a rare book?

It’s a good investment. People who collect rare books are book lovers, first and foremost. And they are smart enough to know that the books they love can increase in value year by year. First editions never depreciate. They always become more valuable over time.

I’m interested in journalism books. Do you have any Tom Wolfe or Hunter Thompson in your store?

Hunter Thompson came in here years ago and signed all of his books, so, yes, we have his books signed by him.

Do you see young people looking to get into collecting books?

Yes. A lot of recent college graduates are building collections. It’s very heartening to see that. You can come into our store and find nice editions for $100. The front room of our store contains the first editions but our other rooms will have landmark titles for far less money. This is really a pursuit for everybody, not just wealthy collectors.

In the biggest jolt to abortion policy in the U.S. since the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, a federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common ways to end early pregnancies by blocking the mailing of mifepristone prescriptions.

The unanimous ruling Friday from the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks a substantial victory for abortion opponents seeking to stem the flow of abortion pills prescribed online that they view as subverting state bans on the procedure.

The ruling, which is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, requires that mifepristone be distributed only in person and at clinics, overruling regulations set by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

Friday’s ruling is in effect while the case works its way through the courts, but a mifepristone maker has asked the appellate court to put its ruling on hold until the Supreme Court weighs in.

Here’s what to know.

Nationwide impact

Frustrated with a lack of federal action against medicated abortions, Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill sued the FDA last month, saying its regulations undermined the state’s ban on abortions at all stages of pregnancy.

“The regulation creates an effective way for an out-of-state prescriber to place the drug in the hands of Louisianans in defiance of Louisiana law,” Judge Kyle Duncan, who was appointed by President Trump, wrote in the ruling.

FDA officials have said the agency is conducting a new review of mifepristone’s safety, but the appeals court noted that there was no timeline for its completion.

Friday’s ruling affects all states, even those without abortion restrictions.

There is little precedent for a federal court overruling the scientific regulations of the FDA, and it remains to be seen how the decision could affect how the drug is dispensed long-term.

Murrill, a Republican, celebrated the ruling as a “victory for life,” while other antiabortion advocates cheered the reversal of rules finalized under President Biden that ended a long-standing requirement that the pills be obtained in person at a doctor’s visit.

Representatives for the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Long record as safe and effective

Danco Laboratories, a mifepristone manufacturer and defendant in the lawsuit, has asked the appeals court to put its order on hold for one week to give the company time to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies. It is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, which is not affected by the ruling but is less effective on its own.

Surveys have found that the majority of abortions in the U.S. are administered using pills and that about 1 in 4 abortions nationally are prescribed via telehealth. Providers have suggested that its availability through telehealth is a reason why the number of abortions in the U.S. has not fallen since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022.

As a result, abortion pills and those who prescribe them out of state have become key targets of abortion opponents.

Some Democratic-led states have adopted laws that aim to protect providers who prescribe via telehealth and mail the pills to states with bans. Those so-called shield laws are being tested through civil and criminal cases in Louisiana and Texas.

One telehealth provider in a state with a shield law, Dr. Angel Foster, was working with legal experts to understand how the ruling would affect her organization, the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project.

“We will do everything in our power to continue providing care to people in all 50 states,” she said.

Midterm politics

The case could make abortion a key issue in this fall’s midterm elections as Democrats aim to take back control of the U.S. House and Senate and Republicans fight to hold on to their narrow majorities.

Recent electoral results suggest that voters seeking to maintain abortion access have the political momentum. Since Roe was overturned, abortion has been on the ballot directly in 17 states. Voters have sided with the abortion rights side in 14 of those results.

Abortion rights supporter Fatima Goss Graves, president and chief executive of the National Women’s Law Center, slammed Friday’s ruling as “deeply out of step with both the public and fact-based science.”

Trump received criticism after the ruling from some antiabortion advocates who expressed frustration that he did not take action himself to block distribution of the pill.

The FDA under Trump approved another generic version of mifepristone last year, which peeved some allies of the president.

“It’s shameful that the Trump administration’s inaction has forced pro-life states to take their battle to the federal courts,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, who also applauded the ruling.

Schoenbaum and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — It’s Kentucky Derby Day, also known as the day everyone waits around for eight hours to watch a two-minute horse race.

But that’s part of what makes the Derby what it is … not just a race, but an event. And maybe 8 a.m. PDT is a little early to begin your neighborhood party, but we’re not judging. Besides, if you’re reading this in the Eastern Time Zone, 11 a.m. is prime brunch time.

What you really want to know, though, is what time the horses actually will break from the gate at Churchill Downs. For the seventh straight year, the official post time is 6:57 p.m. EDT, though a timeline released Friday at the track said the horses would load into the gate at 7:01, with a start at 7:02.

To spare you the math, that’s 3:57 p.m. in Los Angeles and the rest of the Pacific Time Zone, with the race starting just after 4. (In the last six years, the race has gone off sometime between 3:59 and 4:05.)

But you don’t want to just tune into NBC at the top of the hour. There’s the walkover of the horses from the stable area to the paddock beginning at about 3:15 PDT, the call for “Riders Up” (from retired jockey Pat Day) at 3:44, the “Call to the Post” at 3:45 and the University of Louisville choir singing “My Old Kentucky Home” right after that.

If you’re interested in any of the 11 races at Churchill Downs before the Derby, and there are some good ones, they begin at 8 a.m. PDT. The first two races are available on FanDuel TV (yes, it’s still in business) before Peacock and NBCSN take over at 9 a.m. That’s where the next four races, including two graded stakes, will be televised.

Then, once NBC’s coverage of the Premier League soccer game between Arsenal and Fulham ends at 11:30, the network will show the rest of the card, which features five stakes races leading up to the Derby.

The Derby does not end NBC’s sports day, however. After the trophy presentation, the network hopes much of its audience sticks around for Game 7 of the NBA Eastern Conference playoff series between the Philadelphia 76ers and Boston Celtics. Tipoff is scheduled for shortly after 4:30 p.m. PDT.

EasyJet has issued a new statement this Saturday, May 2 as UK travellers consider their holiday plans amid concern over jet fuel shortages

EasyJet has issued a new update for UK travellers currently looking to book their summer flights. Holidaymakers up and down the country are busy making plans for the warmer months ahead.

However, they are doing so amid uncertainty hanging over parts of the airline industry. This follows jet fuel shortages brought about by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran.

Lufthansa has already confirmed that 20,000 of its flights are to be axed as a result. Industry experts warn that further airlines are likely to slash their capacity in the coming weeks – with Ted Wake, managing director of Kirker Holidays, last week predicting that “I think other airlines within the UK market will be doing something similar.”

Across the Atlantic, we reported earlier today that budget carrier Spirit Airlines has announced it is grounding all of its flights, as the jet fuel crisis, combined with mounting financial pressures, pushed the airline to the edge of collapse. easyJet has now set out new commitments to customers alongside a fresh statement.

It is all part of a bid to put the minds of UK passengers at rest as they weigh up their summer travel options. Ryanair and Wizz Air have also moved within the past 24 hours to offer their own reassurances to British holidaymakers.

In a statement released today, easyJet said: “easyJet is not seeing any disruption to fuel supply. We continue to operate our flights and package holidays as normal, are not making changes and intend to operate our full summer schedule. We remain in close contact with suppliers who continue to provide uninterrupted supply and are diversifying exporting from additional countries globally to bolster supplies going forward.”

easyJet made the latest statement as it introduced new measures designed to give UK travellers greater peace of mind when booking flights. The airline has unveiled a ‘Book with Confidence Promise’ in a move to reassure passengers ahead of the summer season.

The carrier says it is guaranteeing that customers won’t be hit with post-booking price rises or fuel surcharges. easyJet says it plans to operate its complete network schedule, which includes more than 50 million seats and 30 new UK routes.

According to the airline, the ‘Ultimate Flexibility’ policy enables holidaymakers to amend or cancel their bookings up to 28 days prior to departure. Kenton Jarvis, CEO at easyJet said: “We understand that global events may affect travellers’ confidence at the moment, but we believe that everyone has a right to book their flights and holidays with confidence.

“That’s why we’re launching our ‘Book with Confidence Promise’. Our customers won’t be charged any more after they book, including no fuel surcharges, and package holidays customers can continue to benefit from Ultimate Flexibility when they book with easyJet Holidays.”

Jet2, easyJet and TUI have all pledged not to impose additional charges on travellers for fuel price increases. In new remarks published today, Michael O’Leary, the boss of Ryanair, Europe’s largest airline, told The Times that 80 per cent of its fuel supply until March 2027 had been secured in advance. He confirmed the company would not be reducing any flights, despite the crisis costing the firm approximately £37 million each month in extra fuel costs on its unhedged supply.

Eddie Wilson, chief executive of Ryanair, warned that rival airlines could soon begin “gouging” their schedules should prices remain elevated. He said: “What’s going to happen with airlines that are not financially robust, they either have to decide whether they are going to continue flying at a loss or start gouging their schedules. That’s not something we are contemplating.”

Meanwhile, Wizz Air has also moved to reassure customers. Speaking to renowned UK travel broadcaster and journalist Simon Calder on his Independent travel podcast, the airline expressed confidence that it will deliver a full schedule of flights this summer.

“We have just launched our biggest-ever network from the UK and in particular from Luton,” said Yvonne Moynihan, managing director of Wizz Air UK. “Despite the challenging geopolitical crisis, business goes on as usual. In airlines, we are well used to crises, so we are resilient and we’re well adapted.

“For low-cost airlines like Wizz in the UK, we don’t see any shortage of fuel.” She said that if jet fuel shortages affected the UK, the airline would get fuel from elsewhere.

“We can take more fuel than is required in those destinations,” she said. “We can even fly to other countries and and pit-stop, if you will, if we need additional fuel.

“But we’re not seeing an Armageddon situation. We have fuel supply. We have other mechanisms for uplifting fuel.”

A Jet2 spokesman said: “We remain in continual dialogue with our fuel suppliers, as is standard practice. Based on the conversations we have been having, we see no reason not to look forward to operating our scheduled programme of flights and holidays as normal.”

Airlines UK said: “UK airlines continue to operate normally and are not experiencing issues with jet fuel supply.”

Social media is full of posts showing off photos and videos of fancy-looking cafes and restaurants in Gaza. Pro-Israeli accounts often use these images to claim that life is back to normal in Gaza, that people are not suffering and that no genocide ever took place.

These cafes and restaurants do exist. I have seen them myself.

In late March, I went on my first visit to Gaza City since the war started. I was shocked to see the destruction wrought on the city. There were piles of rubble at every corner. Unable to recognise the streets, I felt as if I were strolling through a maze. I soon arrived at an area nearby that shocked me even more. It was full of new cafes that did not exist before the war.

These were not makeshift or temporary places as one might expect; they were built with expensive materials, carefully painted, furnished with tables, sofas, and elegant chairs, with glass facades and shining lights. A luxury feel emanated from them. They looked so out of place amid the rubble and the half-collapsed buildings that it felt almost surreal to see them.

These new establishments do not prove that normality is coming back to Gaza. They are a testament to its continuing genocidal abnormality.

The war made some people in Gaza rich, especially those who engaged in illicit activities like smuggling, looting, and hoarding during acute shortages. This wealth is now coming out in various forms, including luxury cafes and restaurants.

In parallel, the vast majority of Gaza’s population has been thrown into abject poverty. While before the war, the average person was able to afford to sit at a cafe and have a drink and a bite to eat, today this is no longer the case.

Most people cannot even look at these new places, let alone enter them and order something. The vast majority of Gaza’s population lives in tents, has no electricity or potable water, and suffers from the loss of livelihoods. They are surviving on what little aid Israel is allowing through.

I am one of them. My family and I live in a tent pitched near the rubble of our home in the Nuseirat camp. We have lost our family livelihood. The comfortable life we used to have is now just a distant memory.

The expensive new establishments reflect the deeply unjust social order that has emerged in Gaza – one where war profiteering has elevated a new privileged class and collapsed the vast majority into misery with no access to proper education, healthcare and even food. The genocide did not just kill and maim people and destroy homes and schools; it eliminated the prospect of a normal life for most people in Gaza.

I could not afford the fancy cafes, so I continued down the street till I reached a more modest restaurant, which used to go to with friends before the war. Entering it felt like stepping back in time to the days before the war; the place was the same, with the same chairs and tables, and the familiar smells that filled the space.

I sat and observed, dwelling on fond memories of spending time there after university lectures. I ordered what I used to order: a chicken wrap, a soda and a small salad plate. The bill was 60 shekels ($20) – more than three times what I would pay before the war, when my family actually had a normal income.

The restaurant bill, together with the fare I paid for a shared ride to get to Gaza City (15 shekels or $5 one way), cost me a fortune. I felt guilty spending all this money to enjoy a glimpse of normalcy.

The few who are fortunate enough to be able to afford going to cafes and restaurants in Gaza may enjoy short moments of relief, a temporary escape from the horrors of reality. Yet these moments are limited, often accompanied by anxiety about returning to the destroyed streets, the bombed-out landscape and the trauma.

As I sat at Al-Taboon, I thought of the friends with whom I used to spend time: Rama, who was martyred and Ranan, who escaped to Belgium. I sat there alone, holding on to these memories amid the greyness of Gaza’s rubble and the lights of the generator-powered cafés.

The genocide has devasted everyone – even those who have profiteered from it. No amount of time spent in shiny cafes and restaurants will ever erase this reality.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The U.S. Air Force said its new interim Air Force One jet, dubbed the VC-25B Bridge aircraft, has officially completed modifications and flight testing and is being painted in the red, white and blue livery sought by President Donald Trump. The extremely lavish 747-8i Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) – donated by Qatar to the U.S. last year for use by Trump – is set to serve in the Air Force One role while the White House awaits the delayed delivery from Boeing of two fully-outfitted VC-25B Air Force One aircraft. There are no plans to retire the VC-25As that currently serve as Air Force One until both full-up VC-25Bs are operational.

The Air Force said the VC-25B Bridge aircraft is on schedule to roll out in its new paint scheme and be delivered to the Presidential Airlift Group this summer. It is not clear when it will start flying Trump. The White House referred us to the Air Force for additional information.

The jet recently underwent flight testing in Texas, which you can see in the following photos that aviation photographer TT-33 operator was kind enough to share with us at the time.

The USAF now says that with the Boeing VC-25B deliveries delayed far past its initial 2024 target and VC-25A heavy maintenance cycles being extended, an interim capability became “an absolute imperative.” How accurate this claim actually is isn’t clear. Trump has been talking about an interim Air Force One aircraft for some time since deliveries of the new VC-25Bs were pushed back beyond his second term. We heard of no actual requirements originating for this capability from within the USAF prior to the new administration or far in advance of Trump’s deal with the Qataris to source the jet. Very early in the new administration, Elon Musk was even working to find out how to get Trump a new Air Force One as fast as possible, for instance.

The Air Force claimed that in February 2025, a dedicated task force launched a “full-court press” on the VC-25B Bridge program while simultaneously working to accelerate Boeing’s long-term VC-25B production.

Though questions were swirling about the legality and ethics of receiving the gifted plane, the Pentagon last May took delivery of the aircraft and said it would rapidly undertake the required modifications.

It’s one thing to have a donated ultra-luxury jet, but turning it into one safe and connected enough to carry a president is another story.

As TWZ has previously noted, converting any aircraft into one that is secure enough to transport the president is a complex undertaking. The aircraft needs to provide constant, secure communications, including what is needed to order a nuclear strike under extreme conditions. Historically, it also needs to be physically hardened both inside and out to withstand myriad threats, from the electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear weapon going off to incoming surface-to-air missiles to enemy intelligence-gathering efforts. To do this requires significant modifications right down to the aircraft’s outer structure. It is very unlikely, if not impossible, that this aircraft was hardened against EMPs in the timeframe required for fielding it.

The VC-25As are speckled with missile approach warning sensors and many laser countermeasures turrets (DIRCM). They also include the legacy Matador infrared countermeasure system above their jet engines and APU. This is in addition to other defensive features which are less visible and remain closely guarded secrets.

Common Infrared Countermeasures (CIRCM)

In previous coverage, we noted that at the very least, “this aircraft will have to feature some kind of DIRCM setup to repel shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, and modular units are available that can be attached in a canoe to the bottom of the aircraft. These systems, such as Elbit’s C-MUSIC or Northrop Grumman’s Guardian, are in service with foreign VVIP 747s, as well as commercial aircraft, including those flying for Israeli airline El Al. You can read all about these systems here. Still, while they offer far less defensive capacity compared to what is seen under the belly of a VC-25A, they would offer a significant layer of protection.” We still don’t see any evidence of the aircraft being modified with defensive countermeasures.

L3Harris, known for its communications systems and aircraft alterations, was selected to undertake the “complex modification of the bridge aircraft,” the Air Force explained. The company already delivers “secure, reliable and resilient communications” for VC-25A and the executive airlift fleet “but has extensive experience with self-protection and customization of VIP aircraft,” the Air Force added. “The accelerated timeline was further made possible by a mission-focused partnership with Boeing, who provided the necessary engineering data to support the required structural modifications.”

In addition, “elite specialists from multiple government agencies developed advanced protocols to detect and – if necessary – neutralize potential technical hazards on previously owned aircraft,” according to the Air Force. “Their rigorous approach on the Bridge aircraft has literally ‘written the book’ and set the benchmark for integrating used airframes into the secure military inventory.”

In response to our question about what modifications the jet received, the Air Force told us the following:

“Safety and security were at the forefront of this program. We deliberately minimized interior aesthetic modifications to focus on modifications for safety, security and mission execution. We assessed which requirements were necessary for an interim capability. We had greater flexibility in developing our mission requirements.

After safety and security, we focused on the mission communications systems.

We have made deliberate decisions such as the reduction of the number of airstairs, less chiller space, and exclusion of the Golden Eagle mission [to fly the remains of former presidents] to minimize structural modifications, while prioritizing modifications focused on safety, security and secure communications.”

We also asked whether this jet will be able to fly overseas and into higher-risk areas, but have not gotten a response. At this point, based on the limited info we have at this time, that seems unlikely. But if this is the case, the question then can be raised why the USAF is spending billions on two full-up Air Force One aircraft if standards have been so relaxed that this simpler aircraft can do all their missions? We will update this story with any pertinent details the USAF provides.

To help speed up the delivery process of this interim Air Force One jet, the Air Force said it “constructed an at-scale mockup of the interior, complete with virtual reality views, to enable early commissioning activities for White House staff.”

“Our commitment to providing the president with a secure, resilient and reliable airborne command post is unwavering,” said Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Ken Wilsbach. “The VC-25B Bridge program is a testament to the Air Force’s ability to innovate and rapidly evolve to ensure the continuity of our government under any conditions.”

The Air Force said the estimated delivery of Boeing’s VC-25Bs is now expected in 2028. If that holds up, then this ‘bridge’ aircraft will have served at most around two years until the first full-up VC-25B is delivered.

We will continue to follow developments in this program and provide updates when warranted.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Leigh-Anne Pinnock made her thoughts known after the former Little Mix star was announced in the line-up for the second series of BBC’s Celebrity Traitors

Celebrity Traitors fans were loving the latest line-up as a star-studded cast gets ready to descend on the castle for the second series. Among them is former Little Mix singer Leigh-Anne Pinnock – and the star has made her feelings known.

The 34-year-old songstress shared the announcement on her Instagram stories. The official video shows a number of famous faces’ names on boards in an airport.. And Leigh-Anne is one of them set to the beautiful Scottish Highlands to reside in Ardross Castle.

Leigh-Anne avoided using words and simply shared two emojis after the announcement. She posted a looking eyes emoji as well as an emoji covering its faces with its hands to signal she isn’t sure what she’s signed herself up for in the new season.

READ MORE: Who is Celebrity Traitors star King Kenny?READ MORE: Celebrity Traitors fans have already predicted the ‘big dogs’ as season two line-up finally announced

Leigh-Anne will line up with some huge names in the industry, including Michael Sheen and Jerry Hall. The 21-star list also includes Richard E Grant and Miranda Hart.

Also taking part is BBC presenter Amol Rajan, The Last of Us actress Bella Ramsey and comedian James Acaster – not to be mixed up with You’re Beautiful singer James Blunt, who has also signed up. Comedy stars Joanne McNally and Joe Lycett, former Corrie legend Julie Hesmondhalgh and social media content creator King Henry were also announced.

And there’s also space for Love Island presenter Maya Jama, Industry actress Myha’la and BBC maths guru Professor Hannah Fry. Rob Beckett with be bringing laughs alongside TV sidekick Romesh Ranganathan, flanked by former EastEnder Ross Kemp and My Mad Fat Diary star Sharon Rooney.

Game of Thrones actor Sebastian Croft completes the line-up as presenter Claudia Winkleman gets ready to choose her Traitors. While they will all take part exactly like the usual Traitors series, rather than take any winnings themselves, the celebrity players will be donating anything they get from the potential £100,000 jackpot to their chosen charities

While filming is about to begin, it’s thought BBC1 won’t air the series until the autumn. This is similar timing as the maiden series last year when the likes of Sir Stephen Fry, Paloma Faith, Charlotte Church and Jonathan Ross took part.

Speculation had been rife as to who would be heading to the lavish castle. Those hinted at who aren’t set to take part include Danny Dyer, Ruth Jones, Liam Gallagher, Cheryl Tweedy and Peter Crouch. There was also talk of Alison Hammond and Louis Theroux being involved.

Despite the wrong suggestions, fans clearly will have enough entertainment to choose from when it comes to picking their favourite. And they were quick to share their thoughts on X.

One user wrote: “Great line up. Look forward to watching.” Another added: “Great line-up. Maybe not as strong as last year’s but still decent. Can’t wait to see Miranda Hart have ‘such fun’ doing this!

“Also love that Beta Squad can’t stay away from Celebrity Traitors. Surprised it’s King Kenny this time round and not Chunkz.”

And a third said: “That celebrity traitors line up is amazing.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.