age

SAN FRANCISCO — Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a trailblazing San Francisco Democrat who leveraged decades of power in the U.S. House to become one of the most influential political leaders of her generation, will not run for reelection in 2026, she said Thursday.

The former House speaker, 85, who has been in Congress since 1987 and oversaw both of President Trump’s first-term impeachments, had been pushing off her 2026 decision until after Tuesday’s vote on Proposition 50, a ballot measure she backed and helped bankroll to redraw California’s congressional maps in her party’s favor.

With the measure’s resounding passage, Pelosi said it was time to start clearing the path for another Democrat to represent San Francisco — one of the nation’s most liberal bastions — in Congress, as some are already vying to do.

“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” Pelosi said in a nearly six-minute video she posted online Thursday morning, in which she also recounted major achievements from her long career.

Pelosi did not immediately endorse a would-be successor, but challenged her constituents to stay engaged.

“As we go forward, my message to the city I love is this: San Francisco, know your power,” she said. “We have made history, we have made progress, we have always led the way — and now we must continue to do so by remaining full participants in our democracy, and fighting for the American ideals we hold dear.”

Pelosi’s announcement drew immediate reaction across the political world, with Democrats lauding her dedication and accomplishments and President Trump, a frequent target and critic of hers, ridiculing her as a “highly overrated politician.”

Pelosi has not faced a serious challenge for her seat since President Reagan was in office, and has won recent elections by wide margins. Just a year ago, she won reelection with 81% of the vote.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

However, Pelosi was facing two hard-to-ignore challengers from her own party in next year’s Democratic primary: state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker with a strong base of support in the city, and Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, a Democratic political operative and tech millionaire who is infusing his campaign with personal cash.

Their challenges come amid a shifting tide against gerontocracy in Democratic politics more broadly, as many in the party’s base have increasingly questioned the ability of its longtime leaders — especially those in their 70s and 80s — to sustain an energetic and effective resistance to President Trump and his MAGA agenda.

In announcing his candidacy for Pelosi’s seat last month after years of deferring to her, Wiener said he simply couldn’t wait any longer. “The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” he said.

Chakrabarti — who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) topple another older Democratic incumbent with a message of generational change in 2018 — said voters in San Francisco “need a whole different approach” to governing after years of longtime party leaders failing to deliver.

In an interview Thursday, Wiener called Pelosi an “icon” who delivered for San Francisco in more ways than most people can comprehend, with whom he shared a “deep love” for the city. He also recounted, in particular, Pelosi’s early advocacy for AIDS treatment and care in the 1980s, and the impact it had on him personally.

“I remember vividly what it felt like as a closeted gay teenager, having a sense that the country had abandoned people like me, and that the country didn’t care if people like me died. I was 17, and that was my perception of my place in the world,” Wiener said. “Nancy Pelosi showed that that wasn’t true, that there were people in positions of power who gave a damn about gay men and LGBTQ people and people living with HIV and those of us at risk for HIV — and that was really powerful.”

Chakrabarti, in a statement Thursday, thanked Pelosi for her “decades of service that defined a generation of politics” and for “doing something truly rare in Washington: making room for the next one.”

While anticipated by many, Pelosi’s decision nonetheless reverberated through political circles, including as yet another major sign that a new political era is dawning for the political left — as also evidenced by the stunning rise of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist elected Tuesday as New York City’s next mayor.

Known as a relentless and savvy party tactician, Pelosi had fought off concerns about her age in the past, including when she chose to run again last year. The first woman ever elected speaker in 2007, Pelosi has long cultivated and maintained a spry image belying her age by walking the halls of Congress in signature four-inch stilettos, and by keeping up a rigorous schedule of flying between work in Washington and constituent events in her home district.

However, that veneer has worn down in recent years, including when she broke her hip during a fall in Europe in December.

That occurred just after fellow octogenarian President Biden sparked intense speculation about his age and cognitive abilities with his disastrous debate performance against Trump in June of last year. The performance led to Biden being pushed to drop out of the race — in part by Pelosi — and to Vice President Kamala Harris moving to the top of the ticket and losing badly to Trump in November.

Democrats have also watched other older liberal leaders age and die in power in recent years, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another San Francisco power player in Washington. When Ginsburg died in office at 87, it handed Trump a third Supreme Court appointment. When Feinstein died in office ill at 90, it was amid swirling questions about her competency to serve.

By bowing out of the 2026 race, Pelosi — who stepped down from party leadership in 2022 — diminished her own potential for an ungraceful last chapter in office. But she did not concede that her current effectiveness has diminished one bit.

Pelosi was one of the most vocal and early proponents of Proposition 50, which amends the state constitution to give state Democrats the power through 2030 to redraw California’s congressional districts in their favor.

The measure was in response to Republicans in red states such as Texas redrawing maps in their favor, at Trump’s direction. Pelosi championed it as critical to preserving Democrats’ chances of winning back the House next year and checking Trump through the second half of his second term, something she and others suggested will be vital for the survival of American democracy.

On Tuesday, California voters resoundingly approved Proposition 50.

In her video, Pelosi noted a litany of accomplishments during her time in office, crediting them not to herself but to her constituents, to labor groups, to nonprofits and private entrepreneurs, to the city’s vibrant diversity and flair for innovation.

She noted bringing federal resources to the city to recover after the Loma Prieta earthquake, and San Francisco’s leading role in tackling the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis through partnerships with UC San Francisco and San Francisco General, which “pioneered comprehensive community based care, prevention and research” still used today.

She mentioned passing the Ryan White CARE Act and the Affordable Care Act, building out various San Francisco and California public transportation systems, building affordable housing and protecting the environment — all using federal dollars her position helped her to secure.

“It seems prophetic now that the slogan of my very first campaign in 1987 was, ‘A voice that will be heard,’ and it was you who made those words come true. It was the faith that you had placed in me, and the latitude that you have given me, that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard,” Pelosi said. “It was an historic moment for our country, and it was momentous for our community — empowering me to bring home billions of dollars for our city and our state.”

After her announcement, Trump ridiculed her, telling Fox News that her decision not to seek reelection was “a great thing for America” and calling her “evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country.”

“She was rapidly losing control of her party and it was never coming back,” Trump told the outlet, according to a segment shared by the White House. “I’m very honored she impeached me twice, and failed miserably twice.”

The House succeeded in impeaching Trump twice, but the Senate acquitted him both times.

Pelosi’s fellow Democrats, by contrast, heaped praise on her as a one-of-a-kind force in U.S. politics — a savvy tactician, a prolific legislator and a mentor to an entire generation of fellow Democrats.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a longtime Pelosi ally who helped her impeach Trump, called Pelosi “the greatest Speaker in American history” as a result of “her tenacity, intellect, strategic acumen and fierce advocacy.”

“She has been an indelible part of every major progressive accomplishment in the 21st Century — her work in Congress delivered affordable health care to millions, created countless jobs, raised families out of poverty, cleaned up pollution, brought LGBTQ+ rights into the mainstream, and pulled our economy back from the brink of destruction not once, but twice,” Schiff said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Pelosi “has inspired generations,” that her “courage and conviction to San Francisco, California, and our nation has set the standard for what public service should be,” and that her impact on the country was “unmatched.”

“Wishing you the best in this new chapter — you’ve more than earned it,” Newsom wrote above Pelosi’s online video.

On Tuesday, I voted for the first time. Not for a president, not in a midterm, but in the California special election to counter Texas Republicans’ gerrymandering efforts. What makes this dynamic particularly fascinating is that both parties are betting on the same demographic — Latino voters.

For years, pundits assumed Latinos were a lock for Democrats. President Obama’s 44-point lead with these voters in 2012 cemented the narrative: “Shifting demographics” (shorthand for more nonwhite voters) would doom Republicans.

But 2016, and especially the 2024 elections, shattered that idea. A year ago, Trump lost the Latino vote by just 3 points, down from 25 in 2020, according to Pew. Trump carried 14 of the 18 Texas counties within 20 miles of the border, a majority-Latino region. The shift was so significant that Texas Republicans, under Trump’s direction, are redrawing congressional districts to suppress Democratic representation, betting big that Republican gains made with Latinos can clinch the midterms in November 2026.

To counter Republican gerrymanders in Texas, Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democrats pushed their own redistricting plans, hoping to send more Democrats to the House. They too are banking on Latino support — but that’s not a sure bet.

Imperial County offers a cautionary tale. This border district is 86% Latino, among the poorest in California, and has long been politically overlooked. It was considered reliably blue for decades; since 1994, it had backed every Democratic presidential candidate until 2024, when Trump narrowly won the district.

Determined to understand the recent shift, during summer break I traveled in Imperial County, interviewing local officials in El Centro, Calexico and other towns. Their insights revealed that the 2024 results weren’t just about immigration or ideology; they were about leadership, values and, above all, economics.

“It was crazy. It was a surprise,” Imperial County Registrar of Voters Linsey Dale told me. She pointed out that the assembly seat that represents much of Imperial County and part of Riverside County flipped to Republican.

Several interviewees cited voters’ frustration with President Biden’s age and Kamala Harris’ lack of visibility. In a climate of nostalgia politics, many Latino voters apparently longed for what they saw as the relative stability of the pre-pandemic Trump years.

Older Latinos, in particular, were attracted to the GOP’s rhetoric around family and tradition. But when asked about the top driver of votes, the deputy county executive officer, Rebecca Terrazas-Baxter, told me: “It wasn’t immigration. It was the economic hardship and inflation.”

Republicans winning over voters on issues such as cost of living, particularly coming out of pandemic-era recession, makes sense, but I am skeptical of the notion that Latino voters are fully realigning themselves into a slate of conservative positions.

Imperial voters consistently back progressive economic policies at the ballot box and hold a favorable view of local government programs that deliver tangible help such as homebuyer assistance, housing rehabilitation and expanded healthcare access. In the past, even when they have supported Democratic presidential candidates, they have voted for conservative ballot measures and Republican candidates down the ticket. Imperial voters backed Obama by a wide margin but also supported California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage. This mix of progressive economics and conservative values is why Republican political consultant Mike Madrid describes Latino partisanship as a “weak anchor.”

The same fluidity explains why many Latinos who rallied behind Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2020 later voted for Trump in 2024. Both men ran as populists, promising to challenge the establishment and deliver economic revival. For Latinos, it wasn’t about left or right; it was about surviving.

The lesson for both parties in California, Texas and everywhere is that no matter how lines are drawn, no district should be considered “safe” without serious engagement.

It should go without saying, Latino voters are not a monolith. They split tickets and vote pragmatically based on lived economic realities. Latinos are the youngest and fastest-growing demographic in the U.S., with a median age of 30. Twenty-five percent of Gen Z Americans are Latino, myself among them. We are the most consequential swing voters of the next generation.

As I assume many other young Latino voters do, I approached my first time at the ballot box with ambivalence. I’ve long awaited my turn to participate in the American democratic process, but I could never have expected that my first time would be to stop a plot to undermine it. And yet, I feel hope.

The 2024 election made it clear to both parties that Latinos are not to be taken for granted. Latino voters are American democracy’s wild card — young, dynamic and fiercely pragmatic. They embody what democracy should be: fluid, responsive and rooted in lived experience. They don’t swear loyalty to red or blue; they back whoever they think will deliver. The fastest-growing voting bloc in America is up for grabs.

Francesca Moreno is a high school senior at Marlborough School in Los Angeles, researching Latino voting behavior under the guidance of political strategist Mike Madrid.

Suzanne Rogers, who has spent more than five decades as a cast member on the soap opera “Days of Our Lives,” has enviable endurance. This past summer, she learned she was even stronger than she’d thought.

For six weeks between June and July, Rogers, 82, underwent treatment for Stage II colorectal cancer, she told TV Insider in an interview published Thursday. The actor said she was diagnosed with the disease earlier this year after consulting a doctor about a nagging feeling that something “wasn’t quite right” with her body.

Colorectal cancer is a term for cancer originating in the colon or rectum. Chances of occurrence increase with age, and experts recommend regular screenings for those age 45 and above, continuing until at least age 75.

Rogers suspected her health issues might be serious when her doctor told her he would like to do a slew of tests, including a colonoscopy, MRI and PET scan. Still, when he confirmed the bad news, the Daytime Emmy winner — who already did routine colonoscopies — couldn’t believe it.

“I think I was in shock for several days because I take pretty good care of myself,” she told TV Insider. Fortunately, her doctor said, “It’s a good thing you caught it in time.”

After wrapping on “Days” in June, Rogers began daily radiation and chemotherapy treatments. She said the intense regimen made her treasure her weekends “because I didn’t have to go to and see a doctor. I was so tired of seeing doctors.”

Luckily, the Peacock soap happened to be on hiatus at the time, so Rogers had no trouble making her appointments. On top of that, her onscreen daughter Linsey Godfrey, who herself battled Hodgkin‘s lymphoma as a teenager, was able to accompany her on treatment visits, which made the ordeal less daunting.

“We really feel like a family,” Rogers said, adding that other cast and crew members regularly called to check in on her, and the “Days” producers never rushed her recovery.

“They all said, ‘Don’t worry about a thing, take care of yourself, get yourself well. That’s the most important thing. We are here,’ ” Rogers said. As the actor heads back to the “Days” set next week, she said she is “feeling really good,” albeit nervous that lingering fatigue might hold her back.

“That’s the only anxiousness I feel. It’s not because of my illness, let’s put it that way,” she said. When she does return to the screen, Rogers will still be sporting her famous ginger mane, as she didn’t lose her hair during chemo.

“Days of Our Lives” premiered on NBC in 1965 and is currently airing Season 61 on Peacock. In July, the classic daytime drama announced it had been renewed for a 62nd and 63rd season on the streaming service.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A pair of court rulings declaring some of Florida’s gun restrictions unconstitutional are creating some confusion in the notoriously firearm-friendly state — and fueling activists’ calls for Republican legislators to take action to update state statutes so they abide by the new legal landscape.

Despite Florida’s history of being a gun-supporting climate, Florida’s GOP-dominated state Legislature took steps to restrict gun laws in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Since the day the measure was signed into law, gun rights advocates have been pushing to unravel it.

Now, activists say recent court rulings are fueling their push to expand gun rights in the state, emboldened by U.S. Supreme Court’s updated standards for evaluating gun laws based on the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“Leaving unconstitutional laws on the books creates nothing but confusion,” said Sean Caranna, executive director of the advocacy group Florida Carry.

Here’s what to know.

Judge finds age restriction on concealed carry unconstitutional

A ruling by a circuit court judge in Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, found that Florida’s prohibition against people under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed firearm is unconstitutional, at least as it relates to the case in question.

Last week, Judge Frank Ledee tossed out the conviction of 19-year-old Joel Walkes, who was charged with a third-degree felony for carrying a concealed handgun. Florida statutes currently allow people between the age of 18 and 20 to possess a firearm, if they legally receive it as a gift or an inheritance, but they are barred from purchasing guns or carrying them concealed.

Ledee found the state’s prohibition is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s historical test, and inconsistent with a recent appeals court ruling that found a state law banning the open carrying of firearms is unconstitutional. In his decision, the judge pointed to the Legislature’s role in codifying and clarifying the changes.

“Distilling these inconsistencies into a framework of firearm regulations compatible with the guarantee to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is best left to the wisdom of legislative debate,” Ledee wrote.

Open carry ruling sparks questions

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal issued its ruling last month in a case stemming from the July 4, 2022, arrest of a man who stood at a major intersection in downtown Pensacola carrying a visible, holstered pistol and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision legalizes open carry, though there are preexisting limitations against carrying in a threatening manner or in certain restricted spaces like government meetings, schools and bars. The ruling has prompted some Florida sheriffs to urge caution among gun owners and seek clarity from lawmakers.

Legalizing open carry has long been a major focus of gun rights activists in the state, who oppose the slate of restrictions that Florida lawmakers implemented in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, which killed 17 people and injured 17 others. Among the law’s provisions was raising the legal gun-buying age to 21.

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, said the recent court decisions put more onus on lawmakers to enact state statutes that line up with recent judicial rulings.

“I would not be surprised if in the next session the Florida Legislature doesn’t just take care of this by amending the statute to say, ‘clean it up.’ And then that’ll end all these lawsuits and possible lawsuits,” Jarvis said of the age-related prohibition. “And that’s really now what should happen.”

Advocates push for expanding gun laws

In the years since the 2018 Parkland shooting, lawmakers’ efforts to lower the gun-buying age to 18 have advanced in the Florida House but ultimately failed in the state Senate.

Now some advocates say the recent court rulings should force the hand of legislators who have opposed expanding gun rights in the past.

“We’ve been telling the Legislature since 2010 that this was going to be a problem for them if they didn’t act. And they chose not to act,” Caranna said.

“I hope that given some of the recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court and the Florida courts, that they will finally see that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,” he added.

Representatives for Florida’s House speaker and Senate president did not immediately respond to inquiries Wednesday.

Payne writes for the Associated Press.

Cameron Crowe’s charming new memoir is an elegy for a lost time and place, when rock ‘n’ roll culture was still a secret handshake and the music press wasn’t just another publicity tentacle for giant corporations to shill their product (excepting the fine writers at the Los Angeles Times, of course). In fact, the “music press” as a concept is vestigial at best now, the internet having snuffed it out, but when Crowe was writing his features in the 1970s, primarily for Rolling Stone, only a handful of print publications allowed fans to glean any insight about the musicians they admired or to even see photos of them.

Crowe was one of those fans. He spent his adolescence in Palm Springs, a town with “a thousand swimming pools and the constant hum of air conditioners,” in a basement apartment near the freeway. A loner and a nerd raised by a former Army commanding officer and a strong-willed, whip-smart mother who had firm ideas about how young Cameron should conduct himself. Any humiliations Crowe might have suffered as an uncertain teen were for his mother merely speed bumps on the journey to self-actualization, ideally as a lawyer. She had a wealth of Dale Carnegie-esque aphorisms to pump up her young charge, such as “put on your magic shoes,” or “Mind is in every cell of the body. Thoughts are everything.”

“She hated rock and roll,” Crowe writes. “Rock was inelegant, and worse, obsessed with base issues like sex and drugs.”

(Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster)

As we have seen in the 2000 film “Almost Famous,” Crowe’s autobiographical account of his early years, young Cameron cared little about sex or drugs, music being his only lodestar. When his family relocated to San Diego, Crowe found himself in a conservative town with virtually no outlets for music except the local sports arena, where he witnessed his first big-time rock show accompanied by his mom: a post-comeback Elvis, knee deep in Vegas schmaltz, bounding onstage “in a glittering white jumpsuit …. striking karate poses.” A week later, mom and son witnessed Eric Clapton, full of fire with his band Derek and the Dominos. “I understand your music,” Alice Crowe finally conceded. “It’s better than ours.”

San Diego had little pockets of cultural insurrection that Crowe sought out like a moth to flame. When his sister Cindy nabbed a job with the local underground paper called the Door, Crowe wedged his way in, not because he had any interest in radical politics: his hero Lester Bangs, the iconoclastic rock critic whom he had read in Rolling Stone and Creem, had contributed work there.

As he does so often in this book, Crowe pulls the reader in with his keenly observant eye that would serve him so well in his second career as a filmmaker. The Door’s editor Bill Maguire “had a healthy girth, an open shirt with a silver pendant, and rippling brown hair. The kind of character Richard Harris used to play, most of the time with a goblet in his hand.” Maguire and his staff are hippie idealists, wary of sullying their political mission with trivialities like record reviews. But Crowe talks Maguire into letting him weigh in on a James Taylor record, and Crowe’s career is launched. He is 14.

Cameron Crowe, who started his music journalism career as a teen, pulls the reader in with his keenly observant eye that would serve him so well in his second career as a filmmaker.

(Neal Preston)

Crowe would encounter no such resistance as he worked his way into Rolling Stone, whose owner Jann Wenner gladly accepted record company advertising to keep his counterculture publication afloat. Crowe had found his professional home, filing long, admiring features with some of the era’s most important acts.

Crowe’s Dec. 6, 1973, cover story on the Allman Brothers was meant to atone for an earlier profile on the band written for the magazine by Grover Lewis, a brutally honest and often unsavory portrait. Crowe’s do-over feature, in contrast, is anodyne and respectful; the band is even given room to refute some of the facts Lewis included in his story.

Far more interesting is the stuff Crowe left out of that piece that he has now put into his memoir. To wit: Shortly after their perfectly lovely afternoon together, Gregg Allman, clearly in a drug-induced psychotic state, calls Crowe to his hotel room and demands that Crowe physically hand over the tapes of their interview, or else face legal consequences. “How do I know you aren’t with the FBI?” Allman asked Crowe. “You’ve been talking to everybody. Taking notes with your eyes.” It’s hard to imagine Crowe’s mentor Bangs not leading with that scene.

Crowe was covering rock music at a time when publicists had not become the human guardrails they are today, insulating their clients from anything that doesn’t celebrate them. There were no record company representatives present when Crowe sat in the lobby of an El Torito restaurant in Mission Hills with Kris Kristofferson, whose wife Rita Coolidge was waiting for the singer with her family in the bar (underage Crowe wasn’t allowed inside). Or when Crowe went long with David Bowie, interviewing him on and off for a year and a half while Bowie was making his 1976 album “Station to Station.”

Camped out with his wife Angie in a Beverly Hills mansion on North Doheny Drive, Bowie is affable and candid, despite subsisting on a diet of red peppers, milk and cocaine. “Over the months, I became acclimated to the normality within his insulated lifestyle,” Crowe writes. “Oh, sometimes there might be a hexagon drawn on the curtains in his bedroom or a bottle of urine on the windowsill.” While showing Crowe the indoor swimming pool, Bowie remarks that the only problem with the house “is that Satan lives in that swimming pool.”

Such weird scenes inside this once-mysterious world have been totally effaced, now that every musician can curate his own image on social media. Reading “The Uncool,” which touches on Crowe’s Hollywood career without delving too deep into it, reminds us of what has been lost, the myths and mystique that fueled our rock star fantasies and gave the music an aura of magic.

Weingarten is the author of “Thirsty: William Mulholland, California Water, and the Real Chinatown.”

Ismail Omar Guelleh could seek re-election in 2026 after parliament votes to remove age restriction for presidential candidates.

Djibouti’s parliament has removed the constitutional age ceiling for presidential candidates, opening the door for Ismail Omar Guelleh to seek a sixth term despite being 77 years old.

All 65 lawmakers present voted on Sunday to eliminate the age restriction of 75 years, a move that would allow the veteran leader to contest elections scheduled for April 2026. The decision requires either presidential approval followed by a second parliamentary vote on November 2, or a national referendum.

Guelleh, known widely as IOG, has governed the Horn of Africa nation since 1999, when he succeeded Hassan Gouled Aptidon, the country’s founding president.

The constitutional barrier was introduced by Guelleh himself in 2010 alongside reforms that scrapped presidential term limits, but reduced each term from six to five years.

National Assembly Speaker Dileita Mohamed Dileita defended the change as essential for maintaining stability in a turbulent region. He said public support exceeded 80 percent for the measure, though Al Jazeera is not able to verify this claim.

Earlier this year, in an interview with the Jeune Afrique magazine, Guelleh gave an important indication that he had no plans to relinquish power. “All I can tell you is that I love my country too much to embark on an irresponsible adventure and be the cause of divisions,” he said.

Rights advocates condemned the move as a step toward permanent rule. “This revision prepares a presidency for life,” said Omar Ali Ewado, who heads the Djiboutian League for Human Rights, calling instead for a peaceful democratic transition.

Daher Ahmed Farah, a leader in the Movement for Democratic Renewal and Development, told Al Jazeera that international partners should reconsider their priorities. “The country is in a strategic position and hosts many bases, but these interests lie with the Djiboutian people, not with a single man,” he said.

Guelleh won his fifth term in 2021 with more than 98 percent of votes after opposition groups boycotted the election. At the time, the United States welcomed the result but encouraged the government “to further strengthen its democratic institutions and processes in line with recommendations from the observer missions”.

Guelleh is East Africa’s third-longest-serving leader behind Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, in power for nearly four decades, and Eritrea’s Isaias Afwerki, with a tenure reaching 27 years.

Despite its small population of one million, Djibouti wields outsized geopolitical influence. The country hosts the only permanent US military base in Africa, alongside installations operated by France, China, Japan and Italy. Its position overlooking the Bab al-Mandab Strait makes it vital for global shipping between Asia and Europe.

That strategic value has kept Djibouti stable while neighbouring states face mounting crises, including Sudan’s civil war and Somalia’s fragmentation.

Barbara Boxer decided she was done. Entering her 70s, fresh off reelection to the U.S. Senate, she determined her fourth term would be her last.

“I just felt it was time,” Boxer said. “I wanted to do other things.”

Besides, she knew the Democratic bench was amply stocked with many bright prospects, including California’s then-attorney general, Kamala Harris, who succeeded Boxer in Washington en route to her selection as Joe Biden’s vice president.

When Boxer retired in 2017, after serving 24 years in the Senate, she walked away from one of the most powerful and privileged positions in American politics, a job many have clung to until their last, rattling breath.

(Boxer tried to gently nudge her fellow Democrat and former Senate colleague, Dianne Feinstein, whose mental and physical decline were widely chronicled during her final, difficult years in office. Ignoring calls to step aside, Feinstein died at age 90, hours after voting on a procedural matter on the Senate floor.)

Now an effort is underway among Democrats, from Hawaii to Massachusetts, to force other senior lawmakers to yield, as Boxer did, to a new and younger generation of leaders. The movement is driven by the usual roiling ambition, along with revulsion at Donald Trump and the existential angst that visits a political party every time it loses a dispiriting election like the one Democrats faced in 2024.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become the highest profile target.

Last week, she drew a second significant challenger to her reelection, state Sen. Scott Wiener, who jumped into the contest alongside tech millionaire Saikat Chakrabarti, who’s been campaigning against the incumbent for the better part of a year.

Pelosi — who is 85 and hasn’t faced a serious election fight in San Francisco since Ronald Reagan was in the White House — is expected to announce sometime after California’s Nov. 4 special election whether she’ll run again in 2026.

Boxer, who turns 85 next month, offered no counsel to Pelosi, though she pushed back against the notion that age necessarily equates with infirmity, or political obsolescence. She pointed to Ted Kennedy and John McCain, two of the senators she served with, who remained vital and influential in Congress well into their 70s.

On the other hand, Boxer said, “Some people don’t deserve to be there for five minutes, let alone five years … They’re 50. Does that make it good? No. There are people who are old and out of ideas at 60.”

There is, Boxer said, “no one-size-fits-all” measure of when a lawmaker has passed his or her expiration date. Better, she suggested, for voters to look at what’s motivating someone to stay in office. Are they driven by purpose — and still capable of doing the job — “or is it a personal ego thing or psychological thing?”

“My last six years were my most prolific,” said Boxer, who opposes both term limits and a mandatory retirement age for members of Congress. “And if they’d said 65 and out, I wouldn’t have been there.”

Art Agnos didn’t choose to leave office.

He was 53 — in the blush of youth, compared to some of today’s Democratic elders — when he lost his reelection bid after a single term as San Francisco mayor.

“I was in the middle of my prime, which is why I ran for reelection,” he said. “And, frankly,” he added with a laugh, “I still feel like I’m in my prime at 87.”

A friend and longtime Pelosi ally, Agnos bristled at the ageism he sees aimed at lawmakers of a certain vintage. Why, he asked, is that acceptable in politics when it’s deplored in just about every other field of endeavor?

“What profession do we say we want bright young people who have never done this before to take over because they’re bright, young and say the right things?” Agnos asked rhetorically. “Would you go and say, ‘Let me find a brain surgeon who’s never done this before, but he’s bright and young and has great promise.’ We don’t do that. Do we?

“Give me somebody who’s got experience, “ Agnos said, “who’s been through this and knows how to handle a crisis, or a particular issue.”

Pete Wilson also left office sooner than he would have like, but that’s because term limits pushed him out after eight years as California governor. (Before that, he served eight years in the Senate and 11 as San Diego mayor.)

“I thought that I had done a good job … and a number of people said, ‘Gee, it’s a pity that you can’t run for a third term,’ ” Wilson said as he headed to New Haven, Conn., for his college reunion, Yale class of ’55. “As a matter of fact, I agreed with them.”

Still, unlike Boxer, Wilson supports term limits, as a way to infuse fresh blood into the political system and prevent too many over-the-hill incumbents from heedlessly overstaying their time in office.

Not that he’s blind to the impetus to hang on. The power. The perks. And, perhaps above all, the desire to get things done.

At age 92, Wilson maintains an active law practice in Century City and didn’t hesitate — “Yes!” he exclaimed — when asked if he considered himself capable of serving today as governor, even as he wends his way through a tenth decade on Earth.

His wife, Gayle, could be heard chuckling in the background.

“She’s laughing,” Wilson said dryly, “because she knows she’s not in any danger of my doing so.”

SAO PAULO — Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Thursday he will run for reelection next year, seeking a fourth nonconsecutive term.

“I’m turning 80, but you can be sure I have the same energy I had when I was 30. And I’m going to run for a fourth term in Brazil,” Lula told reporters during his official visit to Indonesia.

The Brazilian leader is traveling across Asia. After his visit to Indonesia, where he met with President Prabowo Subianto, Lula will head to Malaysia to attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit.

Brazilian media reported that he is expected to meet for the first time with President Trump in Malaysia on Sunday, following a conciliatory phone call earlier this month. The two leaders are expected to discuss the 50% trade tariff Trump imposed on Brazil.

Brazil’s constitution allows presidents to serve only two consecutive terms. Lula returned to office in 2023 after 13 years out of power and remains eligible to run again.

Before defeating Jair Bolsonaro in 2022 to win a third nonconsecutive term, Lula had said that would be his final campaign both because of his age and because he believed the country needed political renewal. But early in his current term, he began hinting that he might run again.

In February 2023, the president said he could seek reelection in 2026, adding that his decision would depend on the country’s political context and his health.

A dominant figure on Brazil’s left, Lula is the country’s longest-serving president since its return to democracy 40 years ago.

Some Brazilian politicians have expressed concern about Lula’s age and recent health issues. He underwent emergency surgery to treat a brain bleed late last year after a fall in the bathroom. Still, Lula frequently insists he remains healthy and energetic, often sharing workout videos on social media.

Lula currently leads all polls for the 2026 election, though roughly half of voters say they disapprove of him. Trump’s tariffs reenergized the Brazilian leader and pushed his popularity up.

His main political rival, Bolsonaro, has been barred from running for office and sentenced to 27 years in prison for attempting a coup. While no strong opposition candidate has yet emerged, analysts say a viable contender is likely to depend on Bolsonaro’s backing as he serves his sentence under house arrest.

Pessoa writes for the Associated Press.

SAN FRANCISCO — State Sen. Scott Wiener couldn’t wait any longer. The once-in-a-generation political opening he’d eyed for years had arrived, he decided — whether the grand dame of San Francisco politics agreed or not.

On Wednesday, Wiener, 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker, formally announced his candidacy for the San Francisco congressional seat held for nearly four decades by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 85, who remains one of the party’s most powerful leaders and has yet to reveal her own intentions for the 2026 race.

“The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” Wiener said in an interview with The Times. “I know San Francisco, I have worked tirelessly to represent this community — delivering housing, health care, clean energy, LGBTQ and immigrant rights — and I have a fortitude and backbone to be able to deliver for San Francisco in Congress.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) announced Wednesdat that he will run for the congressional seat currently held by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

(Josh Edelson/For The Times)

Wiener’s announcement — which leaked in part last week — caught some political observers off guard, given Wiener had for years seemed resigned to run for Pelosi’s seat only once she stepped aside. But it stunned few, given how squarely it fit within the broader political moment facing the Democratic Party.

In recent years, a long-simmering reckoning over generational power has exploded into the political forefront as members of the party’s old guard have increasingly been accused of holding on too long, and to their party’s detriment.

Long-serving liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruffled many Democratic feathers by declining to step down during Barack Obama’s presidency despite being in her 80s. She subsequently died while still on the court at the age of 87 in 2020, handing President Trump his third appointment to the high court.

Californians watched as the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another D.C. power player from San Francisco, teetered into frailty, muddled through her final chapter in Washington and then died in office at 90 in 2023. The entire nation watched as President Biden, another octogenarian, gave a disastrous debate performance that sparked unrelenting questions about his age and cognitive abilities and cleared the way for Trump’s return to power last year.

Visitors walk past a bust of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein at San Francisco City Hall. The former mayor of San Francisco served in the Senate until she died in 2023 at age 90.

(Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

As a result, age has become an unavoidable tension point for Democrats heading into next year’s midterm elections.

It has also been an issue for Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), 83, the former Senate majority leader who has faced health issues in recent years and is retiring in 2026 after more than 40 years in the Senate. Other older Republicans are facing primary challenges for being perceived as too traditional or insufficiently loyal to Trump or the MAGA movement — including Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), 73 and in office since 2002, and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), 68 and in the Senate since 2015.

For decades, many conservatives have called for congressional term limits in opposition to “career politicians” who cling to power for too long. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, and David Trone, a Maryland Democrat, renewed those calls on Wednesday, announcing in an op-ed published in the New York Times that they would co-chair a national campaign to push for term limits.

However, perhaps because they are in power, the calls for a generational shake-up in 2026 have not been nearly as loud on the Republican side.

Democratic Party activists have sounded the alarm about a quickening slide into gerontocracy on the political left, blamed it for their party’s inability to mount an energetic and effective response to Trump and his MAGA movement, and called for younger candidates to take the reins — while congressional leaders in their 70s and 80s have increasingly begun weighing their options in the face of primary challenges.

“It’s fair to say the political appetite for octogenarians is not high,” said Eric Jaye, a veteran Democratic strategist in San Francisco.

“The choice in front of people is not just age,” said Saikat Chakrabarti, a 39-year-old tech millionaire and Democratic political operative who is also running for Pelosi’s seat. “We need a whole different approach and different candidates.”

“There’s like this unspoken rule that you don’t do what we’re doing in this moment. You sit out and wait your turn,” said Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang, 40, who has launched a primary challenge to Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), who is 81 and has been in Congress since 2005. “But I’m not going to wait on the sidelines, because there is an urgency of now.”

A national trend

The generational shift promises to reshape Congress by replacing Democrats across the country, including some who are leaving without a fight.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, 78 and a senator representing New Hampshire since 2009, said in March that it was “time” to step aside.

In Illinois, Sen. Richard Durbin, 80 and a senator since 1997, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 81 and in the House since 1999, both announced in May that they would not run again. Durbin said it was time “to pass the torch,” while Schakowsky praised younger “voices” in the party as “so sharp.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, 78 and in the House since 1992, announced his retirement last month, saying that “watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party.”

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks at a news conference.

(Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Other older Democrats, meanwhile, have shown no intention of stepping aside, or are seeking out new roles in power.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills, 77, recently announced she is running to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who is 72 and has been in the Senate since 1997. Mills has tried to soften concerns about her age by promising to serve just one term if elected.

Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, 79 and in the Senate since 2013, has stiffly rebuffed a primary challenge from Rep. Seth Moulton, 46, accusing Moulton of springing a challenge on him amid a shutdown and while he is busy resisting Trump’s agenda.

In Connecticut, Rep. John Larson, 77, who has been in office since 1999 and suffered a complex partial seizure on the House floor in February, has mocked his primary challengers’ message of generational change, telling Axios, “Generational change is fine, but you’ve got to earn it.”

David Hogg, a survivor of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., speaks at the 2022 March for Our Lives.

(Leigh Vogel / Getty Images for March For Our Lives)

David Hogg, a 25-year-old liberal activist who was thrust into politics by the 2018 mass shooting at his Parkland, Fla., high school, is among the party’s younger leaders pushing for new blood. He recently declined to seek reelection as the co-vice chair of the Democratic National Committee to bring primary challenges to older Democratic incumbents with his group Leaders We Deserve.

When he announced that decision in June, Hogg called the idea that Democratic leaders can stay in power until they die even if they don’t do a good job an “existential threat to the future of this party and nation.” His group fundraises and disperses money to young candidates it backs.

When asked by The Times about Pelosi and her primary challengers, however, Hogg was circumspect, calling Pelosi “one of the most effective and consequential leaders in the history of the Democratic Party.”

A shift in California

Pelosi is not the only older California incumbent facing a primary challenge. In addition to Matsui, the list also includes Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Porter Ranch), who is 70 and has been in office since 1997, and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), who is 74 and has been in office since 1999.

But Pelosi’s challenges have attracted more attention, perhaps in part because her departure from Congress would be the clearest sign yet that the generational shift sought by younger party activists is fully underway.

Nancy Pelosi is sworn in as House speaker in 2007, surrounded by her grandchildren and children of other members of Congress.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

A trailblazer as the first female speaker of the House, Pelosi presided over two Trump impeachments. While no longer in leadership, she remains incredibly influential as an arm-twister and strategist.

She played a central role in sidelining Biden after his debate meltdown, and for the last couple months has been raising big money — a special skill of hers — in support of California’s Proposition 50. The measure seeks voter approval to redraw California’s congressional districts to better favor Democrats in response to Trump’s pressure campaign on Texas and other red states to redraw their lines in favor of Republicans.

Pelosi has used Prop. 50 in recent days to deflect questions about her primary challengers and her plans for 2026, with her spokesman Ian Krager saying she “is fully focused” on the Prop 50 fight and will be through Nov. 4.

Chakrabarti, who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) unseat a longtime Democratic incumbent in 2019, said he sees even more “appetite for change” among the party’s base today — as evidenced by “mainstream Democrats who have voted for Nancy Pelosi their whole life” showing up to his events.

And it makes sense, he said.

For decades, Americans have watched the cost of essentials skyrocket while their wages have remained relatively flat, Chakrabarti said, and that has made them desperate to support messages of “bold, sweeping economic change” — whether from Obama or Trump — even as long-serving, mainstream Democrats backed by corporate money have worked to maintain the status quo.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leaves a news conference at the Capitol in 2019. At left is Saikat Chakrabarti, who was her chief of staff and is now a candidate for the congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag)

He said it is time for Democrats to once again push bold, big ideas, which he plans to do — including Medicare for all, universal child care, free college tuition, millions of new units of affordable housing, a new economy built around climate action, and higher taxes on billionaires and mega-millionaires like him.

Wiener, who also backs Prop. 50 and would be the first out gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress, said he cannot speak to Pelosi’s thinking — or to Politico reporting Wednesday that Pelosi is considering dropping out and backing San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan in the race — but is confident in his readiness for the role.

Wiener agreed with Chakrabarti that big ideas are needed from Democrats to win back voters and make progress. He also said that his track record in the state Legislature shows that he has “been willing to take on very, very big fights to make significant progressive change.”

“No one has ever accused me of thinking small,” he said — citing his success in passing bills to create more affordable housing, reform health insurance and drug pricing, tackle net neutrality, challenge telecommunications and cable companies and protect LGBTQ+ and other minority communities and immigrants.

“In addition to having the desire to make big progressive change, in addition to talking about big progressive change, you have to be able to put together the coalitions to deliver on that change, because words are not enough,” Wiener said. “I’ve shown over and over again that I know how to do it, and that I can deliver.”

Political analysts said a message of big ideas will clearly resonate with some voters. But they also said that Pelosi, if she stays in the race, will be hard to beat. She will also face more serious questions than ever about her age and “her ability to function at the extraordinarily high level” she has worked at in years past, Jaye said, and will “have to answer those questions.”

If Pelosi decides not to run, Chakrabarti has the benefit of self-funding and of the current party enthusiasm for fresh faces, they said, and anyone — Chan or otherwise — would benefit from a Pelosi endorsement. But Wiener already has a strong base in the district, a track record for getting legislation passed and, as several observers pointed out, a seemingly endless battery.

“Scott Wiener is an animal. The notion of work-life balance is not a concept he has ever had. He is just like a robotic working machine,” said Aaron Peskin, who served 18 years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, some alongside Wiener.

Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-Oakland) speaks to reporters at the Capitol in September.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Amanda Litman, the president of Run for Something, which supports young progressive candidates, said there is pent-up demand for a new generation of leaders, and “older Democrats, especially those in Congress, need to ask themselves, ‘Am I the best person to lead this party forward right now?’”

Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-Oakland), 48, won her seat in 2024 after longtime Rep. Barbara Lee, 79, who had been in the seat since 1998, decided to run for Oakland mayor. Simon said that to her, “it’s not necessarily about birthdays” but who can do the job — “who can govern, who can mentor and who can hold this administration accountable.”

As a longtime community activist who worked with youth, Simon said she is “extremely excited” by all the energy of young Democratic office seekers. But as a freshman in Congress who has leaned on Lee, Pelosi and other mentors to help her learn the ropes, she said it’s also clear Democrats need to “have some generals who are really, really tried and tested.”

“What is not helpful to me in this moment,” Simon said, “is for the Democrats to be a circular firing squad.”

SACRAMENTO — State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has emerged as one of California’s most vocal critics of President Trump, will run next year for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

A formal announcement from Wiener is expected next week, the San Francisco Standard reported.

Erik Mebust, a spokesperson for Wiener, declined to comment.

Wiener, 55, has already declared his intention to eventually run for the seat held by Pelosi and has raised $1 million through an exploratory committee. But he previously indicated that he would wait until Pelosi, who was first elected in 1987, stepped down.

That calculus changed, according to the Standard, when Saikat Chakrabarti, a progressive candidate, entered the race for Pelosi’s seat.

Ian Krager, spokesperson for Pelosi, released a statement saying Pelosi was focused on Proposition 50, which will be on the ballot in California’s Nov. 4 special election. The measure would redraw California’s congressional districts in favor of Democrats and was pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democratic leaders after President Trump urged Texas to reconfigure the state’s district to elect five more Republicans to Congress, part of an effort to keep the GOP in control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Speaker Pelosi is fully focused on her mission to win the Yes on 50 special election in California on November 4th. She urges all Californians to join in that mission on the path to taking back the House for the Democrats.”

Pelosi, 85, hasn’t indicated whether will she run again. If she does seek another term, her age could be a factor at a time when younger Democrats are eager to see a new wave of leaders.

Pelosi was among several top politicians who persuaded then-President Biden to forgo a second term after widespread concerns about his age.

Wiener, elected to the state Senate in 2016, is best-known for his work pushing local governments to add more housing density.

He is a member of the California LGBTQ+ Caucus and has been a leading advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. If elected, Wiener would be the first openly gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress.

Before his election to the state Legislature, Wiener served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and worked as a deputy city attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

Newsom last week signed Wiener’s Senate Bill 79, one the most ambitious state-imposed housing efforts in recent memory. The bill upzones areas across California, overriding local zoning laws to allow taller, denser projects near public transit.

The bill was fiercely opposed by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other L.A. leaders who want to retain power over housing decisions.

Wiener has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration, sparring on social media with the president’s supporters. Another one of his recent bills, to prohibit on-duty law enforcement officers from masking their faces during immigration raids, was signed into law by Newsom.

A FAMOUS brand that used to be an airline is returning… but this time with hotels.

Pan American Airways, also known as Pan Am, is making a comeback with a number of luxury hotels across Europe.

The hotel brand named Pan Am Hotels, will open a number of hotels at European airports in 2028.

Created by Austrian-based JP Hospitality, the hotels are set to create “airport hospitality that excites guests”.

Each hotel will feature a midcentury modern design, reminiscent of Pan Am travel years ago.

In a post on LinkedIn announcing the new hotel brand, the company said the hotels will feel like the late 1950s and 1960s, “Golden Era reimagined”.

Read more on travel inspo

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

HAPPY DEAL

Disney free food deal that ‘saves THOUSANDS’ – our experts see if it’s worth it

In addition, the Pan Am Hotels website states: “Designed for seamless ease and tailored comfort, our hotels are not just stopovers – but true gateways to your onward journey.”

The hotels will largely be across Europe with locations including London, Paris, Madrid and Milan.

Then the brand hopes to expand outside of Europe in the future to destinations such as Sydney, Tokyo and New York.

Pan Am was America’s first international airline, paving the way for the future of jet airplanes and the Boeing 747 jumbo jet.

Few details have been revealed about what the inside of the hotels are to look like, but if they were to look anything like the airline, travellers can expect ‘Pan Am Blue’ or gold colours that featured on cabin crew’s uniforms.

In the 1970s in particular, Pan Am planes featured bright and bold colours as well as modern midcentury interiors.

According to Hotel Magazine, Gebhard Schachermayer, managing partner at JP Hospitality said: “With the launch of PAN AM HOTELS, we are setting a new benchmark in airport hospitality.

“Airports deserve better hotels – without inflated prices, but with comfort, quality, and innovation!

“The steadily increasing demand for overnight stays at airports, combined with often poor service quality, motivated us to fill this market gap with the development of high-quality, needs-oriented hotels.”

The developer expects to have 16 hotels in operation by 2033, with a total of 28 in the pipeline, reports Live and Let Fly.

But if you can’t wait until 2028, the company already has a Pan Am Lounge and Pan Am Suite in Berlin and Die Josefine and The Guesthouse in Vienna that you can stay at.

And JP Hospitality isn’t the only hotel brand to jump on the Pan Am theme.

Pan Am Hotel by Hilton is set to open in late spring 2026 at the Citadel Outlets shopping mall in Commerce, California – about eight miles from downtown Los Angeles.

The hotel will feature a midcentury design throughout, with two restaurants, a fitness centre and large rooms.

HOLIDAY HUSTLE

All the Xmas jobs available which could pay YOU £6k over festive period

ENDER THE ROAD

EastEnders star leaving soap after controversial storyline

In other hotel news, the huge English estate that starred in Pride And Prejudice has opened a new budget hotel with stays from £99pp.

Plus, the world’s best hotels have been revealed and three are in the UK – one is even owned by a Love Islander.

Grammy-winning R&B singer D’Angelo has passed away at age 51 following a “prolonged and courageous battle with cancer”, according to a statement from his family.

On Tuesday, his loved ones released a statement announcing his death. “The shining star of our family has dimmed his light for us in this life,” it read.

“We are saddened that he can only leave dear memories with his family, but we are eternally grateful for the legacy of extraordinarily moving music he leaves behind.”

D’Angelo, whose real name was Michael Eugene Archer, was best known for his silky vocals during the 1990s and 2000s, with his record Voodoo earning him the 2001 Grammy for Best R&B album.

His hit single from that album, Untitled (How Does It Feel), not only won him another Grammy for Best Male R&B Vocal Performance, but it also catapulted him into the mainstream spotlight with its steamy music video, featuring a shirtless D’Angelo singing directly to the camera.

The music publication Rolling Stone has ranked Voodoo as one of its best albums of all time.

News of his passing prompted an outpouring of remembrances from fans, including fellow musicians.

“I never met D’Angelo but I love him, respect him, admire his gift. This loss HURTS!!” singer-songwriter Jill Scott wrote on the social media platform X, adding: “R.I.P. GENIUS.”

Another musician, rapper Doja Cat, offered condolences to D’Angelo’s loved ones. She called him “a true voice of soul and inspiration to many brilliant artists of our generation and generations to come”.

In his music, D’Angelo blended hip-hop grit, emphatic soul and gospel-rooted emotion into a sound that helped spearhead the neo-soul movement of the 1990s.

Earlier this year, the Virginia native celebrated the 30th anniversary of his debut studio album Brown Sugar, a platinum-selling offering that produced signature hits like Lady.

That 1995 album earned him multiple Grammy nominations and cemented him as one of R&B’s most original new voices.

D’Angelo’s sultry vocal style — a mix of raspy texture and church-bred fluidity — set him apart from his peers. That voice became inseparable from the striking visuals of the Untitled (How Does It Feel) music video.

Its minimalist aesthetic became a cultural touchstone, igniting conversations around artistry, sexuality and vulnerability in Black male representation.

Beyond his own catalogue, D’Angelo’s artistry shone in collaborations. He memorably duetted with Lauryn Hill on the soulful ballad Nothing Even Matters, a highlight of her landmark 1998 album, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill.

He also contributed to The Roots’ 1996 album Illadelph Halflife and was part of the supergroup Black Men United, which yielded one song, U Will Know, for the film Jason’s Lyric in 1994. D’Angelo wrote and co-produced the single.

D’Angelo was in a four-year relationship with Grammy-nominated R&B singer Angie Stone in the 1990s.

The pair met while he was finishing the album Brown Sugar and bonded over their similar backgrounds: Both are from the South and both grew up in the church. Stone worked on the album with D’Angelo, and the pair co-wrote the song Everyday for her 1999 debut album, Black Diamond.

Stone described D’Angelo as her “musical soul mate” in an interview with The Associated Press in 1999, adding that their working relationship was “like milk and cereal”.

“Musically, it was magic,” Stone said. “It’s something that I have not been able to do with any other producer or musician.”

They had a son together, the artist Swayvo Twain, born Michael Archer Jr. Stone died earlier this year in a car crash. She was 63.

D’Angelo also has a daughter, Imani Archer.

Among the tributes to D’Angelo’s artistry on Tuesday was a social media post from Tyler, the Creator, who reminisced about combing his local music store on his ninth birthday.

“I had $20 in birthday money and my eyes set on leaving with one thing. VOODOO by D’Angelo,” Tyler, the Creator, wrote on Instagram. “I had no idea that would help shape my musical dna.”

“I couldn’t understand how someone could write something so simple but personal but broad but genius,” he continued. “Thats how special he was.”

The actor and musician Jamie Foxx, meanwhile, offered his memories of seeing D’Angelo perform live at the concert venue House of Blues.

“Your voice was silky and flawless,” Foxx wrote on Instagram, addressing the late D’Angelo directly. “I was also in pure awe of your talents…. roaming around on each instrument, displaying your expertise in every note and every song.”

Foxx added that D’Angelo would be missed forever. “That’s why today real tears run down my face.”

Net worth is one of the most important financial numbers to know.

You should monitor your net worth because it changes over time, and it gives you a good idea of how close you are to being financially independent and shows whether you are making progress on your financial goals.

It can also be fun to see how your net worth stacks up to your peers. In particular, you may be curious about what net worth you would need to be among the top 10% of American households. The number is, unsurprisingly, pretty big.

Here’s the amount you would need, along with some details on calculating your net worth — and increasing it.

Image source: Getty Images.

How do you calculate your net worth?

Before diving into the net worth you need to be among the top 10%, it’s helpful to consider how to calculate net worth in the first place.

Net worth is essentially how much wealth you have to your name. To calculate your net worth:

• Start by adding up the value of all your assets. Money in your bank account and savings account counts. So does money in your money market account. If you have CDs, these count as well. Same with investment dollars in a brokerage account. If you own real estate, a car, jewelry, personal items, or anything else of value, it counts toward your net worth.
• Add up all your debt. You’ll also need to add up what you owe. Credit card debts, student loans, payday loans, a mortgage, and any other financial obligations you have will all become part of your debt calculation. You can check your credit report to confirm balances on all your debts if you aren’t sure of the amounts.
• Subtract the amount of your debt from the value of your assets. If your assets are worth $500,000, for example, but you have $350,000 in debt, then you subtract $350,000 from $500,000 to discover that your net worth is $150,000.

If your net worth is negative, that’s pretty common if you’re young. Many people don’t own much, and they borrow for school, so they graduate with a lot of debt.

As you get older, though, your net worth should be growing as you build up money in brokerage accounts and retirement plans.

Are you in the top 10% of American households?

Now that you know how net worth is calculated, you may want to see where you stand.

The best information on this comes from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, which comes out once every three years. Unfortunately, the most recent data is from 2022. Still, we can take a look at that information to get an idea of what the top 10% of earners have in terms of wealth.

Based on this data from the Federal Reserve, the top 10% of American households had a net worth of at least $1,936,900, although the threshold varies by age. For example:

• Among 18 to 29-year-olds, you’d need $281,550 or higher to be in the top 10%
• Between 30 to 39, you’d need $711,400
• Between 40 to 49, you’d need $1,313,700
• Between 50 to 59, you’d need $2,629,060
• Between 60 to 69, you’d need $3,007,400
• At age 70 and over, you’d need $2,862,000

While these are high numbers, the amount is most likely even higher today due to the stellar performance of the stock market and the increase in real estate values in recent years.

While the Federal Reserve should have new data soon, these numbers show that it takes millions to be among the wealthiest Americans in terms of net worth.

Still, regardless of how you compare to your peers, what’s important is that you work on growing your own net worth by paying down debt, investing in your 401(k), IRA, and other accounts, and making smart financial choices that make you more financially secure over time.

WASHINGTON — Former President Biden is receiving radiation and hormone therapy as part of a new phase of treating the aggressive form of prostate cancer he was diagnosed with after leaving office, a spokesperson said Saturday.

“As part of a treatment plan for prostate cancer, President Biden is currently undergoing radiation therapy and hormone treatment,” Biden aide Kelly Scully said.

Biden, 82, left office in January after he had dropped his bid for reelection six months earlier following a disastrous debate against Republican Donald Trump amid concerns about Biden’s age, health and mental fitness. Trump, despite similar questions during the campaign about his age and mental fitness, defeated Democrat Kamala Harris, who was Biden’s vice president.

In May, Biden’s postpresidential office announced that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and that it had spread to his bone. The discovery came after he reported urinary symptoms.

Prostate cancers are graded for aggressiveness using what is known as a Gleason score. The scores range from 6 to 10, with 8, 9 and 10 prostate cancers behaving more aggressively. Biden’s office said his score was 9, suggesting his cancer is among the most aggressive.

Last month, Biden had surgery to remove skin cancer lesions from his forehead.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

What if you woke up one day and discovered your monthly income had shrunk to a tenth of what it used to be? That nightmare became the reality of Ibrahim Abdullahi, a phone repairer and PoS handler in Arewa Market, Abuja, North Central Nigeria. One minute, he had a booming recharge card-selling business; the next, his profit dwindled to a fraction of what it once was.

Ibrahim’s financial decline had nothing to do with his efficiency or work ethic. The market itself changed with the adoption of the virtual top-up (VTU) service between 2011 and 2013, enabling people to purchase data and airtime digitally via USSD, mobile banking applications, ATMs, and the web. Leading telcos such as MTN and Airtel first introduced the service. 

VTU quickly became mainstream, and by 2021, Ibrahim’s business had collapsed. 

“I used to sell about ₦100,000 worth of recharge cards in a day, but when people stopped buying paper recharge cards, I wasn’t able to sell up to ₦10,000 daily,” he recounted with eyes fixed on the phone he was repairing, as if any glance away might cost his income. 

But for people like Ibrahim, whose livelihood depended on the physical scratch cards, the change was devastating. Soon, as expected, the once-lucrative trade vanished, leaving sellers with lost profits even as they scrambled for alternatives. Three years ago, Ibrahim closed shop.

Across Nigeria, entire lines of work are being erased by new technologies, echoing a global trend.

The casualties 

Scratch-card sellers are not alone.

Wuraola Adebisi* used to be a call centre agent in the ‘90s. With low mobile-phone penetration, people depended on her service for communication and were charged per second. In 1999, she gained admission and left for tertiary education, hoping to return to the business afterwards.

However, even before she got her diploma, mobile telephony was introduced in 2001, ending the monopoly of Nigerian Telecommunications Limited, which was the sole provider of the common wired telephony, but also keeping call centre agents like Wuraola out of business. 

“The call centre business left by itself because people now had phones in their hands,” she said.

These changes, while detrimental to those who lose, are a natural part of the way the world evolves. A survey conducted by HumAngle in Nigeria also shows this trend: 15 per cent of respondents attributed their job loss to the advent of technologies such as artificial intelligence and banking digitisation.

Globally, this is not unusual. The World Economic Forum projects that 92 million jobs will vanish worldwide by 2030 as innovation reshapes economies. But it also projects 170 million new roles, highlighting that while some professions fade, others emerge.

“While tech evolution may render some jobs obsolete, it also unlocks new opportunities in emerging fields like digital entrepreneurship, virtual assistance, cybersecurity, data analysis, amongst others,” Ponfa Miri, Team Lead of Langtang Innovation Hub, a non-profit tech skills training institute based in rural Plateau State, told HumAngle. 

This balance between loss and opportunity is already visible in Nigeria.

When scratch-card sellers lost their jobs, business people across the country found alternatives via other digital-enabled businesses like PoS operations, where agents sell cash to consumers. There are about 1,600 PoS operators per square kilometre in the country, according to the International Monetary Fund.

“I switched to the PoS and phone repair business because it was digital,” said Ibrahim. 

Yet, it was not simply a random switch. For phone repairs, particularly with the rising diversity of smartphones, he needed to learn new skills. The HumAngle survey found that 79.3 per cent of respondents are learning at least one digital skill, with 33.3 per cent doing so solely to adapt. 

The challenge, then, is not only about jobs disappearing, but about who has the skills and access to compete for the new ones.

Inside the digital divide

This rapid adaptation has its limits. As of May, internet penetration reached 48 per cent, according to the Nigerian Communications Commission. However, this still leaves a majority without essential connectivity, which UNICEF identifies as the first step towards acquiring digital skills. In conflict-hit communities like Birnin Gwari in the country’s North West, telecom shutdowns have lasted for over three years. 

Not only are several left without internet, but many who have access to it complain that poor national connectivity hinders their ability to carry out their jobs properly. 

Telecom operators argue that the interruption or slow speed is sometimes caused by power shortages or vandalism of infrastructure by armed groups, locals, or construction companies. For everyday Nigerians, however, these explanations do little to ease the frustration. The impact is felt most by small operators who depend on steady connectivity to survive.

Blessing Adejoke*, another who shifted from scratch-card sales to PoS, said: “People don’t like it when they’re looking for money, and it takes a long time for the PoS machine to connect. It’s not always a big problem, but earlier this year I nearly lost a full day of making money because my machine refused to go online.”

Connectivity and power shortages weigh heavily on operators like Blessing and on millions trying to learn or work digitally. With over 89 million Nigerians living below the poverty line, opportunities in the digital economy remain largely out of reach for the poor and displaced, HumAngle’s survey found.

The consequences are visible in the unemployment rate. A Nigerian Economic Summit (NES) Group study showed joblessness climbed to 5.3 per cent in early 2024, marking the third consecutive quarter increase. Young people, entering the tech-driven job market for the first time, account for 8 per cent of that rise.

With such situations, privilege often determines access. 

Haruna Bello*, a recent graduate, credits her private-university education and paid digital skills training for securing an internship that pays more than the minimum wage. 

“Before I applied for the role, my mum paid for a private course to help me boost my CV. I don’t remember how much it cost, but it was over ₦60,000,” she said. 

Haruna believes that her lucrative role could only be obtained through private-funded efforts and expenses, two things many Nigerians can’t afford due to the growing poverty rate. The result is a massive employment disparity between the rich and the poor, where a larger percentage of Nigerians remain unemployed, hired in low-income positions, or running small-scale businesses. 

To reduce these notable issues, the government has set out to introduce programmes that may lessen the digital gap, but these have yet to be far-reaching.

Government’s shallow fixes

In 2023, Nigeria’s minister for communication, innovation, and digital economy, Bosun Tijani, launched the 3 Million Technical Talents (3MTT) Fellowship to equip 3 million Nigerians with tech talents within four years. The programme, which has held two cohorts, has trained about 117,000 people. In isolation, the number may seem grand, but in reality, it barely scratches the surface of the estimated 100 million Nigerians who are digitally illiterate. 

Authorities at the sub-national level have also attempted to bridge the gap. For instance, the Plateau State Government in 2019 launched Code Plateau, a programme similar to 3MTT, over 1000 young people were trained, but the initiative abruptly closed after a political transition.

With progress so limited and the rise of more advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, optimism quickly gives way to doubt. 

“Who Nigeria help?” Wurola laughed when asked about government aid. Our survey respondents feel the same way: 40 per cent said they need government support to compete in today’s job market. 

However, some experts say the government cannot do it alone. Non-profit and private initiatives, especially those at the grassroots, remain vital to Nigeria’s digital transition.

“By working together, we can bridge the divide and create a more inclusive future, empowering individuals to thrive in the new economy,” said Ponfa, whose organisation has trained hundreds of rural women and young people in digital literacy and entrepreneurship.

Whether or not those programmes are created or enhanced, one thing is certain: the labour ecosystem is ever-changing, and many will have to find ways to adjust to it if they hope to stay afloat. As Wurola puts it, “This is the tech age. We had the Stone Age, we had the Iron Age. So, this is the age of tech, you can’t beat it. This is where we find ourselves, whether good or bad.”

*Names marked with an asterisk have been changed to protect the identities of sources. 

BBC

Police helicopter

National Museum Wales

Bronze Age treasures

What is St Fagans museum?

Getty Images

‘Draw attention’

What do local people and visitors think?

Meritocracy in the 21st century is fast becoming the new aristocracy. Envisaged as an ideal to counter inequality, it has become one to create, sustain, and justify it. Or is it a new mediocrity? Earlier, meritocracy was practiced as a smokescreen for a system that was rigged. Now mediocrity is being celebrated as a new gospel. We are witnessing the slow death of classics and literature, theories and science.

Thanks to the dominance of multimedia technology, traditional literacy has lost its primacy, and we have become a “post-literate society.” But this retreat is far more serious, as we are retreating from serious reading even in academia. The retreat from reason is another worrying trend. However, the most alarming phenomenon is what Paul R. Goddard, emeritus professor at the University of the West of England, and Angus G. Dagleish of the University of London call “the death of science.”

Data deluge is threatening to end scientific theory and the scientific method. Today, the science industry is driven by greed and ambition. It represses imagination and freedom and destroys novelty and diversity of ideas. Science is now a technocratic specialization. We have long forgotten the philosophy of science.

Martin Lopez Corredoira of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias argues in his book, The Twilight of the Scientific Age, that after centuries of great achievements science is going through “an exhaustion of new forms” and fatigue has “reached our culture in all of its manifestations, including the pure sciences.”

The search for great truths is on the back burner. Some argue that even the Nobel Prizes are being increasingly awarded for speculative hypotheses, rather than concrete discoveries.

Mediocrity is sweeping the world. Lies, calumnies, and specious arguments are no longer the hallmarks of political discourse today; these now characterize scientific endeavors as well. Managers and politicians have taken over where previously the scientists were in charge.

 There is a tendency to abhor experts. Political correctness now dictates what science must produce and at whose benefit. Many scientists and scientific institutions have now become what Paul R. Goddard calls “the high priests of a new religion.”

Trump’s America, many believe, has regressed back to the myth of meritocracy. As Lauren Tucker, honorary research fellow at the School of Mass Communication Research Center, University of Wisconsin, says, Trump’s Cabinet includes “cronies, grifters, sycophants, neophytes, and those whose qualifications begin and end with ‘once praised Trump on Fox News.’””Trump is bringing back affirmative action for the rich, White mediocrity.

President Trump has mounted a concerted effort to undermine federal scientific research, particularly research relating to climate change. The Trump administration has also removed scientific information from regulatory documents. sought to restrict or prevent further climate change research, including by removing and reassigning federal government scientists.

Federal agencies are facing the pressure to reduce spending on scientific research, with the administration proposing deep across-the-board cuts in many budget cycles.

President Joe Biden had vowed to “end the politics and follow the science” when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. The first Trump administration regularly suppressed, downplayed, or simply ignored scientific research. This regression is by no means confined to the US.

Last year, over 100 scientis­ts in India decried what they described as the government’s “antagonistic stance” to science and evidence-based thinking and its support of “false narratives, unfounded opinions, and a cloak of religiosity to instill adherence to a majoritarian idea of India.”

We are going through a phase of new regression. Cultural critic Neil Postman persuasively argues how technology today has become an institution. It has acquired the power to bend culture to its own agenda. Its worst fallout can be seen in the field of education. Schooling has become what he calls “a trivial pursuit and a mechanical exercise.”

America’s educational decline is most worrisome. The Nation’s Report Card’s 2024 results confirm a long-term crisis in education, with student performance stagnating or declining despite decades of federal spending and education reform initiatives. And it is not as if efforts have not been made to improve the students’ performance. Federal interventions such as No Child Left Behind (2002), Common Core (2010), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) were all designed to improve student academic outcomes.

The maximum damage has been done by the digital media. Lack of critical thinking is the result of the primacy of the visual over textual learning, algorithm-driven echo chambers, and the bite-sized overload. Social media has ensured that we are more likely to read stuff that confirms our views rather than engage with diverse perspectives.Only through serious research can the past’s inconsistencies be accounted for. Today, McLuhan’s “mass man” has become the “algorithmic man.”

What is worrying is the gradual decline, if not collapse, of high-end, problem-solving research. The slow death of literature and the retreat from serious reading mark a cultural crisis, with far-reaching consequences for politics, education, and civic life. Without books and deep reading, society risks becoming shallow, distracted, and dangerously unserious.

If we dispense with ontology and philosophy, our education will not prepare us for the future. From ancient scrolls to modern paperbacks, books have been the vessels carrying humanity’s stories, knowledge, and imagination. These vessels are being suddenly wiped out.

The post-truth world is sliding into an age of “un-enlightenment.” Bill Gates warned in 2017 that “technologies such as social media let you go off with like-minded people, so you’re not mixing and sharing and understanding other points of view.”

Anti-science sneering, conspiracy theories, and a medieval pottage of religious extremism sweeping the world will have far-reaching consequences. The current Prussian school system produces compliant citizens. After several crushing defeats at the hands of Napoleon, Prussian political and military elites believed that independent thinking was the root cause of their defeat.

What would the world be without literature and theories? Literature has long been a mirror reflecting the human experience, allowing us to empathize with others and understand ourselves better. Literature doesn’t just tell stories; it shapes lives.

Science, with its emphasis on observation, hypothesis testing, and empirical evidence, provides a robust framework for understanding the world, challenging existing assumptions and discovering new knowledge. 

There can be no social science without critical theories. The intellectual’s job is to tell the truth. In fact, as Thomas Huxley says, “Science and literature are not two things, but two sides of one thing.”

All said, the way things are, reading books for pleasure will one day be the province of a special “reading class,” much as it was before the arrival of mass literacy in the second half of the nineteenth century.

A new Dark Age has begun if we go by the titles of books like Jane Jacob’s Dark Age Ahead (2004), Morris Berman’s Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire (2011), James Kirchik’s The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age (2017), and James Bridle’s New Dark Age: Technology and the End of the Future (2018).

In 1991, Social Security’s full retirement age (FRA) was 65, yet the average retirement age in the U.S. was 57. Today, FRA hovers around 67 with the average American retiring at 62.

According to North American Community Hub Statistics (NCHstats), a source of health data, there’s a gap between the expected age of retirement (67) and the actual age (62), often due to health issues, caregiving needs, and layoffs. In other words, despite the desire a person may have to maximize their Social Security benefits, life can get in the way.

Image source: Getty Images.

What is the perfect age to begin collecting Social Security?

Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. The best time for you to retire may differ significantly from the ideal time for a friend, coworker, or family member. What matters is when you’re ready to retire.

For example, suppose you’re the primary earner in your family, and you have a spouse and children who depend on you for financial support. If that’s the case, you may want to maximize the amount they’re eligible to collect in survivors benefits by waiting to retire at FRA or later. Survivors benefits entitle your dependents to continue receiving a percentage of the benefit you were collecting (or would have qualified for) at the time of your death. By retiring earlier, you reduce the amount your family will collect after your passing.

Meanwhile, someone with health complications may decide they want to file for Social Security much sooner. With a shorter life expectancy, they’re more likely to maximize what they get from the program with an early claim.

Discovering the right retirement age for you

The ideal age for you depends mainly on factors like your financial needs, health, and overall retirement goals. Here are a few more scenarios to consider.

• Early retirement: You can begin collecting benefits as early as 62, but the sooner you file, the smaller your benefit will be. However, if you need the income to actually retire, 62 may be right for you.
• Full retirement age (between 66 and 67): Waiting until this age allows you to receive your full benefit. If you retire before this point, you’ll need to rely exclusively on your retirement savings to cover your expenses for a few years. For many people, waiting until FRA may be just right.
• Delayed retirement: If you can put off claiming benefits until age 70, you’ll receive the maximum amount possible based on your work history. This could be the right move if you had a late start saving for retirement, live in a high-cost-of-living area, or want to hold onto more of your savings in order to pass it down to your heirs.

Questions to ask yourself

If you’re not quite sure when you would like to retire, here are five questions that can help you get a sense of your best move.

1. When am I eligible for Medicare coverage? Medicare eligibility begins at age 65. If you’re considering retirement before that, make sure you have another dependable source of health insurance.
2. What do I enjoy most in life? Let’s say you love to travel or treat the grandchildren to special activities. Those things cost money, so you must ensure your post-retirement income is adequate.
3. Do I have a plan for life after retirement? If your job is what you love and you don’t have a clear idea of what you would do as a retiree, it’s a good sign that you can wait.
4. Would a trial retirement work for me? If you’re still unsure of when (or if) you want to retire, find out if your employer will allow you to transition to a part-time schedule or go on sabbatical to try it out.
5. Do I simply want to leave my current job? If so, you may want to “semi-retire” by leaving your current job and taking on a new one. Depending on your age, the Social Security Administration may hold back a portion of your monthly benefits (although you’ll get them back after reaching FRA), but you’ll still have the chance to try something new.

Some people live for the day they can retire, while others can’t imagine what they would do with themselves. Whichever camp you fall into, it’s essential to have a plan and understand when retirement is a realistic option.

A grainy circle flashes on the top-right corner of the screen at the Eagle Theater. The single-screen repertory cinema, run by the nonprofit organization Vidiots, was showing a 35-millimeter print of Paul Thomas Anderson’s psychological drama “The Master.”

The faint warning is easily missed by most viewers, but it appears every 10 minutes, alerting the projectionist to change the reel.

The auditorium was sold out. Audience members clapped as the film title appeared onscreen. There was a buzz in the air even before the lights faded to black with the standby line filled with hopefuls trying to grab a last-minute ticket. The stakes were high for the person manning the reel exchange.

Guests wait to enter the Vidiots movie theater for a movie night in Los Angeles.

Michael Rousselet, a projectionist at the Eagle Rock theater, often drinks a lot of coffee to stay alert during late-night screenings.

“If we do a good job, no one knows we exist,” Rousselet quipped as he showed off the projection booth. “If we mess up, everyone knows we exist.”

The carefully curated communal experience offered by repertory theaters is enduring the hardships of the box office, even after the pandemic, which led to the demise of some well-known cinemas. The famed Cinerama Dome and adjoining former Arclight theater on Sunset Boulevard have still not reopened, despite popular demand.

A Monday screening of a 35-millimeter copy of the 2007 film “Michael Clayton” by American Cinematheque sold out. Independent cinema has captured a niche population that has helped it prevail in a time when box office revenue is tumbling down.

Guests enter the movie theater at Vidiots in Los Angeles.

The summer box office season, which stretches from early May through Labor Day, grossed $3.67 billion in the U.S. and Canada, down slightly from last year and significantly less than the pre-pandemic norm of $4 billion. Some new films with major stars struggle to get anyone to show up. “Americana,” starring Sydney Sweeney, one of Hollywood’s top young stars, earned $500,000 during its opening weekend last month.

The unique cinematic experiences crafted by the different repertory theaters play a pivotal role in revitalizing the film industry in Los Angeles, according to Maggie Mackay, executive director of Vidiots.

“I don’t think you can [raise the next generation of film lovers] through one platform,” Mackay said, sitting down in her auditorium. “I don’t think you can fall in love with an art form by clicking a few times and observing it by yourself.”

Patrons at the bar of the Vidiots’ cinema in Los Angeles.

A 2024 study by Art House Convergence showed that between 2019 and 2024, audiences became younger and more diverse. The number of wide releases have also made the independent industry healthier, according to Rich Daughtridge, president of Independent Cinema Alliance.

Independent theaters “are still down compared to 2019, but the momentum attraction is going up,” he said.

Netflix bought the Egyptian Theatre from American Cinematheque for an undisclosed amount in 2020. The influx of money helped the organization grow the brand and host more screenings — the total jump from 500 screenings to 1,600 with 350,000 patrons visiting their theaters, according to Grant Moninger, artistic director at American Cinematheque.

Part of the reason audiences are choosing smaller theaters over multiplexes is the care and attention staff members put into each showing. The viewing experience at these revival theaters always starts with a crew member reminding the audience to stay away from their phones — they want everyone to enjoy the tiny scratches, dust specks and vibrant colors of the print they are showing.

Patrons watch a movie at Vidiots movie theater in Los Angeles.

“I think people are desperately in search of community right now and of feeling closer to other people and sharing things and not feeling disconnected by technology,” Sean Fennessey, the host of the podcast “The Big Picture,” said after the “Michael Clayton” screening.

“We’re very lucky in Los Angeles that we have so many great spaces … that are encouraging people to come together and hang out and laugh and cry and feel chills,” he added.

Each location offers Hollywood cinephiles and casual viewers alike options to catch a variety of movies based on their niche. Independent cinema has had the least trouble recruiting an audience post-pandemic, according to Art House Convergence.

The Vista Theater and the New Beverly show personal copies from the private collection of Quentin Tarantino, who saved the theaters from extinction. Its recent run of “Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair” sold out and warranted the Vista announcing a new run of it.

American Cinematheque hosted a festival of films handpicked by different podcasters, which sold out screenings in the middle of the week.

Guests wait to enter the Vidiots movie theater in Los Angeles.

Vidiots hosted a discussion with American Cinema Editors member Leslie Jones after a screening of 2012’s “The Master,” a filmed she worked on. The showing sold out and most of its audience stayed late for a Q&A discussion with her.

Regardless of the inspiration these repertory theaters provide with, say, retrospectives of Akira Kurosawa, the model is not bulletproof to the punches theaters have taken. Organizations like Vidiots and American Cinematheque still rely on their nonprofit status.

These organizations count on donations and memberships. Access to directors, actors, prints and people in the industry also plays an important role in keeping afloat, according to Moninger.

“Our job is to get everybody in [the theater]. You can’t just say, ‘Hey, we’re a nonprofit,’” he said.

The uncertainty of the model does leave room for growth, according to Roger Durling, the executive director of the Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

Vidiots technical director Boris Ibanez sets up a section of the film in a projector in the projection booth of Vidiots movie theater.

The nonprofit organization recently purchased the Film Center, a five-screen multiplex, in the downtown Santa Barbara area. It is the second five-screen theater they have purchased, and it will also screen films during the festival every winter.

Throughout the year, when the theaters aren’t showing movies for the festival, the organization will maintain its existence through a repertory model.

“The nonprofit aspect allows you to concentrate more on the artistic side as opposed to thinking, ‘I just need to make money,’” Durling said.

But the thought is still on his mind.

“The more you concentrate on the artistic side of it, the money will take care of itself.”

President Trump took his most extensive step yet toward overhauling the U.S. legal migration system, with a pair of proclamations that explicitly favor the wealthiest of the world’s prospective expat workers.

Trump on Friday imposed a $100,000 application fee on the widely used H-1B visa program, a move that would drastically increase the cost of visas heavily coveted by some of America’s largest companies — including in the Silicon Valley — seeking to bring in skilled workers from abroad.

The president also unveiled a “Trump Gold Card” visa program — under which, for the price of $1 million, immigrants could get U.S. residency. Businesses could buy residency permits for $2 million per employee, while a new “platinum”-level card set to be issued soon would cost $5 million and allow the holder to come to the U.S. for up to 270 days a year without being subject to U.S. taxes on non-U.S. income.

The restrictions and fees go into effect on Sunday.

It all amounts to a plan for a new gilded age of immigration to America, where those with the resources to invest are welcomed along with their wallets — while at the same time new barriers to entry are erected for those with lesser means and others seen as taking away jobs that could be occupied by U.S. citizens.

The pomp with which Trump announced the programs echoed the theme — over his right shoulder as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office was an image of a gold card with his face on it along with traditional American images including a bald eagle, all in gold.

It’s a stark shift from America’s stance toward immigration historically, which welcomed those of various economic backgrounds coming to the country legally in search of a better life and more freedom.

‘Significant disadvantage’

Yet even while Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick mused about the prospects of a windfall for the U.S. Treasury that could total $100 billion or more, immigration attorneys cautioned that a move of this magnitude would cause major disruptions — several of them potentially very expensive to the U.S. economy.

Cleveland-based lawyer David Leopold warned that Trump’s H-1B changes, including the $100,000 fee, would “effectively kill the program.”

“Who’s going to pay $100,000 for a petition? Unless you want to make this an exclusive program for extremely rich people,” said Leopold, a partner at UB Greensfelder, whose clients include physicians on H-1Bs.

Accenture, Cognizant Technology and other IT consulting stocks hit session lows on Friday on the news of the visa fee.

“This is a senseless, terrible policy for financial services firms that makes American firms less competitive in the global market for talent,” said Alexis DuFresne, founder of recruiting firm Archer Search Partners.

DuFresne warned that while some mega funds won’t be daunted by the prospect of a new six-figure fee to import top talent, “it will have a substantial impact at the margins — with mid-sized firms, smaller firms, and up-and-coming, younger talent at a significant disadvantage.”

“We have had clients who have said in the past, prior to this announcement, that they do not want to have to sponsor a visa. We anticipate that that will become a more prevalent part of our conversations with clients and their goalposts going forward.”

A feature, not a bug

Some of that sentiment, if it comes to pass, may be seen by this administration as an asset rather than a problem.

Senior members of Trump’s administration have repeatedly complained — in blunt terms — that too many immigrants are taking American jobs.

In a fact sheet, the White House said American workers are being replaced with lower-paid foreign labor and called it a national security threat. The dynamic is suppressing wages and disincentivizing Americans from choosing careers in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), the White House said.

Trump’s proclamation does anticipate a scenario whereby it can work around the new costs if they became a major burden, allowing for case-by-case exemptions if deemed to be in the national interest. That provision opens a potential window for certain companies or industries to seek an exception to the new fee.

Nonetheless, the intention to skew the H-1B program toward higher-paying jobs is clear.

Trump also plans to order the Labor secretary to undertake a rule-making process to revise prevailing-wage levels for the program, a move intended to limit the use of visas to undercut wages that would otherwise be paid to workers who are U.S. citizens.

Legal risks

Courts may also scrutinize the expansive new fees.

The H-1B $100,000 application fee in particular is at risk of being struck down as “excessive,” said Becky Fu von Trapp, an immigration lawyer in Stowe, Vt. That’s because federal law allows agencies to charge enough to recoup reasonable costs, and most work visa applications currently cost about $5,000. Even the most complex ones, for certain investment visas, usually run less than $10,000 in total.

The move could also incentivize technology firms and other companies reliant on foreign workers to set up offices outside the U.S. to avoid the application fee and associated hassles.

“Companies will reassess the need of who they really need to bring to U.S. and who can be based in Canada or Singapore, where they still have good technology infrastructure and can work remotely,” she said.

The move may also have a chilling effect on international students seeking admission to U.S. universities, since many of them hope to find jobs through the H-1B process upon graduation, she said.

Congress will also weigh in, Lutnick said, noting that lawmakers must also approve the planned platinum card program. He predicted that could happen later this year.

That’s easier said than done.

Republicans only narrowly control the House and the Senate. Immigration has been a particularly challenging issue to legislate for the GOP in years past, sparking clashes between the pro-business wing of the party that wants more high-skilled immigrants to come in, and another group far more skeptical of immigration as a whole who’ve sought to limit new arrivals no matter where they come from.

What’s more, Democrats are broadly furious about the president’s stepped-up immigration enforcement including aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in major U.S. cities including Los Angeles. As such, they have little incentive to cooperate without demanding wholesale reversals of Trump’s existing immigration policies, which he almost surely wouldn’t accept.

Wingrove and Soper write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg reporters Katia Porzecanski and Hema Parmar contributed to this report.