ambitions

Netflix on Wednesday touted a surge in popularity for its low-cost streaming plan with ads, as it looks to tap into the lucrative the world of brands.

The streaming giant said it now has more than 190 million monthly active viewers watching ads through a plan that costs $7.99 a month. The lowest cost ad-free plan costs $17.99 a month.

In May, Netflix said it had 94 million monthly active users watching ads through the cheaper plan. That translated to roughly 170 million monthly active viewers, the company said at the time.

However, the Los Gatos, Calif.-based company is now using a different methodology to measure its audience watching ads, making exact comparison’s difficult.

Netflix now defines monthly active viewers as customers who watched at least 1 minute of ads on Netflix per month. It then multiplies that by the estimated average number of people in a household. Previously, Netflix had measured monthly active users based on the number of Netflix profiles watching content with ads.

The streamer said its previous measurement didn’t illustrate all the people who were in the room watching.

“Our move to viewers means we can give a more comprehensive count of how many people are actually on the couch, enjoying our can’t-miss series, films, games and live events with friends and family,”wrote Amy Reinhard, Netflix’s president of advertising in a post on the streamer’s website on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Netflix executives said the growth in ad viewers was in line with their expectations.

“We are very satisfied with where we are at,” Reinhard, said in a press briefing. “We think there is a lot of opportunity to grow on this plan around the world, and we’re going to continue to make sure that we are offering our customers a great experience and a great buying experience on the advertising side.”

Netflix began its foray into ad-supported streaming in 2022, after it received pressure from investors to diversify how it makes revenue. Previously, Netflix mainly made money through subscriptions and for many years had been ad-adverse.

The company said last month it was on track to more than double its ad revenue in 2025, but did not cite specific figures. Netflix Co-CEO Greg Peters said in an earnings presentation in October that the ad revenue is still small relative to the size of the company’s subscription revenues, but advertisers are excited about Netflix’s growing scale.

“We see plenty of room for growth ahead,” Peters said.

On Wednesday, Netflix said it is expanding its options for advertisers, including demographic targeting in areas such as education, marital status and household income.

Netflix also said it has partnered with brands including brewing company Peroni Nastro Azzurro in ads for its romantic comedy series “Emily in Paris,” and tested dynamic ad insertion with programs including WWE Raw this quarter and will offer that feature in the U.S. and other countries for NFL Christmas Gameday.

Many streamers have been increasing the cost of their subscriptions in order to become more profitable. Earlier this year Netflix raised the prices on plans.

Marilyn Hubalde recalls the fear of local residents in Batanes, Philippines, when they first heard military helicopters during joint exercises with U. S. troops in April 2023. Hubalde’s helper even hid in the woods, thinking war had begun. The military drills, part of increased U. S.-Philippines cooperation, involve airlifting anti-ship missile launchers to the islands, marking a significant shift for the once-peaceful province.

Situated near Taiwan, Batanes is now seen as a frontline region in the competition between the U. S. and China for influence in Asia. The province is close to the Bashi Channel, an important shipping route between the Philippines and Taiwan, which connects the South China Sea to the Western Pacific. The recent exercises highlighted how both countries plan to use ground-based missiles to prevent Chinese naval access in potential conflicts.

Experts emphasize that denying Chinese control of the Bashi Channel is crucial, as it could decide the outcome of any conflict. Retired military officials state that controlling the northern Philippines is essential for any Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which China claims as its territory. President Xi Jinping has stated that China may use force to assert control over Taiwan, a position Taiwan’s government rejects, insisting that its future is for its people to determine.

China’s foreign ministry has warned the Philippines against involving external forces and escalating tensions in the South China Sea, calling Taiwan an internal issue that should not involve outside interference. The Pentagon and Taiwan’s defense ministry did not provide comments on these developments.

Using the ‘First Island Chain’

American military deployments in Batanes are part of a broader Pentagon strategy focused on using the Philippines’ geographic position to deter or counter Chinese military actions towards Taiwan and other areas in the South China Sea. The Philippines, consisting of over 7,600 islands and vital maritime chokepoints, is essential to the “First Island Chain,” which comprises territories controlled by U. S. allies, forming a barrier against China’s expanding navy. Rear Admiral Roy Trinidad of the Philippine Navy stated that the archipelago serves as a crucial gateway between the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean.

The U. S. aims to ensure this gateway remains secure, despite uncertainties about American security commitments under President Donald Trump. Efforts have intensified since President Joe Biden took office to strengthen defense collaboration with the Philippines. Recent reports indicate an evolving and permanent U. S. military presence in the country, characterized by joint exercises and ongoing training, reversing an earlier period after the U. S. left its military base at Subic Bay in 1992.

In a meeting between Philippine Armed Forces chief General Romeo Brawner and U. S. Indo-Pacific Command head Admiral Samuel Paparo, the two sides agreed to more than 500 joint engagements for 2026, covering various military activities. U. S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth highlighted a focus on enhancing capabilities to counter Chinese aggression in the First Island Chain, noting that training activities with the Philippines are increasing in scale and duration.

The cooperation under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is vital for containing Chinese forces, especially in a potential conflict scenario. Marcos has stated that should war arise over Taiwan, the Philippines would be inevitably involved, while also emphasizing the desire to avoid conflict. The Philippine defense ministry expressed confidence in the commitments made by the Trump administration.

China’s recent military movements demonstrate the importance of the Bashi Channel for its Pacific strategies. The region has seen enhanced Chinese naval activity, including exercises near Japan, which highlight its ambitions. In response to Chinese “gray-zone” warfare aimed at the Philippines, which involves intimidation tactics against Philippine vessels, the military has reported unauthorized incursions by Chinese ships into Philippine waters. The defense ministry asserts that these actions challenge international law and reflect China’s desire to reshape the global order. China’s foreign ministry did not provide responses regarding these tactics.

War Jitters in Batanes

Communities near key military passages in the archipelago feel vulnerable due to preparations for conflict. In Batanes, residents, like Hubalde, rushed to buy essential supplies like rice, oil, sugar, and milk when military exercises began. The islands heavily depend on regular shipments from the mainland for food, fuel, and medical supplies.

Provincial Governor Ronald “Jun” Aguto Jr. said that the community has adapted to the military presence, which initially caused alarm and panic buying. Aguto is now focused on updating the provincial contingency plan to prepare for a potential influx of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) from Taiwan during a conflict. There are around 200,000 Filipinos living in Taiwan. He mentioned that Batanes could be used as a launch pad for bringing these workers home, but the islands can support only 20,000 people, requiring a plan to transfer them to the mainland for better sustainability.

The military is developing a rescue plan, according to Commodore Edward Ike De Sagon, the retiring Philippine Navy commander for Northern Luzon. He emphasized that the military is preparing for various scenarios, including handling large numbers of returning workers and possible refugees from Taiwan. The Philippine military has noted Batanes’ strategic location as a potential logistical hub for evacuations and humanitarian responses.

Concerns about being caught in conflict have intensified, especially if China were to attack Taiwan, with fears that Batanes could be targeted. Past military exercises have indicated preparations for potential fighting in the region. Retired politician Florencio Abad urged Manila authorities to reassure the local population regarding plans for managing the impact of conflict, expressing fears about survival in such a scenario. He highlighted the lack of clear communication from the government about evacuating workers from Taiwan or plans for potential refugees. The Philippine defense ministry stated that it is working on contingency and repatriation plans but did not provide details.

Missiles ‘Designed to Close a Strait’

Locals are concerned about potential conflict as the U. S. and the Philippines conduct annual military drills named Balikatan, which includes the deployment of U. S. Marines and new missile systems. The U. S. brought the NMESIS ground-based anti-ship missile launcher to Batanes, capable of launching the Naval Strike Missile with a range over 300 kilometers. This missile can target hostile warships in the Bashi Channel, providing “sea denial capability,” which is crucial for controlling access to this strait.

In late May, more drills occurred with the NMESIS system moved secretly into position for simulated strikes while U. S. and Philippine marines practiced key area operations. Not long after the NMESIS was deployed, China’s aircraft carrier Shandong entered the Western Pacific through the Bashi Channel for military exercises, spotlighting the strategic importance of this maritime route. China also deployed its other carrier, the Liaoning, similarly entering from the Miyako Strait, as both aimed to enhance their naval capabilities. Japan’s military anticipates that in a conflict, it would prevent Chinese access through certain straits, making the Bashi Channel vital for China.

The Philippine military described China’s naval activities as part of aggressive and illegal regional tactics. Meanwhile, the U. S. Army deployed Typhon launchers in Luzon, armed with powerful anti-ship missiles, which can hit targets deep into China, even as Manila expressed a willingness for further deployments despite Chinese objections.

China condemned the U. S. and Philippines’ military exercises and deployment of offensive weapons as destabilizing. The Philippine military clarified that these missile systems are for training and deterrence, not aimed specifically at any country, and operational security prevents them from confirming the locations of such systems. The military maintained that the presence of these missiles during exercises was temporary and not intended to close any maritime routes like the Bashi Channel.

If China doesn’t like it, ‘we’re doing it right’

Senior Philippine defense officials believe that China’s negative reaction indicates it sees the new anti-ship missiles as a significant threat. Retired Admiral Ong noted that disapproval from China means the Philippines is on the right track. The Philippine military recently acquired BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missiles from India, intended to give ground forces the ability to strike Chinese vessels and land targets while staying hidden. This approach helps avoid the vulnerability of fixed military bases to Chinese attacks.

Joint military exercises with the U. S., Japan, and Australia are being conducted to prepare for potential blockades in key maritime routes in the Philippines, such as the Mindoro Strait and the Balabac Strait. The Marcos administration has also allowed the U. S. access to four new military sites in northern Luzon, expanding military cooperation.

U. S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed America’s defense commitments to the Philippines shortly after President Trump took office and exempted funds for Philippine security force modernization from an overseas aid freeze. Despite increased military activity, Batanes Governor Aguto believes China is unlikely to attack, as it would escalate into a larger conflict.

However, local residents, like store owner Marilyn Hubalde, are preparing for possible disruptions to their supply chains. They are considering the need to grow their own food should conflict arise, emphasizing the importance of self-sufficiency in uncertain times.

With information from Reuters

President Donald Trump has come out in support of a future fleet of South Korean nuclear-powered submarines. He says he has signed off on the plan and has claimed that at least some of the boats will be built in the United States. Authorities in South Korea have been open about their nuclear-powered submarine ambitions for years, but have faced pushback, including from the United States, particularly over nuclear proliferation concerns.

Trump has made two posts on his Truth Social social media network discussing South Korean nuclear-powered submarine plans in the past day or so. The U.S. President held a summit with his South Korean counterpart, Lee Jae Myung, yesterday, which was centered heavily on trade negotiations. Trump’s visit to South Korea was part of a larger tour of Asia.

“Our Military Alliance is stronger than ever before and, based on that, I have given them approval to build a Nuclear Powered Submarine, rather than the old fashioned, and far less nimble diesel powered submarines that they have now,” Trump wrote in one post on Truth Social.

“South Korea will be building its Nuclear Powered Submarine in the Philadelphia Shipyards, right here in the good ol’ U.S.A.,” he wrote in a second post. “Shipbuilding in our Country will soon be making a BIG COMEBACK. Stay tuned!!!”

The South Korean Navy already has a substantial fleet of diesel-electric submarines, which currently consists of 12 Jang Bogo class, nine Sohn Won-yil class, and three Dosan Ahn Chang-ho class types. The Jang Bogo and Sohn Won-yil class submarines are German-designed Type 209s and Type 214s, respectively. The Dosan Ahn Chang-ho class, also known as the KS-III Batch I, is a domestically developed design. Just this month, South Korea launched the first of a planned subclass of three KS-III Batch IIs, the country’s largest and most advanced submarine to date, which you can read more about here.

In general, compared to even advanced diesel-electric types like the KS-III Batch II, the key benefit that nuclear-powered submarines offer is functionally unlimited range.

The Trump administration has yet to elaborate on exactly what the current South Korean nuclear-powered submarine plan might entail and the roles that the United States may play.

The shipyard in Philadelphia that Trump mentioned is most likely the Hanwha Philly Shipyard. That yard had been Philadelphia Shipyard Inc. until elements of the South Korean conglomerate Hanwha acquired it last year. That yard has never produced a submarine of any kind or any type of nuclear-powered vessel.

“Asked about Trump’s submarine announcement, Hanwha Ocean, which owns the shipyard with another Hanwha affiliate, said it was ready to cooperate with both countries and provide support with advanced technology, but did not mention specifics,” according to Reuters.

General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, and Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) in Newport News, Virginia, are two current producers of nuclear-powered submarines in the United States.

South Korea’s “Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back told lawmakers that plans called for South Korea to build its own submarines and modular reactors, and receive a supply of enriched uranium fuel from the United States,” Reuters also reported. “Seok Jong-gun, the minister for the defense acquisition program administration told the same hearing that South Korea had been developing small nuclear reactors for some time and would be able to build one for a submarine in less than the decade usually needed to develop such nuclear-powered vessels.”

“We believe if we use the technologies we have been preparing for the future…we’ll be able to achieve this within a short period of time,” Seok added, per Reuters‘ story.

The South Korean government is known to have conducted at least one detailed design study relating to a miniature nuclear reactor for use on a future submarine, called the 326 Initiative, in the 2003 timeframe. The country also has an established nuclear power industry that develops reactors for non-military purposes, but which could be leveraged for such work.

A key question, in general, when it comes to nuclear-powered submarine designs, is the level of enrichment of the fuel inside their reactors. U.S. Navy nuclear-powered submarines notably have reactors with fuel enriched to the same level as material for nuclear weapons. This is not a requisite, however. The reactors inside current French nuclear-powered submarines use low-enriched uranium. There are reports that Chinese nuclear-powered submarines may also use reactors with LEU fuel.

Still, it is worth noting here that, at least currently, the only countries with operational nuclear-powered submarines are also nuclear weapon states. At the same time, that is already set to change with the Australian Navy’s expected acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines through the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) defense cooperation agreement.

Since 2015, South Korea has also faced the unique hurdle of a bilateral agreement that bars it from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel without U.S. government approval. Trump appears to have now given that approval. Defense Minister Ahn’s comments, per Reuters, indicate the hurdle has been further cleared by a plan to source the nuclear material directly from the United States.

A South Korean nuclear submarine program could still create proliferation concerns for the country, which is presently a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As TWZ previously wrote when the possibility of South Korea acquiring nuclear-powered submarines came up in 2018:

The need to build enrichment or other nuclear facilities, or otherwise acquire the highly enriched fissile material, could also draw international criticism that South Korea is abiding by the letter, but not the spirit of the NPT, effectively developing a nuclear weapons program in all but name. These issues are at the core of why South Korea conducted the 326 Initiative in secret and why it abandoned it after it became public, attracting the attention of both the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

South Korean officials have talked in the past about the possibility of changing geopolitical circumstances on the Peninsula, and elsewhere, leading it to start its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea is, of course, a nuclear weapons state, and it may now be pursuing its own nuclear-powered submarines with assistance from Russia.

The South Korean Navy would also have to develop suitable infrastructure to sustain a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, as well as train personnel in the operational and maintenance of naval reactors. There could be cost and related industrial base concerns, especially depending on how deeply involved the United States needs to be in any such plan. Questions have already been raised about whether the U.S. nuclear-powered submarine industry can support Australia’s needs and U.S. Navy requirements. The U.S. naval shipbuilding industry, as a whole, has faced serious challenges in recent years and continues to despite government-backed efforts to bolster its capabilities and capacity.

There are still larger questions about South Korea’s practical need for a nuclear-powered submarine capability. South Korean President Lee has said that his country fielding nuclear-powered submarines could help reduce operational demands for its American allies. Especially combined with conventionally-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), it could also give the South Korean Navy more of a true second-strike capability to help deter North Korea.

However, North Korea has limited anti-submarine warfare capabilities, while South Korean diesel-electric submarine designs are only getting more and more advanced. The range and other benefits that nuclear propulsion offers for naval vessels generally point to broader, blue water ambitions. This is certainly the case for Australia, which is situated far from the areas it expects its future nuclear-powered boats to operate.

As such, South Korea’s work to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, especially if they are capable of carrying out longer-range strikes on targets at sea and/or ashore, could have broader ramifications. The KSS-III Batch I submarines can already fire conventionally-armed SLBMs (SLBM), a capability that is being expanded upon in the Batch II types.

The Chinese government “hopes that South Korea and the United States will earnestly fulfill their nuclear non-proliferation obligations and do things to promote regional peace and stability, and not the other way around,” Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for the country’s foreign ministry, said in response to the nuclear-powered submarine news, according to Reuters.

China already has a very large submarine force that includes diesel-electric and nuclear-powered types, and which it continues to expand in both size and capability.

Much still remains to be learned about how, and when, South Korea may expect to finally begin operating nuclear-powered submarines. Regardless, the country’s ambitions in this regard have now gotten a major boost in support from President Trump.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Former Rep. Katie Porter’s gubernatorial prospects are uncertain in the aftermath of the emergence of two videos that underscore long-swirling rumors that the Irvine Democrat is thin-skinned and a short-tempered boss.

How Porter responds in coming days could determine her viability in next year’s race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to both Democratic and Republican political strategists.

“Everyone’s had a bad day. Everyone’s done something that they wouldn’t want broadcast, right? You don’t want your worst boss moment, your worst employment moment, your worst personal moment, captured on camera,” said Christine Pelosi, a prominent Democratic activist from the Bay Area and a daughter of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“I definitely think that it’s a question of what comes next,” said Pelosi, who had endorsed former Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis before she dropped out of the race.

Porter, the 2026 gubernatorial candidate who has a narrow edge in the polls, came under scrutiny this week when a recording emerged of her brusquely threatening to end a television interview after growing increasingly irritated by the reporter’s questions.

After CBS reporter Julie Watts asked Porter what she would say to the nearly 6.1 million Californians who voted for President Trump in 2024, the UC Irvine law professor responded that she didn’t need their support if she competed against a Republican in the November 2026 runoff election.

After Watts asked follow-up questions, Porter accused Watts of being “unnecessarily argumentative,” held up her hands towards the reporter’s face and later said, “I don’t want this all on camera.”

The following day, a 2021 video emerged of Porter berating a staffer who corrected her about electric vehicle information she was discussing with a member of the Biden administration. “Get out of my f— shot!” Porter said to the young woman after she came into view in the background of the video conference. Porter’s comments in the video were first reported by Politico.

Porter did not respond to multiple interview requests. She put out a statement about the 2021 video, saying: “It’s no secret I hold myself and my staff to a high standard, and that was especially true as a member of Congress. I have sought to be more intentional in showing gratitude to my staff for their important work.”

Several Porter supporters voiced support for her after the videos went viral on social media and became the focus of national news coverage as well as programs such as “The View.”

“In this critical moment in our country, we don’t need to be polite, go along to get along, establishment politicians that keep getting run over by the opposition,” wrote Peter Finn and Chris Griswold, co-chairs of Teamsters California, which has endorsed Porter and represents 250,000 workers in the state. “We need strong leaders like Katie Porter that are willing to call it like it is and stand up and fight for everyday Californians.”

EMILYs List, which supports Democratic women who back abortion rights, and Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who won the congressional seat Porter left to unsuccessfully run for U.S. Senate last year, are among those who also released statements supporting the embattled Democratic candidate.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the influential California Labor Federation, alluded to growing rumors in the state’s Capitol before the videos emerged that powerful Democratic and corporate interests dislike Porter and have been trying to coax another Democrat into the race.

“The only thing that is clear after the past few days is that Katie Porter’s willingness to take on powerful interests has the status quo very afraid and very motivated,” Gonzalez said in a statement.

There has been a concerted effort to urge Sen. Alex Padilla into the race. The San Fernando Valley Democrat has said he won’t make a decision until after voters decide Proposition 50, the redistricting proposal he and other state Democratic leaders are championing, on the November ballot.

A pivotal indicator of Porter’s plans is whether she takes part in two events that she is scheduled to participate in next week — a virtual forum Tuesday evening with the California Working Families Party and a live UC Student and Policy Center Q&A on Friday in Sacramento.

Democratic gubernatorial rivals in California’s 2026 race for governor seized on the videos. Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to drop out of the race, and wealthy businessman Stephen Cloobeck and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa attacked her in ads about the uproar.

Former Sen. Barbara Boxer said she saw the same traits Porter displayed in the videos — anger, a lack of respect, privilege — previously, notably in the 2024 Senate contest, which is why she decided to back then-Rep. Adam Schiff, who ultimately won the race. Boxer has endorsed Villaraigosa for governor.

“I had a bad taste in my mouth from that experience,” Boxer said, growing upset while describing her reaction to the video of Porter cursing at her staffer. “This video tells us everything we need to know about former Congresswoman Porter. She is unfit to serve. Period.”

Disagreements arose between Boxer and her staff during her more than four decades in elected office, she said.

But even when “we weren’t happy with each other, there was always respect, because I knew they deserved it, and I knew without them, I was nothing,” Boxer said, adding that men‘s and women’s behavior as elected officials must be viewed through the same lens. “We are equal; we are not better. She’s proof of that.”

Beth Miller, a veteran Sacramento-based GOP strategist who has worked with female politicians since the 1980s, said women are held to a different standard by voters, though it has eased in recent years.

“In some ways, this plays into that bias, but in other ways, it unfortunately sets women back because it underscores a concern that people have,” Miller said. “And that’s really disappointing and discouraging to a lot of female politicians who don’t ascribe to that type of behavior.”

Miller also pointed to the dichotomy of Porter’s terse reaction in the television interview to Porter championing herself in Congress as a fearless and aggressive inquisitor of CEOs and government leaders.

“You exhibit one kind of behavior on the one hand and another when it affects you,” Miller said. “And you know, governor of California is not a walk in the park, and so I don’t think she did herself any favors at all. And I think it really is a window into who she is.”

What’s the difference between Harvard and UCLA when it comes to fighting President Trump’s attacks?

It may come down to how much Gavin Newsom wants his shot at the White House.

Harvard appears to be on the brink of caving to the president’s demands around claims of antisemitism and a host of issues that most would describe as policies for inclusiveness and diversity, but which Trump derides as “woke,” whatever that means.

The storied university may pay out a huge settlement — rumored to be about $500 million — to pacify an administration increasingly bent on domination of American institutions. Armed with that success, the president has targeted UCLA by freezing more than $500 million in federal grants and demanding a payout of about $1 billion.

“We will not be complicit in this kind of attack on academic freedom on this extraordinary public institution,” Newsom said recently. “We are not like some of those other institutions that have followed a different path.”

Let’s hope that’s true.

Technically, the University of California is run by the Board of Regents, of which Newsom is a member. But Newsom has so far appointed or reappointed several voting members, and you’re not going to convince me that the rest will go rogue on this decision on how to battle for the soul of UCLA, one of the most important the board will ever make.

So Newsom will be the decider, to steal a phrase from President George W. Bush.

And deciding to capitulate not only looks bad, but has terrible consequences that would dog a candidate Newsom. Not to mention crippling California as a whole.

Harvard may hold a place in the American psyche as the best of the best, but when it comes to actual impact, UCLA and the University of California system are in an entirely different league. More than 1 million Californians hold a degree from a UC, with about 200,000 currently enrolled across the system. Each year, UCLA alone contributes more than $2 billion to the local economy, and adds to the body of human knowledge with its unparalleled research in ways that money cannot quantify.

“With all respect to Harvard, the University of California dwarfs Harvard in terms of size and scale and the impact on the country,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) told me. “When you look at the UC just in terms of science and healthcare and helping to birth Silicon Valley, helping to birth the pharmaceutical industry, the UC has a cultural, educational and economic relevance unlike any other institution on the planet.”

The stakes are simply higher for California. Harvard, a private university, can not only withstand more financially, but ultimately matters less. UCLA, with great respect to UC Berkeley, is the “people’s university,” as Zev Yaroslavsky puts it. He’s a former L.A. County supervisor and current director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

“There is a difference between a Harvard and a UCLA, or UC Berkeley or UC San Diego or University of Michigan,” he said, and if the president managed to extract his pound of flesh, “it would bankrupt the No. 1 public university in the United States.”

The problem is this is a lose-lose situation. If the university settles, it is going to be forced to pay a tribute of hundreds of millions of dollars. While it may be able to lower the purposefully debilitating $1 billion Trump is demanding, it will still pay a price that damages it for years to come. But at least it will know the number.

If the university doesn’t settle, it risks years of litigation with no certainty of an eventual win.

On Tuesday, a federal court in a separate lawsuit ordered the administration to unfreeze more than $80 million in funding that is currently being withheld. But even with that win, the entire UC system remains in jeopardy of the president’s agenda, and there is no reason to believe the Supreme Court would side with California if or when the case made it that far.

But even if UCLA were to settle, what’s to stop Trump from coming back next year for another bite? As Yaroslavsky points out, give a bully your lunch money once, and they’ll keep coming back for more.

“There’s always a temptation to negotiate and work it out,” said Wiener, the state senator. “I don’t think that that’s an option here.”

Neither do I, though the business-minded decision would be to cut a deal. But we also have a larger issue to consider.

Education is resistance to authoritarianism, and crushing it has long been a goal of the far right. Point being, educated, free-thinking folks often prefer diversity and democracy.

In 2021, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech titled “The Universities are the Enemy,” which summed it up well.

“We have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country,” he said. And here we are.

If the university of the fourth-largest economy on the planet signals that it can’t stand up to this, what university will risk it?

“California needs to say, ‘No, we’re not going to give him control over the UC, we’re not going to pay him taxpayer dollars as extortion,’” Wiener said. “If California can’t say no, then I don’t see who can.”

So once again, California — and Californians — are a line of defense. It’s up to us to let our leaders know that we don’t want our taxpayer-funded universities to cave to this assault, and that we expect our governor to fight.

It’s in his best interest, and ours.

On Sunday at approximately 2 a.m. Tehran time, seven B-2 stealth aircraft attacked the Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, strikes enabled as much by the belief that Iran had this coming as the particular technology of the American bombers. A drawling President Trump put it in stark terms shortly after the operation ended. “For 40 years, Iran has been saying death to America, death to Israel. They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs, with roadside bombs. That was their specialty.”

Convention drives coverage of Iran in the United States, from stock images of anti-American murals to the enduring menace of “Iranian-backed militias.” Now there is an emerging consensus that overthrowing the government in Tehran will accomplish what Israeli and U.S. missiles and air assaults have not: an end to Iran’s nuclear program and that country’s destabilizing aspirations for regional hegemony, not to mention an end of the oppressive Islamic Republic itself. A series of headlines, analysts and politicians have in recent days presented regime change as a natural certainty, nothing less than a magic bullet. This too is seen as Iran’s due.

Very few of these expert voices have taken the next step by asking, “Then what?” Where does the magic bullet land? Sovereign imperatives await the next group to come into power. Democratic or otherwise, the government that replaces the current regime will be laser-focused on Iran’s survival. And there is very little reason for Israel or the U.S. to think that a reconstituted Iran will become more conciliatory toward either country once the war ends.

The reality is that nationalism, not theocracy, remains what what the historian Ali Ansari calls the “determining ideology” of Iran. There is a robust consensus among scholars that politics in Iran begins with the idea of Iran as a people with a continuous and unbroken history, a nation that “looms out of an immemorial past.” Nationalism provides the broad political arena in which different groups and ideologies in Iran compete for power and authority, whether monarchist, Islamist or leftist.

And that means that the patriotic defense of Iran isn’t a passing phase, produced under the duress of bombs, but the default position, the big idea that holds Iran together, hardened over the last two centuries of Iranian history and the trauma of the loss of territory and dignity to outside powers, including the Russians, the British and the Americans.

Getting rid of Islamic rule won’t change this dynamic; it is almost sure to guarantee that something worse will come along, sending Iranian politics in unexpected and more corrosive directions. Americans, after all, need only look to their current administration (or past interventions in the Middle East) for examples of how populist responses to foreign invasions, real or imagined, can lead to unthinkable outcomes.

“Trump just guaranteed that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next 5 to 10 years, particularly if the regime changes,” Trita Parsi of the U.S.-based Quincy Institute wrote Saturday night. This is especially true if a new regime is democratic. The promised “liberation” of the Iranian people through devastating bombing campaigns presents the worst-case scenario for Israel and the U.S., as no future elected government would survive unless it sustained, and perhaps surpassed, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s current belligerence.

There is tragedy here. Ordinary Iranians, like most people, want peace and security, preferably through diplomacy and dialogue. The unprovoked attacks of the last week and their subsequent justification by not only the U.S. but also nearly all of the European Union, a disastrous sequence that began with Trump’s wanton violation of President Obama’s Iran deal in 2018, have convinced an increasing number of Iranians that the restraint of arms, nuclear or otherwise, is national suicide.

Insofar as the Islamic Republic can claim that it is the only Iranian government in more than 200 years to have lost “not an inch of soil,” it continues to cling to power. Of course, such legitimacy comes with a dual edge. This regime may survive in the short term, but if and when it does fall it will be because its leaders failed to keep Israeli and American arms out, munitions that have already killed more than 800 of their fellow citizens in less than a week, according to the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists.

One of the most common conventions when it comes to Iran, typically presented as a gesture of grace, is to draw a distinction between its government and the people, to lay blame on “the mullahs” and not the country’s long-suffering citizens for their country’s status as a rogue actor. As a way to appeal to Iranians of the righteousness of his cause, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his surrogates have deployed tropes of civilizational greatness that would make even the most ardent Persian chauvinist blush. On Thursday, the Israeli prime minister announced that the time had come for the Jews to repay an ancient debt: “I want to tell you that 2,500 years ago, Cyrus the Great, the king of Persia, liberated the Jews. And today, a Jewish state is creating the means to liberate the Persian people.” Regime change, by this logic, is a project of recovery and revivalism, a surefire way to make Iran great again.

Iranians are proving to be less nuanced, and unconvinced. The distance between the Iranian state and society has in the last week been reduced to almost nothing. Across the range of experience and suffering, from imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize laureates and formerly imprisoned Palm D’Or winners to working-class laborers left behind by the revolution, the overriding sentiment today in Iran is clear: These clerics may be scoundrels, but they’re our scoundrels, our problem to solve.

Nearly 50 years into an unwanted dictatorship, Iranians have developed a refined capacity for identifying bad faith. They know who has Iran’s interests at heart and who is trying to save his own skin.

Iranian American Shervin Malekzadeh is a visiting assistant professor of political science at Pitzer College and author of the forthcoming book, “Fire Beneath the Ash: The Green Movement and the Struggle for Democracy in Iran, 2009-2019.”

For more than three decades, a familiar refrain has echoed from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.

Since 1992, when Netanyahu addressed Israel’s Knesset as an MP, he has consistently claimed that Tehran is only years away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. “Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb,” he declared at the time. The prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism.

The sense of imminent threat has repeatedly shaped Netanyahu’s engagement with United States officials. In 2002, he appeared before a US congressional committee, advocating for the invasion of Iraq and suggesting that both Iraq and Iran were racing to obtain nuclear weapons. The US-led invasion of Iraq followed soon after, but no weapons of mass destruction were found.

In 2009, a US State Department cable released by WikiLeaks revealed him telling members of Congress that Iran was just one or two years away from nuclear capability.

Three years later, at the United Nations General Assembly, Netanyahu famously brandished a cartoon drawing of a bomb to illustrate his claims that Iran was closer than ever to the nuclear threshold. “By next spring, at most by next summer … they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage,” he said in 2012.

Now, more than 30 years after his first warning, Israel has conducted attacks against Iran while Netanyahu maintains that the threat remains urgent. “If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time,” he argued recently, suggesting the timeline could be months, even weeks.

These assertions persist despite statements from the US Director of National Intelligence earlier this year saying Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.

For Netanyahu, the message has scarcely changed in decades — a warning that appears to transcend shifting intelligence assessments and diplomatic developments.

Sao Paulo, Brazil – In the far north of Brazil, where the Amazon River collides with the sea, an environmental dilemma has awakened a national political debate.

There, the Brazilian government has been researching the possibility of offshore oil reserves that extend from the eastern state of Rio Grande do Norte all the way to Amapá, close to the border with French Guiana.

That region is known as the Equatorial Margin, and it represents hundreds of kilometres of coastal water.

But critics argue it also represents the government’s conflicting goals under Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva.

During his third term as president, Lula has positioned Brazil as a champion in the fight against climate change. But he has also signalled support for fossil fuel development in regions like the Equatorial Margin, as a means of paying for climate-change policy.

“We want the oil because it will still be around for a long time. We need to use it to fund our energy transition, which will require a lot of money,” Lula said in February.

But at the start of his term in 2023, he struck a different stance. “Our goal is zero deforestation in the Amazon, zero greenhouse gas emissions,” he told Brazil’s Congress.

As the South American country prepares to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) later this year, those contradictions have come under even greater scrutiny.

Nicole Oliveira is one of the environmental leaders fighting the prospect of drilling in the Equatorial Margin, including the area at the mouth of the Amazon River, known as Foz do Amazonas.

Her organisation, the Arayara Institute, filed a lawsuit to block an auction scheduled for this week to sell oil exploration rights in the Equatorial Margin. She doubts the government’s rationale that fossil-fuel extraction will finance cleaner energy.

“There is no indication of any real willingness [from the government] to pursue an energy transition,” Oliveira said.

“On the contrary, there is growing pressure on environmental agencies to issue licenses and open up new areas in the Foz do Amazonas and across the entire Equatorial Margin.”

Last Thursday, the federal prosecutor’s office also filed a lawsuit to delay the auction, calling for further environmental assessments and community consultations before the project proceeds.

A government reversal

The fate of the Equatorial Margin has exposed divisions even within Lula’s government.

In May 2023, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) — the government’s main environmental regulator — denied a request from the state-owned oil company Petrobras to conduct exploratory drilling at the mouth of the Amazon River.

In its decision, the IBAMA cited environmental risks and a lack of assessments, given the site’s “socio-environmental sensitivity”.

But Petrobras continued to push for a licence to drill in the region. The situation escalated in February this year when IBAMA again rejected Petrobras’s request.

Lula responded by criticising the agency for holding up the process. He argued that the proceeds from any drilling would help the country and bolster its economy.

“We need to start thinking about Brazil’s needs. Is this good or bad for Brazil? Is this good or bad for Brazil’s economy?” Lula told Radio Clube do Para in February.

On May 19, the director of IBAMA, a politician named Rodrigo Agostinho, ultimately overruled his agency’s decision and gave Petrobras the green light to initiate drilling tests in the region.

Petrobras applauded the reversal. In a statement this month to Al Jazeera, it said it had conducted “detailed environmental studies” to ensure the safety of the proposed oil exploration.

It added that its efforts were “fully in line with the principles of climate justice, biodiversity protection, and the social development of the communities where it operates”.

“Petrobras strictly follows all legal and technical requirements established by environmental authorities,” Petrobras wrote.

It also argued that petroleum will continue to be a vital energy source decades into the future, even with the transition to low-carbon alternatives.

Roberto Ardenghy, the president of the Brazilian Petroleum and Gas Institute (IBP), an advocacy group, is among those who believe that further oil exploitation is necessary for Brazil’s continued growth and prosperity.

“It is justified — even from an energy and food security standpoint — that Brazil continues to search for oil in all of these sedimentary basins,” he said.

Ardenghy added that neighbouring countries like Guyana are already profiting from “significant discoveries” near the Equatorial Margin.

“Everything suggests there is strong potential for major oil reservoirs in that region. The National Petroleum Agency estimates there could be around 30 billion barrels of oil there. That’s why we’re making such a major effort,” he said.

A ‘risk of accidents’

But critics have argued that the area where the Amazon River surges into the ocean comprises a delicate ecosystem, lush with mangroves and coral reefs.

There, the pink-bellied Guiana dolphin plies the salty waters alongside other aquatic mammals like sperm whales and manatees. Environmentalists fear exploratory drilling could further endanger these rare and threatened species.

Indigenous communities at the mouth of the river have also resisted Petrobras’s plans for oil exploration, citing the potential for damage to their ancestral fishing grounds.

In 2022, the Council of Chiefs of the Indigenous Peoples of Oiapoque (CCPIO) formally requested that the federal prosecutor’s office mediate a consultation process with Petrobras, which has not taken place to this date.

The federal prosecutor’s office, in announcing Thursday’s lawsuit, cited the risk to Indigenous peoples as part of its reasoning for seeking to delay the auction.

“The area is home to a vast number of traditional peoples and communities whose survival and way of life are directly tied to coastal ecosystems,” the office said.

However, in its statement to Al Jazeera, Petrobras maintains it had a “broad communication process” with local stakeholders. It added that its studies “did not identify any direct impact on traditional communities” resulting from the drilling.

But some experts nevertheless question the safety of oil exploration in the region, including Suely Araujo, who used to chair IBAMA from 2016 to 2018.

Now the public policy coordinator for the advocacy coalition Observatório do Clima, Araujo pointed to practical hurdles like the powerful waters that gush from the Amazon River into the ocean.

“The area is quite complex, with extremely strong currents. Petrobras has no previous exploration experience in a region with currents as strong as these,” Araujo said. “So it’s an area that increases the risk of accidents even during drilling.”

Still, she fears there is little political will within the Lula government to stop the oil exploration — and that awarding drilling licences could be a slippery slope.

“All the evidence is there for this licence to be approved soon,” she said, referring to the project planned near the river mouth.

“The problem is that if this licence gets approved — let’s say, the 47 new blocks in the Foz do Amazonas that are now up for auction — it will become very difficult for IBAMA to deny future licences, because it’s the same region.”

Oliveira, whose organisation is leading the legal fight against the exploration licences, echoed that sentiment. She said it is necessary to stop the drilling before it starts.

“If we want to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees [Celsius], which is where we already are,” she said, “we cannot drill a single new oil well”.

Anthony Irungu / BBC

Mohamud Abdisamad / BBC

AFP / Getting Images

Mohamud Abdisamad / BBC

Mohamud Abdisamad / BBC

You may also be interested in:

Getty Images/BBC

Two and a half months into his time with the team, Newey said: “There’s a lot of individually very, very good people. We just need to try to get them working together, perhaps in a slightly better organised way.

“That’s simply a result of the roots of the team at Jordan, that became Force India, that became Racing Point, and was as such always a small but slightly over-performing team, to now in a very short space of time a very big team that the truth is has been underperforming this year.”

Newey, who joins the team after an illustrious career with Williams, McLaren and Red Bull, said one of the factors he was looking forward to in Monaco was working for the first time at a live event with 2005 and 2006 world champion Fernando Alonso.

“Fernando, he’s such a cool character,” Newey said. “He’s been an enemy for many years, along with Lewis (Hamilton), and I think I’ve said before that you can only work with so many drivers, but two drivers I always wanted that I felt I would enjoy working with, were Lewis and Fernando, and I couldn’t work with both, so at least I got one of them.

“It’s only when you get to the racetrack that you really start to develop that relationship, so I’m looking forward to that developing a little bit this season, but particularly next season.”

He added that he felt that Lance Stroll, the son of team owner Lawrence, “has an unfairly bad rap, on average”, adding: “Any driver who gets to Formula 1 is clearly very good, but I think Lance is much better than people who’ve been very poor.”