bet

The WNBA has deleted a social media post that appears to show two of its star players, Angel Reese and Paige Bueckers, making a $400 bet with each other on their teams’ game — an act that seems to be in violation of the league’s collective bargaining agreement.

The post was made Wednesday afternoon on X ahead of that night’s game between Reese’s Atlanta Dream and Bueckers’ Dallas Wings in Arlington, Texas, and deleted soon after. It featured a video that showed Bueckers talking to a reporter, who mentions that “at All-Star weekend, you and Angel made a bet with each other on this game.”

Bueckers appears to jokingly play dumb. “We did?” she asked.

The video then cuts to footage of Reese and Bueckers, apparently at practice during last weekend’s All-Star festivities in Chicago, joking around and making a friendly wager with each other on the Dream-Wings game later that week.

“If y’all win, you get your 400,” Reese appears to say before adding that if Atlanta wins, “you owe me 400.”

A WNBA spokesperson said in a statement emailed to The Times: “While the social media post was intended to be lighthearted, WNBA players are well aware of the league’s policies prohibiting betting on WNBA games and receive training every year reinforcing those policies. We recognized that the post missed the mark, removed it shortly after it was published, and addressed the matter internally.

“We will also use this as an opportunity to reemphasize with the players involved that conversations about wagering on WNBA games, even when intended as a joke, can have negative consequences.”

Reese had 22 points and 12 rebounds in her team’s 82-81 victory against the Dream. During a postgame news conference, Reese laughed out loud when a reporter made reference to the wager she had with Bueckers.

“Yeah, I’ll be requesting my Apple Pay after this,” Reese said.

Reese also apparently was alluding to the bet when she added the hashtag #cuatrocientos (Spanish for four hundred) to an X post later that night.

Bueckers, who had 16 points in the loss, was not asked about the bet after the game.

According to Article XIV, Section 5(c) of the league’s CBA, “Any player found by the Commissioner after a hearing to have been guilty of wagering (directly or indirectly), or of offering or attempting to wager, money or anything of value on the outcome, score, or any other aspect of any WNBA Competition shall, in the sole discretion of the Commissioner, be subject to a fine, suspension, and/or dismissal and disqualification from any further association with the WNBA.”

The Women’s National Basketball Players Assn., the Wings and the Dream did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

NEW YORK — He is baseball’s invisible man.

Remember when the Dodgers signed Kyle Tucker? The prophets of doom wailed. The Dodgers had opened Pandora’s box, and out would fly a lockout, a pall of smoke over their games, and a plague of locusts.

The salary cap proposal was coming anyway. The Dodgers did play through wildfire smoke at Yankee Stadium last Friday. No locusts, at least not yet.

But no one foretold that the star to whom the Dodgers agreed last winter to pay an average of $60 million each year would be, well, average.

Over the first half of the season, Tucker’s OPS+ was 100, making him a player defined by that metric as “league average.”

He is batting .240, 30 points below his career average. He is on pace for full-season career lows in home runs (11) and OPS (.702).

His WAR is 0.9, below the 1.3 of Tyler Glasnow. By that metric, Tucker has contributed less to the Dodgers’ success this season than Glasnow, who has pitched in seven of the team’s first 100 games.

Hardly anyone outside Los Angeles has noticed, and hardly anyone in Los Angeles has gotten all worked up about it.

“I appreciate that our fan base, compared to some others, gives a lot more grace to players,” Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said. “And I know he sees that as well.”

Here is what Tucker’s trials have cost the Dodgers: Absolutely nothing.

He had two hits, both singles, in 13 at-bats as his team won the weekend series against the New York Yankees. The Dodgers remain the owners of the best record in the major leagues.

Tucker’s four-year contract, lucrative as it is, was not accompanied by a withering spotlight. He does not need to lift his team into the postseason, a burden often borne by marquee free agents signed to put their team over the top.

With the Dodgers?

Shohei Ohtani is the face of baseball. Freddie Freeman’s son walked around the All-Star Game in a T-shirt that read “My Dad Has 2,500 Hits.”

Mookie Betts last played here as a World Series-winning, Gold Glove-winning right fielder; he returned as a World Series-winning, Gold Glove-caliber shortstop.

“I think it certainly helps being around a lot of other guys who have high expectations,” Roberts said.

Neither rain nor smoke nor heat can keep the Dodgers from their appointed October rounds. They need Tucker to prosper then.

Dodgers outfielder Kyle Tucker singles during the second inning against the New York Yankees on Friday.

(Caleb Bowlin / Getty Images)

“Obviously, we all want to play well all year,” Betts said. “It’s not like we’re kicking the can and nobody cares. Even then, we’d love to be ready in October.

“It’s really just about playing. You never know. You could have a great October and get one hit, and it could be the biggest hit.”

Said Tucker: “Everyone here is very talented. Everyone is here to help each other out. Everyone here just wants to get back to another World Series, and win it. So I’m trying to do my part and just play baseball.”

He insists he is not weighted down by the external expectations that accompany his contract.

“I think that’s the beauty of it, the thing that’s refreshing,” Betts said. “I don’t think he cares about any of that. He just wants to play well and do his thing and help the boys.

“I don’t think he really cares about the expectations.”

You may think “$60 million” when he comes to the plate. He does not.

“I try, regardless of what my situation is,” Tucker said. “Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn’t. I’ve just got to try and do better.”

His strikeouts are up significantly this season. His bat speed is down slightly. His hard contact rate is down significantly.

He’s working on fixing his swing. He’s been working on it. He’ll keep working on it.

Roberts said the quality of Tucker’s at-bats have looked better over the past couple weeks, even if the results may not show it.

“The thing that I’ve appreciated since Day 1 is, he hasn’t run from his struggles,” Roberts said. “He’s owned it.”

Tucker made the All-Star Game in each of the four years preceding this one. The Dodgers are betting his level of performance will at least approach that in the second half.

Betts said he does not see anything specific to worry about with Tucker.

“I don’t see anything at all,” Betts said. “He’s a competitor. He’s already come through a bunch during the year. It’s not like he’s not doing anything.

“He’s not hitting .330 with 30 [home runs], like we all would dream we were doing, right? But, as a team, we’re doing OK.”

For now, the Dodgers are. Their true season starts in a little more than two months.

From Tucker, the accountability is appreciated. Production would be better.

Uncrewed systems will be at the heart of the UK Armed Forces in the future, under a more than $6.6-billion initiative that looks to transform all three services and the way they fight. Perhaps most dramatically, the new defense plan will see the Royal Navy sacrifice its future destroyer for a “hybrid,” distributed concept, with autonomous vessels being paired with crewed ones. But there are equally far-reaching measures set to reconfigure the British Army and Royal Air Force (RAF) around uncrewed and autonomous capabilities, some of which remain very high-risk as they are still deep or even early in development.

In a speech today, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer set out his government’s long-awaited Defense Investment Plan. The aim of this is nothing less than “keeping the country safe for years to come,” the government said, and for this, the UK Armed Forces will lean heavily on autonomous systems. Most of these don’t currently exist in physical form, at least as far as we know. At the same time, the effort stresses the rapid fielding of capabilities. This illustrates just how ambitious, and risky, the plan is.

The Defense Investment Plan provides a budget of more than £5 billion ($6.6 billion) over four years just for drones and related capabilities. This is part of a much larger overall spend on defense, amounting to £298 billion ($395 billion) over the same period. This sum also includes £15 billion ($20 billion) of additional spending on top of last year’s Spending Review.

By the end of the decade, Starmer asserted, the proportion of U.K. GDP spent on defense will be higher than at any time during the last 30 years and is in line with NATO ambitions to reach a level of 3.5 percent of GDP.

The government points to the conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, specifically, as evidence of the need for a “drone transformation.”

“Drones are rapidly reshaping warfare, with cheap systems destroying high-value targets and innovation cycles measured in weeks, not years,” the government said, in announcing the plan. “Ukraine uses roughly 200,000 drones a month to defend itself from Russia’s barbaric invasion, while at the height of the Iran conflict, 700 offensive drones were being launched per day,” it adds.

Royal Navy

The changes forecast for the Royal Navy have so far garnered the most attention.

As part of a previously announced plan to create a so-called “Hybrid Navy,” the service will receive four new types of uncrewed vessels that will operate in conjunction with crewed warships and aircraft.

Of these new vessels, the Type 91 will be an uncrewed missile platform, serving as a ‘floating magazine’ to increase the overall firepower of the fleet. A combination of air defense, long-range land attack, and anti-ship missile capabilities seems likely, although any armament fit will likely be readily changeable and highly modular. The lessons of the conflict in the Red Sea provided dramatic evidence of how quickly missile cells can be depleted in an intense air-warfare environment.

Also uncrewed, the Type 92 vessels are described as “sense platforms” and will have a primary anti-submarine warfare (ASW) tasking. As such, they will ensure the Royal Navy’s sensor reach is extended further into the North Atlantic, where the Type 92s will support previously ordered frigates in the hunt for Russian submarines.

The Type 93 is defined as an extra-large uncrewed underwater vessel and is intended as an adjunct to crewed hunter-killer submarines. They will carry both sensors and weapons (presumably torpedoes) to help search and destroy enemy submarines. This is an area in which the Royal Navy has been struggling particularly, with significant gaps in its fast-attack submarine force due to limited availability.

Finally, the Type 94 is another uncrewed sense platform, but is optimized for air defense missions. It will use its sensors to look for aerial threats on behalf of both the fleet and in support of homeland missions.

The Types 91 and 94 will eventually be tied together by at least six Common Combat Vessels, which will form part of a networked Maritime Air Defense system. Arriving in service in the 2030s, the crewed Common Combat Vessels will serve as the “brains” behind this architecture, and the overall system will eventually take over the air defense tasking currently handled by the Type 45 destroyers.

The Maritime Air Defense system and the Common Combat Vessels, which are widely assumed to be roughly frigate-sized vessels, supersede earlier plans for the new Type 83 destroyer. This was previously expected to replace the Type 45 in the late 2030s, although for some time now its future had appeared threatened by increasing Admiralty interest in ‘arsenal ship’ concepts like the Type 91.

The Hybrid Carrier Air Wing outlined in the Defense Investment Plan is something we have discussed before.

In its last Strategic Defense Review, the U.K. Ministry of Defense introduced it as follows:

“The Royal Navy must continue to move towards a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet, developing a ‘high-low’ mix of equipment and weapons that exploits autonomy and digital integration. Carrier strike is already at the cutting edge of NATO capability, but much more rapid progress is needed in its evolution into ‘hybrid’ carrier air wings, whereby crewed combat aircraft (F-35B) are complemented by autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, and expendable, single-use drones. Plans for the hybrid carrier air wings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck.”

While there is no further mention of the deck-launched long-range precision missiles at this point, the Defense Investment Plan does note that Project Pantheon will serve as the development effort for the Hybrid Carrier Air Wing and will include trials of unnamed jet-powered drones alongside the F-35B.

While not referred to specifically, the Royal Navy has already outlined its ambition for ‘cat and trap’ drone operations aboard U.K. carriers, which is known as Project Ark Royal.

If realized, the project will see the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers start to operate drones that can undertake a variety of missions and then increasingly heavier, complex, and higher-performance ones. Later on, full catapult-assisted takeoff but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) capability could also add fixed-wing crewed aircraft, as we have explored in the past.

Larger fixed-wing drones are an aspiration that the Royal Navy is already working toward under Project Vixen, which you can read more about here.

As we have discussed in the past, there are many technological hurdles ahead as the Royal Navy looks to introduce carrier-capable drones. Beyond the launch and recovery systems, it will also need to develop control stations, datalinks, unique procedures, and much more to ensure the drones can be safely and effectively integrated within the carrier air group, for example. Even working out the intricacies of deck handling and flow integration involving drones combined with crewed fixed-wing jets and helicopters will be a considerable effort.

Project Pantheon certainly looks like it will move all of this ahead, although it should be noted that the size of the jet-powered drones for the program has not been stated. Already, the Royal Navy has conducted trials involving smaller, jet-powered drones, with the QinetiQ Banshee Jet 80+, best known as a target drone, being launched from HMS Prince of Wales in 2021. Even the Banshee could provide a suitable platform for a rapidly introduced decoy or one-way attack munition.

The Royal Navy’s elite amphibious and special operations-capable light infantry force, the Commandos, are also earmarked for further investment including “new high-speed boats and the latest drone and autonomous technology.”

Less surprising was the government’s commitment to strengthen the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent, including allocating more than £63 billion ($83 billion) over the next four years to fund the four Dreadnought class ballistic missile submarines and the SSN-AUKUS nuclear attack submarines, as well as a new warhead for British Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

‘£64bn will be invested into renewing the UK’s nuclear deterrent’

The money will go into building new submarines, developing a new sovereign warhead, and buying 12 F-35A fighter jets, to guarantee “British and European security”, Starmer says
https://t.co/vzwgATWaj2 pic.twitter.com/9tf0Wc2mFG

— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 30, 2026

British Army

Moving on to the British Army, this service will benefit from more investment into “inexpensive expendable autonomous systems and loitering munitions.” This will include around $66 million boost over the next 12 months for the Army’s Rapstone program, which will pay for additional first-person view (FPV) and interceptor drones.

The British Army gets a new uncrewed ground vehicle (UGV) program, as yet unnamed, which plans to rapidly develop and produce uncrewed vehicles and associated mission systems via U.K. industry.

In the air, Project Nyx will provide the British Army with up to 24 autonomous armed drones that will operate in a crewed-uncrewed teaming arrangement with the service’s recently upgraded Apache attack helicopters. Planned to be operational by 2030, the drones will be outfitted for reconnaissance, precision strike, and electronic warfare.

Lastly, under Project Corvus, up to 24 surveillance drones will replace the British Army’s much-troubled Watchkeeper drone system, carrying out intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR).

Royal Air Force

While standout announcements for the Royal Air Force are fewer than for the other services, the flying branch does secure around $10.6 billion for the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) over the next four years. This should drive forward the effort to a next-generation stealth fighter for the Royal Air Force, alongside Japan and Italy. 

More intriguingly, the Defense Investment Plan mentions a “new, national Collaborative Combat Air program,” which would appear to supersede various earlier ‘loyal wingman’-type programs. The Collaborative Combat Air program aims to develop “new autonomous fighter jets which will fly alongside crewed jets,” and a demonstrator is expected to be in the air by at least 2030.

As part of the nuclear deterrence budget, the Royal Air Force will also receive the 12 F-35As that will be armed with U.S.-owned B61-12 tactical nuclear bombs, allowing them to join NATO’s nuclear mission. You can read more about that plan — and questions about its feasibility — here.

Finally, the Storm Shroud system will provide the Royal Air Force with a new uncrewed electronic warfare drone, which will enter service this year. The Storm Shroud has already been trialed in exercises and is equipped with the Leonardo BriteStorm stand-in jammer, which you can read more about here.

All three services will benefit from an initiative to boost munitions and weapons stockpiles, a growing concern for militaries across the board, which has been highlighted by depletions through transfers to Ukraine and conflict in the Middle East.

The United Kingdom will spend £11 billion ($14.5 billion) to increase U.K. stockpiles, including long-range strike weapons, low-cost cruise missiles, and one-way effectors. Conceivably, a lot of these efforts will be kickstarted by separate projects originally launched to provide Ukraine with U.K.-made weapons. By 2030, there is a plan to build at least six new energetics factories as part of an overall increase in national munitions production capacity. 

Less obvious are the cuts that the British Armed Forces will face in some areas.

The government says it will phase out its Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles, many of which have already been transferred to Ukraine. The plan says that “We are now pivoting to the next generation of low-cost cruise missiles,” without providing further details.

Also facing the axe are more than 30 Wildcat and the oldest (Mk 6A variant) Chinook helicopters, as well as plans to upgrade a satellite communications system.

A drone-based defense plan

By putting drones squarely at the forefront, Starmer’s long-delayed Defense Investment Plan is certainly eye-catching. It also comes with immense developmental risk, involving many concepts that remain unproven in the real world.

However, there are still plenty of stress factors, not least the demands of senior officers from all three services for additional funding.

Tensions around the Defense Investment Plan have already led to fierce discussions between the Ministry of Defense and the Treasury. These came to a head when John Healey resigned as defense secretary earlier this month.

In an effort to placate criticisms, Starmer added another £1 billion ($1.3 billion) to the defense budget after Healey walked. However, Healey had reportedly been pushing the Treasury for a total rise closer to £18 billion ($23.8 billion).

I want the Defence Investment Plan to be a success. And I thank the MOD officials who’ve worked so hard over many months on it. I welcome the extra funding and focus the Treasury has ceded over the last couple of weeks. (1/6)

— John Healey (@JohnHealey_MP) June 30, 2026

The government has also responded to criticism that it is moving too slowly to address emerging threats and changing security demands.

“The Defense Secretary [Dan Jarvis] has spent the last two weeks refocusing the Defense Investment Plan so that it prioritizes getting the latest kit into the hands of military personnel,” the MoD said.

So, there we have it. The U.K. government has injected $6.6 billion into a defense plan that aims to do no less than reconfigure the British Armed Forces as “a flexible, integrated force with attack drones flying alongside Army helicopters, RAF jets made invisible from enemy detection with new drones, and a hybrid Royal Navy made up of crewed and uncrewed vessels.”

It is a bold vision and one that will face further challenges, not just in terms of cost and technological hurdles, but also from senior officers who will still question whether traditional crewed platforms — as well as all other military requirements — are adequately funded.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Egypt’s foreign ministry used carefully calibrated language on Monday to restate a familiar position: unwavering support for Sudan’s “unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity” and for its “national institutions, particularly the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).” Framed as a rejection of “parallel entities” seeking to form an alternative government in exile, the statement is another sign that Cairo is tying its Sudan policy ever more tightly to General Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan and the SAF as the country’s civil war grinds into yet another year.

Behind the diplomatic phrasing lies a blunt political choice. Since the outbreak of fighting between the SAF and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in April 2023, Egypt has emerged as one of the army’s main regional backers, both politically and—according to multiple reports—quietly in security terms. Egyptian officials insist they are defending Sudanese state institutions against militia fragmentation and external meddling, a message they repeat in multilateral forums and joint communiqués with Burhan’s Transitional Sovereignty Council.

From Cairo, the stakes in Sudan are seen as existential rather than abstract. Egyptian analysts routinely describe the stability of their southern neighbour as a vital national security concern, citing fears of refugee flows, arms smuggling and jihadist safe havens along the porous border. Control of the Nile is an even deeper driver: since the 2019 fall of Omar al‑Bashir, Egypt has intensified security and military coordination with Khartoum to counter Ethiopia’s upstream Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and preserve its historic water share.

There is also a clear regime‑security affinity, however misguided that affinity might be. Burhan, a career officer who trained in Cairo and maintains close ties with Egyptian generals, represents a familiar authoritarian model for President Abdel Fattah el‑Sisi, himself a former general who came to power after a coup in 2013. Supporting the SAF fits Egypt’s long‑standing pattern of siding with Sudan’s army “whoever is in charge of it,” and buttresses Cairo’s broader preference for strong central militaries over messy civilian transitions across the region.

Officially, Egypt insists it is not a party to Sudan’s war. Sisi has repeatedly pledged “non‑interference,” and Cairo frames its role as limited to mediation, humanitarian aid, and hosting millions of Sudanese fleeing the conflict. Egyptian troops captured by the RSF at Merowe airbase in April 2023 were described as participants in pre‑scheduled joint exercises, not combat operations, a spin that few international observers bought.

The line between deterrent presence and de facto involvement has become increasingly blurred. Analysts note years of intensifying joint drills, intelligence cooperation and arms ties between the two militaries since 2019. Think‑tanks and regional media have reported unconfirmed Egyptian airstrikes on RSF positions and possible targeting of gold‑mining camps in northern Sudan, amid allegations by RSF leaders that Cairo is providing drones and tactical support to the SAF—claims Egypt denies. The pattern points towards at the very least a protective security umbrella for Burhan’s forces, far beyond the strict neutrality Cairo proclaims.

Yet in Burhan Egypt is backing a very risky partner. By hinging its Sudan strategy almost entirely on the SAF and Burhan’s sovereignty council, Egypt is betting on a man and an institution that look increasingly incapable of reunifying the country. The war has left tens of thousands dead, displaced over 14 million people, and pushed parts of Sudan towards famine, with the army losing and regaining territory in a grinding stalemate against the RSF. Burhan’s own legitimacy is deeply contested: he led the 2021 coup that derailed a fragile civilian‑military power‑sharing agreement, and his government is widely seen by pro‑democracy groups as a continuation of military dominance rather than a path to elections.

Cairo’s categorical rejection of “parallel governments” sounds like a defence of state unity, but in practice it risks delegitimising genuine civilian coalitions seeking to organise outside the SAF‑RSF binary. By equating Sudan’s “national institutions” with the existing military leadership, Egypt narrows the political horizon and sidelines the broad civilian forces that led the 2018–2019 uprising—precisely the actors most likely to provide a sustainable, inclusive settlement. If the SAF continues to fragment on the battlefield or loses further territorial control, Cairo may find that its red lines have locked it into defending a shrinking power centre with dwindling popular backing.

There is also a long‑term reputational cost. Egypt positions itself as a mediator through formats such as the “Quad”, and hosts conferences of Sudanese civil and political actors in Cairo. But as long as its public diplomacy is tethered to explicit promises that it “will not be lax or late in supporting the legitimate Sudanese government” under Burhan, that positioning is scarcely credible. On the contrary, Egypt has decisively and actively allied itself to Sudan’s military junta.

Woody, Buzz Lightyear and Jessie will be back at the box office this weekend, delivering what could be the biggest film debut of the year.

Analysts expect the fifth installment of Disney/Pixar’s “Toy Story” franchise will pull in at least $150 million in the U.S. and Canada, with some predicting as much as $175 million — either of which would set a franchise record, topping the nearly $121-million opening of 2019’s “Toy Story 4.”

A strong showing for “Toy Story 5” will further fuel a recovery of the box office this year from the post-pandemic doldrums.

Domestic ticket sales are up over last year, and Roth Capital Partners forecasts the second quarter will climb 6.5% to $2.8 billion — a post-pandemic high.

“Toy Story 5” is the first of several family tentpoles this summer, ahead of Universal and Illumination’s “Minions & Monsters” and Disney’s live-action “Moana.”

“Right now we’re on pace for the best opening of the year,” said Daniel Loria, editorial director at Box Office Co. “This is a performer.”

The timing also is fortuitous for Walt Disney Co. at a moment when its other once-reliable franchises such as “Star Wars” and Marvel have faltered. The recent “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” dropped sharply at the domestic box office after its late-May opening, bested by low-budget horror films “Backrooms” and “Obsession.”

“People love these characters from ‘Toy Story,’ ” said Paul Dergarabedian, head of marketplace trends at Comscore. “It’s just as appealing as ever.”

Indeed, across four films and 30 years, “Toy Story” has grossed more than $3 billion worldwide. It is the most-watched franchise on Disney+, with more than 2 billion hours streamed. Woody, Buzz Lightyear and Jessie have spawned 19 theme park rides, four themed lands, two hotels and roughly $1 billion a year in global retail sales.

The production budget for “Toy Story 5” is about $150 million to $200 million. A crew of about 300 people worked on the film at Pixar’s Emeryville, Calif., headquarters.

For Pixar, the reliance on “Toy Story” reflects a shift away from originals that used to be its lifeblood.

February’s “Hoppers” managed a respectable $372 million worldwide, but the surer money now comes from sequels.

“Inside Out 2” grossed nearly $1.7 billion in 2024, and both “Toy Story 4” and “Toy Story 3” crossed $1 billion globally.

Still, the franchise label is no guarantee: The 2022 spin-off “Lightyear” stalled at $226 million worldwide after straying from the formula, recasting Buzz as an actual sci-fi hero — voiced by Chris Evans rather than Tim Allen — and sidelining Woody and the rest of the gang.

“Toy Story 5” stays closer to home but wades into new territory: the explosion of tech in everyday life. The toys must contend with Lilypad, a tablet that captures the attention of their owner, Bonnie — a premise that grew out of a tech-toy character originally written for “Toy Story 4” and scrapped for time. Disney is betting the underlying tension is universal.

“What parent hasn’t had anxiety over tech versus toys with their kids?” said Andrew Cripps, head of theatrical distribution for Walt Disney Studios.

Disney is betting that this universal concern will drive audiences to the film.

The fifth installment also arrives with an unusually high-wattage assist: Taylor Swift wrote and performed an original song, “I Knew It, I Knew You,” and made a surprise appearance at last week’s premiere, performing it after the credits before joining longtime franchise composer Randy Newman for “You’ve Got a Friend in Me.”

“It means the world to me to be a small part of the universe of these films,” Swift told the crowd.

The expected blockbuster opening for “Toy Story 5” would be a full-circle moment for the long-standing franchise; Pixar animators in 1995 hadn’t even considered the possibility of a sequel while working on the first “Toy Story.”

“There was so much learned on that first film, specifically our iterative process,” Pixar Chief Creative Officer Pete Docter said in a phone call last week from Madrid, shortly before the film’s Spain premiere. “A lot of things that we discovered having worked on that film have just continued to inform every movie that we make.”

“Toy Story” revolutionized the movie business as the first computer-animated feature film. But its enduring appeal was in the bonds between the characters, Docter said.

Docter, who supervised animators and helped with character design and writing on the original “Toy Story,” added: “It certainly had some new technology, but it was really up to the story and characters to carry the audience.”

The franchise’s longevity is also due to its ability to capture generations of fans.

“Having parents now that say, ‘I grew up with “Toy Story,” and now I’m showing my kids,’ has been really gratifying,” Docter said.

WASHINGTON — As Spencer Pratt fell behind in the Los Angeles mayoral primary, an unexpected group began claiming election fraud: people tracking the Republican’s success on prediction markets, the increasingly popular online exchanges on which people can make bets on almost anything.

“Crazy how much voter fraud can be done with mail in ballots,” one user following bets on the mayoral race wrote last week on Kalshi, one of the top trading platforms.

“Same old California fraud,” said another who had bet that Pratt would win.

Election fraud claims extended to social media, where a handful of influencers who post content for prediction market platforms questioned the ballot count. “It’s a dead heat on Kalshi,” one user wrote on social media. “Is CA cheating to get Spencer Pratt out?”

Kalshi told the influencers to delete the posts, which violated company guidelines. Polymarket, the other leading platform, directed them to remove the paid partnership label from those posts.

The amplification of election misinformation by users who had money staked on the mayoral race adds a new twist to evolving scrutiny of prediction markets, and scholars say the ability to bet on elections broadly raises questions about whether the exchanges could alter how Americans engage in democracy.

“Elections are not a game,” said Davina Hurt, director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “[If market] probabilities begin influencing donor decisions, media attention, the energy around [campaign] volunteers — at that point, markets aren’t just observing the election. They’re a part of it.”

Fans of the exchanges say they are powerful tools that can help decision makers, and company leaders have touted them as highly accurate predictors that can act as an antidote to misinformation and provide election insights.

“By shifting focus from ‘what people say’ to ‘where they put their money,’ and filtering out social media noise and pundit bias, we are providing a level of clarity and predictive power that cannot be matched,” said Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever .

But these markets’ rapid rise has also raised a host of questions among members of Congress, state lawmakers and others — about betting on elections, wars and other political events, about potential insider trading, and about whether the platforms should be left to self-regulate. Some states are also in legal battles with the federal government over whether the activity amounts to gambling, which they seek to regulate.

“It’s like we’re in the 1930s with financial markets — we have some things that we want to regulate and restrict [as a country], and we’re sort of in the early stages of trying to lay out what the rules are,” said Koleman Strumpf, an economist at Wake Forest University.

Concerns about insider trading

The discourse around the Los Angeles mayoral race was the latest to raise questions at the intersection of prediction markets and politics. Earlier this year, an Army soldier was indicted after allegedly using his knowledge of the planned U.S. operation to capture former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to make bets on it, winning more than $400,000. He has pleaded not guilty.

Around the same time, several anonymous users reportedly earned $2.4 million combined by making remarkably prescient bets on the Iran war, prompting concern in Congress about insider trading. And during the primary elections, Kalshi fined a few politicians for betting on themselves, while the Justice Department began investigating a former congressman on similar charges.

Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara speaks at a conference in Santa Monica, Calif., in April.

(Anna Webber / Inc.)

The episodes set off a debate in Washington. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee opened an investigation into potential insider trading, and a bipartisan group in Congress has introduced a flurry of bills seeking to put up guardrails. It remains unclear whether any will pass this session.

The chatter in Congress appeared to lead the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which regulates prediction markets, to propose a new framework last week to govern issues raised by lawmakers, such as potential betting on wars. Commission Chair Mike Selig said the proposal would allow for scrutiny of suspicious activity “while letting legitimate markets move forward pursuant to the public interest.”

The markets commission under former President Biden was viewed as somewhat skeptical of prediction markets; the agency under President Trump — whose eldest son holds advisory positions at both Polymarket and Kalshi — has been seen as more favorable to the industry. The federal government has sued several states over their attempts to regulate the markets under state laws banning sports gambling and other measures.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has introduced legislation on the topic, said the agency’s framework would benefit the industry at the expense of the public interest.

The agency lacks “the leadership, will and investigative staff needed to confront the dangers of election misinformation, insider trading, and more,” Schiff said, “and seems content to allow the industry to police itself.”

Making bets

As California’s primary neared, people staked their dollars on the state’s races in droves. On Kalshi, trading volume on one contract about who will win the L.A. mayoral race in November had reached more than $117 million as of Tuesday.

Prediction market users trade on the outcome of future events, making money if they’re correct and losing money if they’re wrong. Someone can purchase a contract on the prediction that L.A. Mayor Karen Bass will win in November, a yes contract, or on the prediction that she will lose, a no contract.

On Tuesday, Bass contracts on Kalshi were selling at 63 cents each for yes and 38 cents for no, meaning the market was forecasting a 63% chance of her winning. Users receive $1 per contract if their prediction is correct, creating a profit on their initial investment.

Prediction markets generally create more accurate forecasts than political polls, according to Strumpf, whose research has examined 30 years of prediction markets in various forms.

Many of the issues critics raise are theoretical and have not been seen in practice, Strumpf said. By his analysis, there is no evidence that the markets have ever influenced an election outcome. He said serious traders tend to do extensive research in order to make money, meaning their bets are educated.

Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano), who has introduced legislation to prohibit event contracts involving terrorism, war, assassination and deaths, said the platforms may be useful in some cases but shouldn’t be left to police themselves. He said he’s concerned that the markets create “all the wrong incentives” for people, including political candidates and officials, to abuse inside knowledge.

“I don’t trust them to self-regulate at all,” Levin said of the companies. “The federal role should be guardrails that are reasonable and pragmatic.”

‘The sanctity of our elections’

Skeptics’ concerns regarding elections largely center around the markets’ introduction of a new way for money to potentially influence politics.

They say the desire to elevate a candidate’s market odds could create an incentive for market manipulation, and they worry that the votes of Americans using the market could be influenced by their desire to profit.

“This has real impacts for the sanctity of our elections,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who raised concerns about how prediction markets could impact the democratic process in a March letter to the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. (California lawmakers are looking at the issue, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said, though none of the bills introduced this year have yet moved forward.)

The platforms create a potential new channel “for dark money to flow into our elections,” Krell said. “Specifically, someone who’s opposing or supporting a candidate could potentially use sites like Kalshi to elevate that candidate and impact the entire pool.”

The industry has endeavored to “get out in front” of concerns by creating their own policies aimed at preventing insider trading, market manipulation and other issues, said attorney Ronak D. Desai, partner and head of the congressional practice at the Washington law firm Paul Hastings.

Kalshi has a ban on those practices and has banned markets tied directly to death and war, Lever said. It also screens all new users and, in the first quarter of this year, blocked more than 100 potential insider trades and referred more than 20 cases to law enforcement.

In the case of the military member who bet on the United States’ operation in Venezuela, for instance, Polymarket caught the activity and referred the case to the Justice Department, a spokesperson said. The company has referred nearly 100 cases of suspicious activity to law enforcement, he said.

Election markets are not offered on Polymarket’s U.S. exchange — though users in the U.S. and other countries that ban the company’s international exchange are widely reported to access it using online tools.

“Polymarket prohibits trading based on stolen information, illegal tips, or information obtained in breach of a duty of trust, confidentiality, or other legal obligation,” the Polymarket spokesperson said in a statement.

Aaron Klein, senior fellow in the Center on Regulation and Markets at the Brookings Institution, predicted that pressure for further regulation would continue to mount.

“The top goal of a society is to have free and fair elections,” Klein said. “At a time in our nation’s history where people are doubting the integrity of elections and foreign governments are stoking those flames, we ought to be pretty careful.”

Anthropic, which operates AI chatbot Claude, did not disclose the size or the terms of the offering.

Artificial intelligence giant Anthropic has confidentially filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States, teeing up what could become a watershed moment for Wall Street’s AI frenzy.

The move, announced on Monday, sets up a high-stakes test of whether investor appetite for the AI revolution that has reshaped white-collar work around the world can match the sky-high expectations surrounding the booming sector.

Anthropic, which operates AI chatbot Claude, did not disclose the size or the terms of the offering. Confidential submissions let companies advance IPO preparations while shielding sensitive financial details from rivals and the public.

Anthropic last raised $65bn at a post-money valuation of $965bn in late May, putting it ahead of rival OpenAI. The company said at the time it was making annualised revenue of $47bn from selling its technology to people and organisations using Claude to write code and do other work and personal tasks on their behalf.

The crucial step towards a listing comes on the heels of SpaceX’s mega-IPO, which is on course to rewrite the record books as the Elon Musk-led company pursues a $75bn offering at a $1.75 trillion valuation.

Anthropic was formed in 2021 by ex-OpenAI leaders, and now both AI firms, along with Elon Musk’s rocket and AI company SpaceX, are all expected to become publicly traded. All three are also still losing more money than they make, fuelling concerns of an AI bubble.

OpenAI and Anthropic have become the face of the AI boom that has redrawn corporate strategies, sparked a global arms race for computing power and talent, and turned AI-linked companies into some of the market’s most richly valued firms.

Anthropic’s rapid rise in early 2026 rattled markets, triggering sharp sell-offs in software and IT stocks as investors worried its increasingly autonomous AI tools could upend traditional business models and accelerate disruption across industries.

“OpenAI and Anthropic are in a race to go public before capital runs out,” said analyst Gil Luria from the investment firm DA Davidson.

“The other reason for Anthropic to try to beat OpenAI out to the public market is that they will get to set the agenda for how a frontier model reports financials and do so in a way that is favourable to their financial model.”

OpenAI is also preparing to confidentially file for a US IPO in the coming weeks, adding to a wave of blockbuster ‌listings anticipated in the year ahead.

A market milestone

As many blockbuster listings race towards public markets, companies from SpaceX to AI giants are competing for a finite pool of investor capital.

“The combined demand for capital from SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic will be so considerable that it is likely to create disruptions in the capital markets, so going early will be a great advantage,” Luria said.

The listing would represent one of the most consequential stock market debuts in years, potentially reshaping benchmark indexes, investor flows and the broader narrative driving US equities.

At close to a $1 trillion valuation, Anthropic would vault into the top tier of the S&P 500, alongside a handful of elite companies that dominate global equity markets.

An Anthropic debut would be a major boost for the long-sluggish IPO market, though experts and bankers warn an offering of such scale could drain liquidity and investor attention from smaller listings.