Cost

Picking the wildest fantasy promoted by President Trump as a basis for public policy is increasingly challenging — is it his yarn about schoolchildren being secretly abducted from their classrooms and given sex-changing operations? The notion that the vaccines given to children are like “a vat, like a big glass, of stuff pumped into their bodies?”

Here’s one that has disrupted the economics of renewable energy generation and will cost Americans billions of dollars: It’s Trump’s “completely weird war on wind power in the United States,” based on a sheaf of “fact-free arguments.”

That judgment comes from Steven Cohen, a climate policy expert at Columbia University, who points out that wind already accounts for 10.5% of U.S. energy generation, that it’s destined to continue growing — and that most of it is generated today in red states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Kansas.

There is no question that Trump’s weird war against wind is full blown. On the day of his second inauguration, he issued an executive order shutting down all new permits for offshore wind farms and ordered the Interior Department to review existing permits.

A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the executive order in December, and his orders suspending work on existing offshore wind projects have been halted by other federal judges. The Trump administration has blocked or delayed as many as 165 wind projects on private land, citing “national security” concerns, according to the American Clean Power Assn.

Most recently, Trump has reached agreements with offshore wind firms in which the government will pay them a combined $2 billion to abandon their U.S. projects.

At some level, this crusade resembles Trump’s misguided effort to revive the American coal industry, which is on the glide path to inevitable extinction. In that case, Trump is waging an explicitly partisan and ideological battle. “We’re ending Joe Biden’s war on beautiful, clean coal,” he declared last April.

Trump’s anti-wind program is part of his campaign to dismantle U.S. renewables policy because of its roots in the Biden administration.

Additionally, multiple commentators conjecture that his hostility to wind originated in 2011, when he groused that an offshore wind farm would be visible from one of his golf courses in Scotland. He sued to thwart the “ugly” project, and lost.

But Trump has mustered other arguments against wind, on- and offshore, none of which holds water.

During a cabinet meeting in July 2025, he called wind “a very expensive form of energy.” In fact, on average it’s cheaper than natural gas, coal and nuclear generation. Perhaps more important, the cost has been coming down sharply as technology improves and the sector reaches critical mass: falling to eight cents from 21 cents per kilowatt-hour from 2010 to 2024 for offshore projects, and to 3.4 cents from 11.3 cents for land-based wind farms over the same period.

Trump blamed wind turbines for mass killing whales and birds. Neither assertion is correct.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency, says “there are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities.”

The Audubon Society reported in January that although wind turbines can present hazards to birds, “developers can effectively manage these risks without significantly increasing project costs.” The biggest risks to birds come from the climate: “Two-thirds of North American birds are at increasing risk of extinction from global temperature rise,” the society reported — a threat that wind power can ameliorate.

Trump spokeswoman Taylor Rogers didn’t respond to my questions about the derivation of his anti-wind stance, but told me by email only that “President Trump has been clear: hard-earned taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be wasted on unreliable and costly wind farms that pose serious threats to our national security. Instead, we should be strengthening and expanding our infrastructure that produces reliable, affordable, and secure energy like natural gas plants.”

That brings us to the recent deals with offshore wind developers. The largest single deal, signed in March, was with the French firm TotalEnergies, which is to receive approximately $1 billion from the federal government to abandon all of its U.S. offshore wind projects and invest instead in oil and gas projects, including a liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas.

In his March 23 announcement of the deal, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum called offshore wind “one of the most expensive, unreliable, environmentally disruptive, and subsidy-dependent schemes ever forced on American ratepayers and taxpayers.”

This is what Huck Finn would call a “stretcher,” given the decades of subsidies spooned out to the oil and gas industry, reaching more than $30 billion a year in federal and state tax credits, indulgent regulation of pollution and low-cost access to federal lands. Indeed, the investment firm Lazard recently reported that renewables, including wind, are a cost-competitive form of generation even without subsidies. (Lazard’s calculation is of the “levelized cost of energy,” meaning the average cost over a generating plant’s lifetime.)

TotalEnergies fell into lockstep with the Interior Department in its own announcement, explaining its willingness to renounce U.S. offshore wind power because “offshore wind developments in the United States, unlike those in Europe, are costly,” echoing the agency’s position that “the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest.” Never mind that one factor that makes U.S. offshore wind development costly compared with Europe is the Trump administration’s opposition.

The government subsequently reached an agreement to pay the French company Ocean Winds $885 million to walk away from two offshore wind projects, including one in the waters off California. Ocean Winds described the deal as one driven chiefly by economics, but hinted at pressure from the White House.

“We welcome the opportunity to engage constructively with the administration on this agreement and acknowledge the clarity they have provided with this decision and deal,” Michael Brown, the chief executive of Ocean Winds North America, said when the deal was announced last month. “Our priority remains disciplined capital allocation and delivering reliable energy solutions that create long-term value for ratepayers, partners, and shareholders.”

The TotalEnergies deal, which the government has described as a “refund” of money the firm paid for its offshore leades, raised the hackles of congressional Democrats, who assert that it violates the law and constitution in multiple ways.

“We will hold you accountable for this billion-dollar ripoff,” Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, warned TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné in an April 29 letter.

Among other infirmities Raskin and Huffman alleged, the government’s national security rationale for canceling offshore wind leases looks “fabricated”; the payout violates the statutory formula for compensation for canceled leases; the money is to come from a fund designed only to pay court-ordered judgments and settlements of lawsuits, which don’t exist in this case; and includes a provision preventing the deal from being reviewed by a court.

The last of those provisions would have to be authorized by Congress, the letter states, asking for documents and a response from the company by Wednesday. Committee spokespersons weren’t available to say whether they received a response from TotalEnergies, and the company didn’t respond to my request for comment. I received no response from the Department of the Interior.

The California Energy Commission has opened an investigation into the Ocean Winds deal.

“The Trump Administration is recklessly spending billions of taxpayer dollars on backroom deals that would turn back the clock on innovation” CEC Chair David Hochschild said. “Taxpayer dollars should be used to build a sustainable energy future, not to pay to make projects disappear.”

What’s especially wasteful about Trump’s crusade against wind power is that it’s almost certain to be time-limited.

It’s hardly debatable that renewables such as solar and wind will be our principal sources of energy in the future; holding back the clock achieves nothing but injecting uncertainty into investment decisions that need to be made now, at a time when the price of oil is on the upswing thanks to Trump’s Iran adventure and Europe and China are racing to transition away from fossil fuels, while the U.S. remains becalmed by ideology.

“In the long run, fossil fuels will be used for petrochemicals and not for burning,” Cohen told me. “Fifty years from now, people are going to be amazed that we burned these rare, useful hydrocarbons for fuel, when the sun was just sitting up there providing an essentially infinite source of energy.”

The holidaymaker revealed how he enjoyed a week-long holiday at a budget price

A social media user has wowed travel fans after sharing how much he spent on a week’s holiday in Mexico. The holidaymaker explained his bargain travel hack in a TikTok post shared under the username @Byseyi.

In the viral video, Byseyi revealed he spent £360 per person on a last-minute holiday to Mexico. He said: “So this is one travel tip that I don’t really hear that many people talk about. And this is actually how me and my wife travelled to Mexico for a week for around £360 per person, and that’s flights and accommodation.”

The TikTok creator claims: “So if you’re able to travel last-minute, go and look at TUI’s last-minute flight deals on the flight section of their website. Because what happens is they’re trying to get rid of some of these last-minute flights and not have empty seats going. So we ended up booking a flight for two people to go to Cancun, Mexico, for £538 for both of us.

“Managed to find some good accommodation in Tulum that was cheap for £185. And even right now, if you go on the website, you’ll see a flight to the Dominican Republic for £384 if you’re able to travel in the month of May.

“So it’s really just for those people, maybe you had a holiday that got cancelled and you’re trying to plan a new thing, or you have the flexibility to just travel last minute. So it doesn’t apply to everyone, but for those that it can work for, you can get something good for cheap.”

The video gained over 115k views and 14k likes on TikTok. Replying to the video, a viewer said: “Thanks for reminding me being fully remote is a win.” A second comment read: “A digital nomads dream lol …let me go check out TUI.” A third social media user wrote: “Yep! TUI got me to Aruba for £196 return, directttt! best!”

Someone else shared: “I always like these deals but they don’t work for people who like to explore more than one city in a country. But I think it’s great when you are simply looking for anywhere to go to.”

Another response said: “How close to the departure date did you book?” The travel lover replied: “Booked on the 23rd of Feb, flew out 3rd of March.”

Passengers looking for last-minute flights can browse deals on TUI’s website, where there’s a section dedicated to cheap flights. Customers can filter their search by departure date, with options ranging from within seven days to three months. Alternatively, customers planning further ahead can refine their search by month.

Chris Logan, Commercial Director at TUI UK and Ireland, said: “If you’ve got a bit of flexibility, our last-minute flight deals can be a brilliant way to grab a great-value getaway. Flying from over 20 airports across the UK, making it easy to pick a date, pack a bag and set off from a nearby airport. There’s a great choice of destinations on offer too – from European favourites like Spain and Greece, to long-haul escapes across the Caribbean, including Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Jamaica, as well as Florida.

“These direct flights include 10kg of hand luggage as standard, with the option to add more, upgrade for extra space or enjoy a more premium travel experience. It’s always worth checking back – you might find something that gets you away sooner than you think.”

May 12 (UPI) — A nonpartisan office said Tuesday that President Donald Trump‘s proposed Golden Dome missile defense system could cost $1.2 trillion over two decades – far more than the $175 billion he said it would cost last year.

The Congressional Budget Office said in a report that this analysis isn’t based on final blueprints, as full details of the system’s architecture haven’t been announced, Time reported. It said this estimate shows the price of “one illustrative approach rather than an estimate of a full Administration proposal.”

The CBO said that acquisition costs for the system would alone cost more than $1 trillion, and of that, about 70 percent of the cost would be for the interceptor layer, orbital weapons meant to destroy missiles after they’re launched, The Hill reported. This would include about 7,800 satellites.

Gen. Mike Guetlein, the Pentagon official in charge of the project, said in March that it would cost about $185 billion. The CBO report said that this difference in estimated price may mean that the “objective architecture is more limited” for the project than the system accounted for by the CBO, The Hill reported.

Congressional Republicans have earmarked $25 billion for the project in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Pentagon has asked for $17 billion more in a reconciliation bill this year.

The Trump administration’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which includes $750 billion earmarked for the Golden Dome system, says the system “keeps Americans safe, while using innovative program management and acquisition approaches to prudently employ taxpayer dollars,” The Hill reported. Trump has said he wants the system operational by the end of his term.

The CBO said the system it used in its estimate could counter a limited attack but would be overwhelmed by a large-scale one, Time reported. Israel’s similar air-defense system, often called the Iron Dome, has intercepted missiles from Iran and other localized groups but is meant for a smaller area and shorter-range threats, as opposed to the United States’ need to defend a much larger area from long-range attacks, it said.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., requested the CBO report. He said Tuesday that the report shows the Golden Dome project “is nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans” that will “do little to advance American national security.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s plan to put weapons in space — pitched as a “Golden Dome for America” missile defense program — is estimated to cost $1.2 trillion over a 20 year period, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a far heftier sum than the initial $175 billion price tag he gave last year.

The nonpartisan CBO report, published Tuesday, is described as an analysis that reflects “one illustrative approach rather than an estimate of a specific Administration proposal.”

The futuristic system was ordered by Trump in an executive order during his first week in office. He said then that he expected the system to be “fully operational before the end of my term,” which wraps up in January 2029.

“Over the past 40 years, rather than lessening, the threat from next-generation strategic weapons has become more intense and complex with the development by peer and near-peer adversaries of next-generation delivery systems,” Trump said in his executive order, justifying the need for the missile defense system.

The CBO’s estimates are in part based on a lack of details from the Defense Department about what and how many systems will be deployed, “making it impossible to estimate the long term cost” of the Golden Dome system, the report says.

The concept for the missile system is at least partly inspired by Israel’s multitiered defenses, often collectively referred to as the “Iron Dome,” which played a key role in defending it from rocket and missile fire from Iran and allied militant groups as it prosecutes the war on Iran alongside the U.S.

The U.S. Golden Dome is envisioned to include ground and space-based capabilities able to detect, intercept and stop missiles at all major stages of a potential attack.

Congress has already approved roughly $24 billion for the missile defense initiative through Republicans’ massive tax and spending measure signed into law last summer.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-OR, who requested the estimate from the CBO, said in response to the report that the missile defense project is “nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans.”

Last May, the president said the Golden Dome would cost $175 billion. The CBO last year estimated that just the space-based components of the Golden Dome could cost as much as $542 billion over the next 20 years.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced tough questions Tuesday from Republican and Democratic lawmakers about the Trump administration’s end game for the Iran war, the cost of the conflict and its impact on diminishing U.S. weapons stockpiles.

For his part, the Pentagon chief softened his tone from hearings before Congress nearly two weeks ago, notably avoiding the same pointed criticism of lawmakers in his opening remarks as he outlined the Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up production of weapons and other military capabilities.

Even so, Hegseth insisted that the military has plenty of missile defense systems and other munitions for the Iran war or future conflicts as both Republicans and Democrats hammered him with those concerns.

“I take issue with the characterization that munitions are depleted in a public forum,” Hegseth said. “That’s not true.”

The cost of the Iran war has risen to about $29 billion, the vast bulk of which — $24 billion — is related to replacing and repairing munitions but also includes operational costs to keep forces deployed, Pentagon comptroller Jay Hurst said. That’s up from $25 billion that he told lawmakers nearly two weeks ago.

The powerful House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that oversee defense spending are holding back-to-back hearings to review the Trump administration’s 2027 military budget proposal, which calls for a historic allocation of $1.5 trillion. The discussions in the House quickly veered into the handling of a war that appears locked in a stalemate as higher fuel prices pose political problems for Republicans in the midterm congressional elections.

Hegseth and Caine face bipartisan pushback on munitions stockpiles

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told Hegseth that the “question must be answered at the end of this crisis: What have we accomplished and at what cost?”

“This administration has not presented Congress with any kind of clear or coherent strategy week to week, day to day, hour to hour,” DeLauro said. “The rationale shifts, the objectives change. The end game is ill-defined when it is defined at all.”

California Republican Rep. Ken Calvert, the House subcommittee’s chair, also asked about the impact of the Iran war on military funding as well as the U.S. military’s weapons stockpiles.

“Questions persist about whether we are building the depth and reliance required for a high-end conflict,” Calvert said.

Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum, the defense subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, pressed Hegseth on whether the military has a plan to draw down troops in the Middle East if Congress passes so-far-unsuccessful efforts to end the Iran war.

“We have a plan to escalate if necessary,” Hegseth said. “We have a plan to retrograde if necessary. We have a plan to shift assets.”

He said he would not reveal any next steps publicly. Noting repeated questions from lawmakers over the military’s weapons stockpiles, drawn down from the Iran war, Hegseth said the concerns have been “unhelpfully overstated” and that “we have plenty of what we need.”

He said the defense industry has been told to “build more and build faster,” blaming the military industrial base’s inadequate capacity on previous administrations and U.S. aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Trump administration faces pressure from impact of the Iran war

President Trump is facing increasing pressure from the economic shocks of Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor where 20% of the world’s oil normally flows. The U.S. military in turn has blockaded Iranian ports and the two sides have traded fire, with American forces thwarting attacks on their warships and disabling Tehran-linked oil tankers.

Trump said Monday that the ceasefire is on “massive life support” and criticized Iran for its latest proposal, pointing to his demands that Iran significantly limit its nuclear program.

“I would call it the weakest right now after reading that piece of garbage they sent us,” Trump said.

The Republican president also said he wanted to suspend the federal gas tax to help Americans shoulder surging fuel prices. He has previously said higher costs are worth it to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Tuesday’s hearings are giving a mostly new group of lawmakers the chance to grill or applaud Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the planning and execution of the war.

The Senate hearing later Tuesday will include Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican whose reelection this year is far from guaranteed. She voted with Democrats on an effort to halt the conflict late last month, saying she wants to see a defined strategy for bringing the war to a close.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another Republican on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, has voted against the string of unsuccessful war powers resolutions but spoken of the need for congressional authorization so Americans will know the war’s limits and objectives.

He also will face plenty of friendly Republicans, including the Senate subcommittee’s chair, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and perhaps the Iran war’s biggest booster in Congress, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Finley, Toropin and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

SACRAMENTO — Newborns won’t be leaving the hospital empty-handed in California.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Friday that the state is partnering with Baby2Baby to provide 400 free diapers to every newborn. Baby2Baby is a national nonprofit based in California that provides clothing and other basic necessities to children.

The governor said it would help families with the rising cost of living.

“Since the pandemic, we have seen the cost of diapers go up by 45%,” said Newsom, speaking at a press conference in San Francisco. “One out of four families skip meals to pay for diapers.”

The new program, dubbed the Golden State Start, will launch this summer. Participating hospitals will distribute the diapers to families at the time of discharge. Forty million diapers will be distributed during the program’s first year, with a goal of later expanding the program to provide 160 million.

Newsom said the state will prioritize hospitals that serve large numbers of parents enrolled in Medi-Cal, California’s version of the federal Medicaid program providing healthcare coverage to low-income Americans. The state plans to later expand to additional hospitals and birthing centers.

The governor described the program as the first of its kind in the nation.

“We are not imitating; we are a model to others,” he said.

Kim Johnson, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, said the initiative would help families enjoy their first few weeks at home with a new baby.

“The first days at home with a newborn should be focused on the love, connection, and joy of an expanded family, not stress about affording diapers,” Johnson said in a statement. “This program helps ensure families can begin that journey with greater stability and peace of mind.”

The National Diaper Bank Network, a national nonprofit that tracks diaper insecurity, found about 60% of low-income families nationwide struggle with the cost of diapers and rely on less-frequent changes to get by. The organization said dirty diapers leave babies at risk of developing rashes or urinary tract infections.

When Gavin Newsom ran for California governor in 2018, his support for a state-run single-payer healthcare system was considered a risky move and earned him hefty labor endorsements.

Today, leading Democrats in the wide-open race to succeed Newsom have embraced single-payer healthcare as a political necessity, an answer to voters fed up with rising premiums and other spiraling healthcare costs.

But with no clear front-runner, they are sparring among themselves in debates and political ads over who is most committed to a government-run model. No candidate has outlined how California would fund comprehensive health coverage for its 40 million residents, leaving voters unable to discern which candidate has a concrete plan for the nation’s most populous state.

Healthcare and political experts said the concept of single-payer has shifted from progressive pipe dream a decade ago to today’s mainstream talking points in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. Democrats have pledged the model as the best way to lower costs in an attempt to woo voters worried about affordability as ballots arrive for the June 2 primary. The top two Republicans, meanwhile, have dismissed government-run healthcare as a “disaster” and “socialism.”

“In many ways, single-payer healthcare has become a progressive litmus test,” said Larry Levitt, a former White House policy advisor and a healthcare expert at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Few voters fully understand the term single-payer, let alone expect the next governor to achieve it, Levitt said. Rather, he added, the term has become more of a signal to voters about a candidate’s approach to healthcare reform.

Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, who for decades backed single-payer healthcare in Congress, has come under criticism from opponents for a nuanced but clear shift away from single-payer. It came after Becerra secured an endorsement from the California Medical Assn., a powerful group representing doctors and a longtime opponent of single-payer healthcare bills in California.

At a May 5 debate put on by CNN, Becerra declared his support for “Medicare for All,” a proposal for a federally run system that’s been stalled for years, but he declined to say whether he’d pursue a California-led effort. He said his immediate focus would be on mitigating the drastic federal cuts expected to hit low-income and disabled enrollees in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than a third of residents.

Becerra is counting on voters not to distinguish between the often-confused terms single-payer, Medicare for All, and universal coverage, noting during the debate that “Californians don’t care what you call it, so long as they have affordable healthcare.”

“A lot of people aren’t clear what single-payer is, and they need a metaphor to understand it,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and one of the lead pollsters for former President Biden’s 2020 campaign.

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who’s touted his self-funding as a signal he can’t be bought, has emerged as the race’s most vocal advocate of single-payer after opposing it during a short-lived 2020 presidential bid. As governor, Steyer has said, he would pass legislation backed by the California Nurses Assn. that has failed to come to fruition under Newsom’s tenure. Pressed on how he would cover the estimated $731.4-billion cost, Steyer told KFF Health News that “God is going to be in the details.”

At a forum last year, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter said she didn’t believe achieving such a system was realistic in the near term, but the Orange County Democrat later told party delegates that she would “deliver single-payer.” Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Democrats who are trailing their competitors in the polls, don’t support single-payer. The top two vote-getters — regardless of party — advance to the November general election.

Some of the most seasoned politicians have failed to deliver single-payer. Newsom, who campaigned on the promise of being a “healthcare governor,” dialed back his ambitions upon taking office, choosing instead to pursue “universal access” to health coverage under a series of Medi-Cal expansions and efforts to contain healthcare spending.

The campaign bus for billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who has made single-payer healthcare a central pillar of his run for governor, in downtown Oakland.

(Christine Mai-Duc/KFF Health News)

Vermont, which remains the only state to pass a single-payer healthcare law, reversed course when leaders there couldn’t identify a funding source.

To enact single-payer, California would need permission from the federal government to redirect billions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare and other funding that currently flows to the system — approval not likely to come from the Trump administration.

More than half of adults nationally say healthcare costs will have a major impact on whom they vote for in November, according an April KFF poll.

Danielle Cendejas, a Los Angeles-based Democratic consultant who works with state legislative candidates, said single-payer healthcare increasingly appears on candidate questionnaires from small-business advocates as well as hyperlocal Democratic clubs, in state legislative races and national union endorsements. What most California voters want to hear, Cendejas said, is how candidates plan to give them more immediate relief from higher premiums, expensive drug costs and long waits to access care.

The high price tag doesn’t faze Jennifer Easton, a 63-year-old Democrat from Oakland, who said other countries with similar models have proved they can lower costs. She said she supports a single-payer health system because it’s clear to her that Americans have reached the limits of working within the existing system. But she isn’t expecting any of the current candidates to succeed in implementing one, and she hasn’t decided whom to support.

“No one can in four years,” she said. Seeing a candidate enthusiastically support the concept gives her a good idea of their philosophy. “It is, if we’re lucky, a 20-year, 25-year plan.”

Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant who advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said while Americans may be supportive of single-payer in polls, focus groups suggest that approval drops quickly when voters realize it could mean losing their current doctor or insurance plan.

At the CNN debate, Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate President Trump has endorsed, said Californians would end up with subpar patient care and “taxes sky high to pay for it,” like in his native United Kingdom. Instead, Hilton suggested the state stop providing “free healthcare for illegal immigrants who shouldn’t even be in the country in the first place.”

Mai-Duc writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Within days of California’s long-anticipated single-use plastic law going into effect, environmentalists, anti-waste activists and the packaging industry reacted with anger and frustration.

Anti-plastic activists say Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and CalRecycle inserted exemptions favoring the plastic industry into the law’s regulations that weaken it and undermine legislative intent.

“These new rules create huge loopholes for plastic packaging that violate the law,” said Avinash Kar, senior director of the toxics program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

On the other side, the packaging industry has sued over similar laws in other states. “Our members have real concerns about cost, compliance, and constitutionality,” said Matt Clarke, spokesman for the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors, which sued Oregon earlier this year over a similar waste law.

CalRecycle, the state’s waste agency, did not respond in time for publication. The final regulations putting the law into effect were released May 1 and posted for review Tuesday.

The environmental organizations say the law’s new final regulations open the door to what is known as “chemical recycling,” which produces large amounts of hazardous waste. The law also contains problematic exemptions for certain categories of plastic foodware, they say.

The language of the law forbids any kind of recycling that would produce significant amounts of hazardous waste. The new regulations allow for these recycling methods if the facilities are properly permitted.

The new regulations also exempt certain products if they are already covered by federal law. For instance, a packaging company, retailer or distributor can claim that they have such a preemption, Kar said, and CalRecycle might not immediately review that claim. “And as long as they don’t review it, they’ll get the exemption for as long as CalRecycle doesn’t review it,” creating a potential “forever loophole.”

“Californians were promised a system where producers take real responsibility for the waste they create,” said Nick Lapis, advocacy director for Californians Against Waste. “When regulations introduce broad exemptions and redefine key terms, that promise starts to erode. The details matter here, and right now they don’t line up with the intent of the law.”

Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it addressed the scourge of single-use plastics, requiring plastic and packaging companies to use less of them and ensuring that by 2032, all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

Accumulating plastic waste is overwhelming waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

The law’s intent was not only to reduce it, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.

Similar laws have been passed in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington. Oregon’s law, however, is on hold while a lawsuit by the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors works its way through the courts.

“We see a lot of the same problems in California that we flagged in Oregon,” said Clarke, the trade group spokesman. “Given California’s scale, the cost implications are going to be even larger. Our legal counsel has noted that California’s proposed fees are already higher than what other states have put forward.”

Jan Dell of Last Beach Cleanup, an anti-plastic waste group based in Laguna Beach, doesn’t believe the law will work — irrespective of the final regulations — and said the “exorbitant” cost of its implementation will either spur producers to sue, or they’ll end up passing the higher costs onto consumers.

She referred to a report from the Circular Action Alliance, the state-sanctioned group established to represent and oversee the implementation of the law on behalf of the plastic and packaging industry. It finds the law will increase the cost of disposal between six and 14 times for common products, such as Windex bottles, made of polyethylene terephthalate.

“If the producers don’t successfully sue to stop the fees, this will certainly add to product inflation for CA consumers,” she said in an email. “Californians already have to pay exorbitantly high curbside collection fees for trash, recycling, and organics … so, starting in 2027, our groceries will cost a LOT more but we won’t see a reduction in our waste bills.”

Christopher “Smitty” Smith, a partner at law firm Saul Ewing in Los Angeles, who councils companies and interest groups on SB 54 and other Extended Producer Liability laws, said that although he could see areas of the law that “could be sharper and avoid the legal challenges … you can’t stop people from suing.” Environmentalists and anti-waste activists say they are preparing a lawsuit.

Smith said the law already has sparked changes in how companies think and respond to concerns about waste.

One of his national fast-food chain clients has realized that if its brand name is on plastic packaging, it’s that company’s responsibility, he said, so “they’ve spent the past year mapping out their franchise agreements, their supply chain agreements, their producer agreements, to figure out” what it needs to do to comply.

He said in the past, companies have paid little attention to these details and just let their franchisees figure this kind of thing out. Now, they’re spending a lot of time and money “to wrap their arms around what their supply chain looks like and like, what post consumer use of their plastic products looks like and what their regulatory obligations are.”

It’s bringing a new dialogue within companies. And that, Smith said, is what could make this law so powerful.

Times staff writer Meg Tanaka contributed to this report.

IF you’re having a night out at Wetherspoons, you can expect to drop around £25 for a bottle of wine.

But skip the bottle next time and you could fly somewhere to a beautiful beach instead – sometimes with some cash to spare.

Of course, a bottle is always cheaper at a supermarket, but sometimes you just want to have a night out with your mates.

But there are lots of flights from the UK this month that are under £25 – so we’ve found 10 of the best which have a beautiful beach as well.

Faro

The Portuguese town is used as a gateway to the Algarve but it has its own amazing beaches too. Try Isla Deserta, home to just one restaurant but beautiful stretches of sand.

EasyJet has flights there for £19.99 when flying from London Southend or London Luton.

GROUNDED

Ryanair threatens to scrap all flights at another popular European airport

PLANE EXPLAIN

Jet2, Ryanair, easyJet, TUI, BA and Virgin – UK airlines on the fuel crisis

Biarritz

On the French basque coast is Biarritz, known for being both a surfing capital and a seaside resort once loved by royals – and nicknamed Paris-on-Sea.

Fly with Ryanair from Edinburgh for £19.99.

Santander

The northern part of Spain shouldn’t be overlooked, not least for its amazing ‘pitxos’ snacks – grab a bunch with some cheap wine to the
El Sardinero beaches for a relaxing afternoon.

Flights are £14.99 this month with Ryanair, and you can fly from both Birmingham and Manchester for the bargain fare.

Alghero

Did you know Italy has its own ‘Little Barcelona? Sardinia’s Alghero is just as beautiful especially with its white sand beaches.

Ryanair flights are £15.99 when flying from London Stansted.

Dubrovnik

The Croatian city of Dubrovnik has more to it than it’s Game of Thrones popularity, in the form of Banje Beach right by the Old Town.

Ryanair flights from London Stansted are £16.99.

Madeira

The Portuguese island of Madeira has some of Europes most beautiful mountains to hike, with some fantastic beaches underneath.

£16.99 flights with Ryanair take off from Manchester this month.

Fuerteventura

When it comes to Spanish islands, Fuerteventura is often overlooked in favour of its neighbours Lanzarote and Gran Canaria.

But fly there with easyJet for £19.99 from Birmingham and make the most of Sotavento Beach.

Beziers

In the south of France, Beziers has four nearby beaches to choose from – Portirangues Plage, Serignan Plage, Valras Plage and Vias Plage.

Flights from London Luton to Béziers Cap d’Agde with Ryanair start from £21.99.

Barcelona

Spain‘s second city is know for its beautiful beach, and now is a great time to go following the latest competition of the Sagrada Familia.

Fly with Ryanair from Edinburgh for 14.99. Or fly with Wizz Air from Luton for around £20.

Newquay

Don’t fancy leaving the UK? Newquay is often compared to the Med and if you don’t fancy getting the train, Ryanair has £14.99 flights from London Stansted.

City have three home games remaining – against Brentford, Palace and Aston Villa, on the final day of the season (24 May).

Their remaining away match is at in-form Bournemouth, who City play just three days after their FA Cup final.

While City are aiming for a domestic treble, Arsenal now have a realistic chance of claiming both the Premier League and Champions League trophies.

Their European semi-final against Atletico Madrid is finely poised before Tuesday’s second leg after a 1-1 draw in the Spanish capital last week.

Arsenal‘s three remaining league games are at relegation-threatened West Ham, then home to already-relegated Burnley before a final-day trip to Palace.

“I am worried for the West Ham game,” added Henry. “Like I was worried for Manchester City‘s match today.”

BBC Sport pundit and former England captain Wayne Rooney, meanwhile, has predicted on his BBC podcast Arsenal will win all of their remaining league games and lift the title.

He said: “We’ve heard a lot about Arsenal cracking under pressure, but Guehi has never been in a position where he’s challenged for the Premier League, [Antoine] Semenyo hasn’t. And I think you’ve seen tonight might be the first sign of that.

“I think it’s Arsenal‘s year. And I hope it is for Arteta’s sake. The work he’s put in over the last five years, and then against his former boss, Guardiola – if he goes and wins that title, that is huge for him.

“Arsenal are very consistent while City can be a little bit up and down. City at their best, you’re the best team in Europe.”

City, though, will be left extremely concerned by their capitulation against Everton, having gone ahead but been unable to see out the game.

January signing Guehi was culpable for the opening goal and City’s defence were sliced open time and time again – Everton should have been out of sight by the time they conceded a 97th-minute equaliser.

City fans who had left the stadium had to scramble back when Haaland scored to give their side hope, before Doku earned a point.

Guardiola looked to the positives by saying: “A really good performance. We played outstanding in the first half. Really, really good.

“In the second half, they made a step up and we maybe weren’t as aggressive and after [that] we gave away the goal.

“They came back and made it a proper English game – so, so aggressive in the duels.

“But in general, we made a really good performance.”

Two couples from opposite sides of the wealth divide swapped wedding budgets

A Rich Wedding, Poor Wedding bride couldn’t believe the “extravagant” price of her big day.

During the first episode of the new Channel 5 series, which aired on Sunday (May 3), two couples from opposite sides of the wealth divide swap budgets for their weddings.

One duo, who are used to the finer things in life, had to plan a wedding on a small budget, meanwhile the other pair had a lot of money to burn.

Taking part in the experiment was millionaire couple Col and Raz, who gave up their unlimited budget to Janet and Gary, who have spent years scraping and saving and even a modest wedding felt out of reach.

Gary and Janet, who live in Salford, have been madly in love since meeting at a health care call centre 11-years-ago. Gary popped the big question while on a romantic holiday two-years-ago.

Since then, they have been excited to walk down the aisle however the pair’s low paid jobs in customer services make it a struggle to make ends meet.

To bring in extra money Gary works as a wedding singer but even with the second job their combined disposable income is just £157 a week, so their big day dreams have been put on hold.

It was a completely different story for Essex couple Col, 37 and Raz, 34, who are used to champagne lifestyles and money is no issue to them.

The couple have only been together for two years but Col, who owns multiple businesses, revealed that it was love at first sight after meeting at an event.

Ever since Col proposed, Raz has been planning her big day and it hasn’t included cutting down on anything. The bride had dreams of an elegant princess wedding and Col wanted a big party with free flowing drinks.

The couple wanted to swap budgets because they both revealed that they hadn’t always had the finer things in life and grew up without a lot of money.

Getting stuck into their wedding planning, Col and Raz were left speechless after finding out that they had just £3,500 to cover everything, meanwhile Gary and Janet couldn’t believe their eyes after getting an unlimited budget.

At first, Col and Raz struggled to get everything they needed with their small budget especially after bride Raz went over budget with her dress. After a few bumps in the road and some help from family members they managed to pull through and overall enjoyed their special day.

Meanwhile Janet and Gary felt like they’d won the lottery and made the most of their unlimited budget. The couple splashed out on a £17,000 venue and £5,000 enchanted forest. Janet spent £3,000 on her dream wedding dress and even had a singer for their reception celebration. The couple enjoyed their lavish wedding surrounded by their friends and family.

Things took an emotional turn after both couples reunited following their wedding swap as Janet broke down in tears after finding out how much she spent on her wedding.

After opening an envelope revealing the price of the wedding, Gary gasped as he revealed: £50,118.60.” He then joked: “What was the 60p on?”

Janet was visibly moved as she said: “There are so many people in the world that have got nothing that..” The bride broke down as she admitted: “It upsets me actually, to spend that kind of money on one day. It’s extravagant, it’s too much.” Gary comforted his wife as he said: “Do you know what though, you work hard all your life and it’s nice to get something back.”

You can catch up on Rich Wedding, Poor Wedding on Channel 5

Our two England fans fly out of Heathrow on Monday, 15 June with return flights to JFK in New York costing just over £500 each – which is good value.

With the Three Lions’ final group game taking place in New Jersey, it is the most cost-effective way to travel to the US and back, with the first stop being Dallas.

After landing in the States, they pick up a flight to Dallas the same night – this costs £283 per person.

Four nights at the Hampton Inn & Suites Dallas Market Center cost £624 (£156 a night) for a twin.

Double rooms, which are more available in all cities, come in cheaper at the Hilton Dallas Medical District at £560 (£140 a night).

Both properties have breakfast included, meaning Dallas – which also has free shuttle buses from stations to the stadium in Arlington – is an affordable start to the trip.

The England supporters fly to Boston on Friday, 19 June with the fare £378 each.

Boston is at the other end of the scale as one of the more expensive host cities for accommodation.

Our couple stay at the Hampton Inn & Suites Boston Crosstown Center, costing £1,650 (£330 a night), including breakfast, for five nights.

The cheapest twin-bed option in the city itself is £2,041 (£408 a night) without breakfast at the Courtyard Boston Downtown/North Station.

It is possible to book a hotel near the airport £500 cheaper but with five days in the city, it may not be worth the saving.

With England’s third game being in New Jersey, there is no need to take a flight. The supporters can hop on the Amtrak train to New York on Wednesday, 24 June with tickets £42 each.

Unlike in Boston, there are still lots of hotel options in New York with a five-night stay before the flight home on 29 June.

A double at the Truss Hotel Times Square costs £1,184 (£237 a night) while a twin at the AMTD Idea Tribeca Hotel is £1,275 (£255 a night).

This time, however, you will need to head out for breakfast.

But the last two games come with a sting – train tickets to the stadiums cost £59 per person from Boston and £114 from New York.

Just to get to the States and travel around, the estimated costs for two friends are £6,273 and for a couple £5,855.

And what of the family? It is going to cost £9,008 to get to the States, get around and put your heads down.

Costs are helped by some hotels offering free stays for children.

In Dallas, the Comfort Inn Dallas Medical-Market Center costs £627 (£156 a night).

The same Hampton Inn is used in Boston with a higher cost of £1,763 (£353 a night).

Over in New York, the Holiday Inn in Times Square costs £1,589 (£318 a night).

The world’s longest suspension bridge is currently in Turkey but a new record could be held if the government in Italy gets its way and the Messina Bridge project is completed by 2033 as planned

The world’s longest suspension bridge was given the green light last year – and it could be of serious interest to Brits. In 2025, the Italian government’s plans to build the longest suspension bridge in the world was approved. If it becomes a reality, it would connect the mainland region of Calabria to Sicily.

However, a lot has happened since then. The controversial Messina Bridge project, which would cost a staggering £11.7bn, faced a setback last November, meaning it was put on hold again.

If the bridge ever gets built along the Strait of Messina, as Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni still intends, it would be a hugely ambitious infrastructure challenge that has been talked about in Italy for decades.

Pietro Salini, chief executive of Webuild, the engineering group leading the project, said it would be “transformative for the whole country” and he promised that it would “stimulate growth, employment, and lawfulness across southern Italy”.

The colossal bridge, consisting of two towers stretching 400-metres (1,300 feet), would span an incredible 3.3km (2.05 miles). Three lanes of traffic would sit either side of two railway lines in the middle.

It would be particularly welcomed by Brits travelling in Italy, because it would cut their journey to Sicily to just ten minutes, compared to taking the ferry, which can take a lot longer than the 30 minutes crossing when you factor in the immense queuing at peak times.

Speaking last year, Meloni said: “It is not an easy task but we consider it an investment in Italy’s present and future, and we like difficult challenges when they make sense.”

Transport minister Matteo Salvini spoke in August that the goal was to have it built between 2032 and 2033. He also boasted that 120,000 jobs a year would be created, something he said would bring economic growth to the poor regions of Sicilia and Calabria, which is on the tip of Italy’s boot.

Rome was given the approval for the project in August after years of the plans being scrapped. One of the biggest reasons plans have been halted historically was concerns of mafia fraud, including worries about taxpayers’ money being siphoned off by the Sicilian and Calabrian gangsters.

Other concerns have repeatedly been raised about environmental damage, cost and safety, and given the region is one of the most seismically active areas in the Mediterranean, designers promised the Strait of Messina Bridge would be able to withstand earthquakes.

However, in November, yet another setback was reported, after an Italian court ruled the bridge would go against EU environmental and tender rules.

The Court of Auditors ruling concluded: “The assumptions regarding the various ‘reasons of public interest’ are not validated by technical bodies and are not supported by adequate documentation.”

But the Italian government is refusing to give up and has vowed to review the ruling carefully and continue with its ambitions of making the bridge a reality.

As well as still having to convince the Italian Court of Auditors and both national and EU environmental agencies, there would also be pushback from the 4,000 residents who live either side of the Strait.

Their homes would be at risk of demolition and this could mean legal challenges regarding having to abandon their properties.

As it stands, the current world’s longest suspension bridge is the 915 Canakkale Bridge in Turkey – which connects Asia to Europe and takes six minutes to cross.

Construction across the passage of water (Dardanelles Strait) started in 2017 and it only became open to the public three years ago. Journey times have been cut by up to 93%.

This means 90-minute ferry trips can be avoided by using the bridge that starts in Gelibolu, Turkey, which is based on the European side of the country, to the Asian town of Lapseki.

We should start by clarifying that it wasn’t entirely a shutdown. Reports still appeared on the website and on our social media pages regularly in April, but we were not working. They were produced in March and scheduled for April. 

In December last year, HumAngle announced an anti-burnout policy that allows the newsroom to go on a total break in April, August, and December. While journalists would still receive their complete pay, they would not be working during those months. It was an unprecedented and radical move that we felt was necessary to preserve the mental and physical health of the journalists who work unimaginably hard every day to bring hard truths about conflict to the fore. 

The truth is that the work we do as journalists is life-saving. Information must go out. People must know what is happening around them if they are to live safely and make informed decisions about their lives and futures. Information can quite literally be the distance between life and death, especially in an increasingly violent country. The news cycle does not stop because the human experience is a continuum. It can’t be boxed into Monday to Friday, and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Things just… happen. And this is where the complication lies.

Living like that has such a searing mental health toll, and because it is not physical, it often goes unnoticed and therefore untreated. Stressors are seen as ‘just part of the job’. The chaos is necessary to sustain the profession.

We realised that flipping that script on its head would make all the difference. Well-being is necessary to sustain the profession. It is necessary not just for the people who do the work, but even for the work itself. This idea is based on the simple assumption that humans are more likely to perform at their best when they feel their best. And yet, the news cycle demands that you keep working, even when deep down you know you have very little left to give. 

And so one of the questions we needed to ask ourselves as the policy came together was this: What would we do if a major conflict news demanded coverage during one of these rest months? The answer that we arrived at was simple yet profound: Nothing. The first lesson we learned this April, as we tried to put that answer into practice for the first time since the policy was announced, was that ‘nothing’ can sometimes be a very difficult thing to do. 

Reader, all hell seemed to break loose in April. Nearly all, if not all, states in Nigeria experienced some form of major insecurity event. Multiple airstrikes killed hundreds of people in Borno and Yobe. There were violent attacks in places like Erena in Niger State, as well as many abductions in Sokoto, Plateau, Cross River, Zamfara, Kebbi, Katsina, and Benue. 

At some point, inaction began to feel more difficult than the action we were trying to take a break from. 

What did reporters spend their rest month doing?

Two journalists said one of their best accomplishments was reading more. One said they read three books to completion and were on their fourth. The other said they read seven poetry books, three novels, and one non-fiction book. 

Someone else took a culinary class and learned to make new cuisines. They also went clubbing for the first time. 

Another said they went off the grid for a whole week and did not have to worry about missing any major news. Others travelled, explored their interests and passions, and engaged in other money-making activities. One person shared that they spent an entire night helping an older woman in their neighbourhood to smoke and fry some fish for sale. They worked from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. With the following morning being a Monday, they would not have done so if not for the break. The experience made them realise that the smoked fish business was exhausting. “I no go dey price fish anyhow again,” they joked.

Another person said they enjoyed stepping out of their home to the salon or gym without worrying about taking their laptop in case a work thing came up. 

Someone else said they authored two articles for a peer-reviewed journal, to which another person responded: “You are too serious about life.”

Someone else said they spent days indoors just watching movies, only taking breaks to eat. Another person tried to enter the real estate market and was swindled for their efforts (but not before successfully selling a plot of land). 

Someone else went into a goat-rearing and selling business. “Imagine on a Monday morning, when you’re supposed to be having an editorial meeting (where the managing editor is saying, “can you please use the pitching template I sent in the group?”) but you’re cruising from one remote village in Gwagwalada, buying goats to resell them for some pennies. If not for [the] anti-burnout policy, I no fit try am,” they joked.

The larger picture 

Studies have shown that journalism is one of the professions characterised by poor work-life balance, and these responses from our journalists have driven that point home more than anything else. Many of the things they spent time doing are ordinary daily activities that make life worth living, or sometimes even enjoyable. Yet, they were not entirely possible during the work season. It puts things in perspective. Burnout exists among journalists because there is no clear start and stop point in the profession, which can make personal and enjoyable activities difficult to accomplish. 

As the newsroom fully resumes next week, we will continue to do what we do best: tell important stories while still prioritising our wellbeing. In the next few weeks, you can expect to read deep dives about the conflicts that happened last month. We might be late to the gathering, but it was for a good reason.

The project has been delayed by a year.

After multiple setbacks and delays, the opening of the world’s largest wildlife bridge has finally been revealed. Spiralling costs and building delays pushed the project back by at least a year.

Work has been underway on the bridge for four and a half years. Now, it has been confirmed that the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing over the 101 Freeway in Agoura Hills, north of Los Angeles, will open on December 2.

The project leaders made the announcement on Earth Day. Managers said: “What a journey this has been! And we cannot wait to celebrate with you all.”

The main section of the bridge, which spans 10 lanes of the freeway, has largely been completed and landscaped. Work still left to do includes building over Agoura Road and connecting both ends of the bridge to the open space on either side.

It will eventually allow wildlife to safely pass through. California’s regional director for the National Wildlife Federation, Beth Pratt, has already seen some wildlife enjoying the bridge.

She told KNX News Radio: “I’ve recorded multiple species of butterflies up here. We’ve had, I think, eight species of birds.

“We’ve had red-tailed hawks and American kestrels fly by, so wildlife are already responding to it, even though it’s not connected to the landscape.”

The goal of the project is to reinvigorate the mountain lion population in the area. Animals that are frequently hit by cars on the freeway are also set to benefit, which include bears, bobcats, foxes, coyotes and deer.

The bridge has faced multiple delays and criticism. In 2022, the project broke ground with a $90million price tag (£66.5million) and was set to be completed by 2025.

However, reports today say the total has climbed to $114million (£84.5million), which has been paid for through private donations and public funds.

Project leaders have said near-record rainfall, which saturated the site in 2023 and 2024, delayed work. Project costs were also pushed higher due to inflation, labour shortages and the complexity of the project.

In a blog post, project leaders said: “The criticism often flattens a far more complicated reality. This is not a standard overpass. Engineers are effectively building a living ecosystem over 10 lanes of one of the busiest freeways in the country.”

It added: “Projects of this scale should be questioned, audited and debated—especially when it’s the public’s money being used.

“But they should also be judged on their purpose. In a region where wildlife populations face genetic isolation and frequent freeway deaths, doing nothing carries its own cost.

“The real question is not whether the crossing is ambitious—it clearly is. It’s whether Southern California is willing to invest in repairing the environmental missteps that made the project necessary in the first place.”

The longest sea crossing connects three major cities

Stretching 34 miles across the Pearl River Delta, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge holds the record as the longest sea crossing ever constructed, connecting the southern Chinese cities of Hong Kong, Zhuhai and Macau. The 55km structure took nine years to build at a cost of approximately £15bn.

It has dramatically cut journey times between the three cities, transforming what was once an hour-long ferry trip into a drive of roughly 40 minutes. The bridge forms part of a broader initiative to strengthen transport links across the Greater Bay Area, a region the Chinese government is nurturing into a major economic powerhouse.

By connecting Hong Kong and Macau more directly with cities in Guangdong province, the crossing is designed to boost trade and movement throughout the region. Its construction incorporates several key elements, including a series of long-span bridges, man-made islands and connecting roads.

The main section features three navigation channel bridges – Jiuzhou, Jianghai and Qingzhou.

This was constructed to permit large vessels to pass through one of China’s most heavily trafficked shipping zones.

Engineers were required to contend with challenging conditions, including regular typhoons and a demanding marine environment, reports the Express.

The bridge employs single-column piers embedded in the seabed to minimise disruption to water flow and reduce the impact on local wildlife, including the Chinese white dolphin.

The three principal bridges feature cable-supported structures, each boasting a distinctive tower design.

These were designed to provide the crossing with a uniform yet diverse aesthetic, especially considering its prominence from land, sea and air.

The Jiuzhou Bridge maintains its original sail-shaped towers after modifications during the detailed design stage.

Engineering consultancy Arup played a role in various aspects of the scheme, including preliminary design work, artificial island construction and significant road and tunnel connections on the Hong Kong and Macau sides.

Further infrastructure associated with the crossing encompasses boundary crossing facilities and links such as the Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link, assisting in incorporating the bridge into the broader transport network.

Since its inauguration, the bridge has emerged as a vital route within the region’s transport infrastructure, demonstrating both the magnitude of China’s infrastructure objectives and the practical requirement for quicker links between its major urban centres.

After the big talk in the build-up, Ireland blew France away in the opening 40 minutes but, largely, were left unrewarded for their efforts.

Cliodhna Moloney-MacDonald crossed for Ireland but had two efforts chalked off, while Brittany Hogan and Fiona Tuite were also denied first-half scores.

France, who are tipped to meet England in a Grand Slam decider on the final day of the Six Nations, showed a clinical edge and moved clear after the restart through Carla Arbez, Anais Grando and Lea Champon, while Ireland could not back up their first-half performance and fell short.

Under head coach Scott Bemand, Ireland have moved up to fifth in the world and stunned New Zealand and Australia in 2024, but the elusive Six Nations scalp goes on.

England had too much on the opening day, when a slow start was punished, and defeat by France shows there is still work to be done.

“In these kinds of Test matches the margins become finer, so we’re after finer margins than we were,” Bemand said.

“Nail your kick to touch and nail your exit – they are the type of things that don’t let France in.

“We will keep going after the finer margins and keep trying to get better. I’ve got a group who is up for that.”

What should I wear today?

Do I want to choose between my comfort or someone else’s comfort? If I buy this shirt, it will be a bargain for me, but it risks someone else’s life. Is that worth it? Those workers need work, so I am helping by creating demand for their products. Right?

As a college student, I want to fit in: same styles, same jewelry, same colors, same brands. However, I am also in search of a job and living off savings from my high school job. I have bought clothes from Shein as well as other questionable fast fashion brands. I justified my purchase for my bank account’s comfort and to make me feel like I fit in. I pretended to know about the environmental harm and the treatment of garment workers, but it was a selfish decision.

Fast fashion is not new.

It started in the late 1970s and rose to popularity in the 1990s as companies tried to keep up with trends (Kelleher, 2026). Companies started offering lower prices to encourage consumers to continue buying more clothes. The lower prices often came at the cost of garment workers as well as the toll on the environment. Companies like Shein, Amazon, Forever 21, H&M, Primark, Uniqlo, Fashion Nova, and many other brands worldwide are accused of working with suppliers who violate international human rights.

Gender in the garment industry.

The garment industry consists of almost 100 million people, with 75% of the workforce being employed in Asia. However, with high levels of informal employment, a true number is hard to estimate, but around 60 to 80% of the workforce is female (Amnesty International, 2025). For women, the garment industry is seen as a way to enter the workforce (Tahir, 2024). These women are predominantly young women who are internal migrants without family and support networks, making them more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation by companies (Amnesty International, 2025). Common violations are wage theft, harassment, inhumane working hours and conditions, and restrictions on speaking out (Business and Human Rights Centre, 2023).

They also face discrimination from male management, reporting a lack of access to childcare, maternity pay, and other benefits. Pregnant women are also a target because they are considered “unproductive.” When workers unionize, they face threats and retaliation from management and hostility from the government, making negotiating better conditions impossible (Amnesty International, 2025).

Who is responsible?

Big-name brands are the ones who are profiting, because they get cheap labor and fast production time, and they get to blame the suppliers for the inhumane conditions. Brands demand that suppliers respect human rights in the workplace but incentivize them to do the

opposite. In Pakistan, they force suppliers to use price-bidding systems to undercut other factories to win contracts, which leads to cutting corners in terms of safety conditions for workers (Kashyap, 2023). After brands foster these conditions, they avoid responsibility by citing lack of control over international suppliers.

While the International Labor Organization (ILO) sets out freedoms for workers, it is up to member countries to supervise, enforce, and report on the implementation of standards. Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Myanmar, and Pakistan are all member states of the ILO and should be backing up workers’ rights, but these governments often lack capacity to address these issues (Helm, 2025). This is often seen as the government overlooking the abuses as the industry benefits economic development and growth (Amnesty International, 2025).

What can I do?

Not all consumers might have bought from companies like Shein, but you probably have bought from Amazon, Gap, Walmart, Target, IKEA, and other “higher quality” brands. You should not go to your closet and throw out all brands that are unethical; that would contribute to the environmental damage from the garment sector. Students can focus on creating a wardrobe of capsule essentials rather than today’s trendy clothes. By using articles like the Fashion Transparency Index and other credible sources to inform your consumption choices, you can support ethical practices and treatment of women in the garment industry. On an international level, you can follow and sign the accord by the Clean Clothes Campaign to ensure safety in the workplace and empower workers to speak up without fear (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2026).

Now, I stare at my closet, wondering what I should wear. My clothes help express my personality, keep me comfortable, and help my confidence, but is that really worth the cost of other women suffering? These trends will be over by the time my Amazon package arrives. The women making my clothes are more than just workers and should be treated first as humans. I know I vote with my dollars, so I will vote for the protection of workers’ rights over my own comfort.

WASHINGTON — Many of the groups that helped elect Donald Trump as president again are deeply unhappy with his performance, according to a new AP-NORC poll.

Trump’s return to the presidency was fueled by a wide-ranging coalition that built on his loyal base of supporters. Now that Trump has been in the White House for more than a year, the survey of more than 2,500 U.S. adults from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that many key groups — including Hispanic adults, younger adults and men — are increasingly dissatisfied with his presidency.

The poll was conducted from April 16 through Monday, as oil prices fluctuated and Americans spent more at the gas pump.

It’s a particularly bad moment for Trump, a Republican whose economic approval slumped over the past month as the Iran war drives prices higher. But AP-NORC polls show that discontent has been building among critical segments of the population over the past year.

Trump’s overall approval among Hispanic adults has fallen 16 percentage points since March 2025, and his support has declined by 9 percentage points among men.

And while Trump’s base is still largely behind him — most Republicans approve of his performance — there are signs that his second term may not be living up to their expectations.

Here’s what polling shows about Trump’s current status with four important groups:

Hispanic adults

Hispanic Americans have grown increasingly discontented with Trump over the past year.

About one-quarter of Hispanic adults approve of how he’s handling the presidency in the new poll, down from about 4 in 10 in March 2025.

That decline has been visible since late last year — suggesting that it’s not just the war in Iran or recent spikes in gas prices that are leaving this group unhappy.

Trump’s restrictive immigration approach may be playing a role. Only about one-quarter of Hispanics approve of his handling of immigration, down from 36% at the beginning of his term.

His immigration tactics appear to be particularly unpopular among younger Hispanics — a group with which he made gains in 2024. Only 18% of younger Hispanic adults approve of his performance on immigration, compared with 40% of Americans overall.

There is also broad discontent about the state of the U.S. economy among Hispanics. Only about one-quarter of Hispanic adults approve of how Trump is handling that issue, and about 2 in 10 say they approve of his approach to the cost of living. Few Hispanic adults, about 2 in 10, describe the nation’s economy as “good.”

Young adults

Trump’s overall approval with Americans under age 45 has slid over the past year, falling from 39% in March 2025 to 28% in the latest poll.

Younger women have a particularly dim view of Trump’s handling of the economy.

Only about 2 in 10 women under age 45 approve of how Trump is handling the economy, including only 7% of younger Hispanic women who approve of his economic approach. More young men, about 3 in 10, approve of him on this issue.

Trump’s struggles among young adults extend to other groups, too. Only about one-third of white adults under age 45 approve of his overall performance, compared with 45% of white adults age 45 or older.

A downtick among men

Trump made broad appeals to men throughout his 2024 campaign, and most male voters backed Trump in the presidential election over Democrat Kamala Harris. In particular, he made slight but significant gains with Black and Hispanic men, who were drawn by his vows to revitalize the economy.

Since he reentered office, though, American men have become slightly less likely to approve of his performance, declining from 47% at the start of his second term to 38% in the most recent poll.

There are signs that Black men, in particular, aren’t seeing Trump’s economic promises pan out. Black men are more likely than white or Hispanic men to disapprove of Trump’s approach to the presidency, as well as his approach to the economy, the cost of living and Iran. Only about 1 in 10 Black men say they approve of how Trump is handling the cost of living, and roughly 2 in 10 approve of how he’s handling the economy.

Hispanic men, too, have a relatively dim view of Trump’s overall performance. About 3 in 10 approve of how Trump is handling the presidency, regardless of their age. That support is stronger among white men, with about half approving of Trump.

While young Republicans are frustrated, MAGA still backs Trump

Trump has benefited from Republicans’ loyalty for years, but there are recent signs of frustration even within his base.

Roughly two-thirds of Republicans approve of Trump’s job performance. That is down slightly from 82% near the start of his second term and is generally in line with the GOP low point from his first term.

But only about half of Republicans overall approve of Trump’s approach to the cost of living, and a majority of Republicans under age 45 disapprove of him on that issue.

Trump is still buoyed by the support of his MAGA base, even as he faces backlash from conservative media figures on some of his recent actions in Iran.

About 9 in 10 MAGA Republicans — those who consider themselves supporters of the “Make America Great Again” movement — approve of Trump’s job performance, and a similar share approve of his handling of Iran.

It’s a good sign for Trump that his most robust supporters are still in his corner, but not all Republicans identify with MAGA. About half of Republicans, 54%, say they consider themselves MAGA supporters.

Among non-MAGA Republicans, Trump’s approval is much lower, at 44%.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 2,596 adults was conducted April 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.