warn

BILLINGS, Mont. — The U.S. Interior Department on Friday canceled a rule meant to protect plants and animals that are determined to be threatened with extinction, the latest step by the Trump administration to dismantle key provisions of the landmark Endangered Species Act at the behest of industry.

Instead of receiving automatic protections, imperiled species will need individualized protection plans once they are added to the threatened species list. That’s a potentially lengthy process in which companies could seek exemptions for oil and gas drilling, mining and other development where those species live.

Opponents said it would make it harder to save wildlife awaiting federal protections and in danger of disappearing, such as monarch butterflies and alligator snapping turtles.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement that the Endangered Species Act had been used for too long “to stop almost any new project in America, driving up costs for families, weakening our competitiveness, and undermining our national security.”

“Success should be measured by species recovery and delisting, not by adding more species to the list,” Burgum added.

A second change finalized Friday requires officials to analyze economic effects when deciding whether habitat is critical to a species’ survival. Critics say it gives corporations an opportunity to put their thumb on the scale so officials will allow development in those areas.

“If you’re exempting certain industries that cause habitat destruction, in many instances you’ll be exempting the main threat to those species,” said Noah Greenwald with the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity.

Officials made similar changes during Trump’s first term, but they were reversed under the Biden administration.

The rules that gave what some consider “blanket protections” to threatened species were first adopted for wildlife in 1975 and for plants in 1977.

Two groups, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Property and Environment Research Center, sued the Biden administration in 2024 after officials restored the blanket protections rule. They argued the rule unfairly imposed the same restrictions on landowners when a species’ status improves from endangered, which is more dire, to threatened.

That removed incentives for landowners to participate in species recovery, said Jonathan Wood, vice president at the Montana-based research center.

Wood said the Trump administration’s approach allows officials to “better reward progress and encourage proactive conservation.”

There have been no species added to the endangered or threatened lists in Trump’s second term. By comparison, more than 20 species were added in Trump’s first term, and about 60 under President Biden.

About 30 species are currently proposed to be listed as threatened. Besides monarchs and alligator snapping turtles, they include California spotted owls and various snakes, fish, clams and insects.

Changes to government policies for endangered plants and wildlife have come faster and extended further in Trump’s second term than in his first.

The administration in March exempted oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from the Endangered Species Act after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said environmentalists’ lawsuits threatened to hobble domestic energy supplies as the U.S. wages war against Iran.

A week before the latest rule change, Interior officials sharply narrowed the definition of what constitutes “harm” to a species. The change would allow development in critical wildlife habitat so long as the animals themselves are not immediately killed or injured.

Officials this week sharply reduced the amount of critical habitat in the Rocky Mountains designated for Canada lynx, forest-dwelling wildcats that are threatened by climate change and other pressures.

Also this week, Burgum said in a visit to Montana that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would turn over more management authority for grizzly bears to states where the bruins live. That’s been a long-standing priority for the Republican governors of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

The Endangered Species Act is credited with bringing back animals including the California condor, the bald eagle and the American alligator from the brink of extinction.

Burgum noted Friday that 97% of the species that have been given protections still have them. That’s a frustration for Republican lawmakers who say species should be taken off the endangered and threatened lists more quickly once they’ve recovered.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

More than three dozen California legislators are calling for Gov. Gavin Newsom to exempt the state’s film and TV production incentive program from a recently approved cap on corporate tax credits, warning that without action it will be “significantly kneecapped.”

Though the state’s budget has already been approved, the legislators say a solution must be devised before the end of the year so that production companies do not lose the “full value of tax credits they earned in exchange for creating middle-class entertainment industry jobs,” according to a letter dated Friday and addressed to Newsom, State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.

“Tax credits earned for creating jobs in motion picture and television production are not the same as tax credits provided for research and development,” the letter states. The legislation “creates short-term budget savings by reneging on commitments made to the entertainment industry and the working families who depend upon it for their livelihoods.”

The letter comes shortly after Newsom signed his final state budget as California’s governor, a $351.7-billion spending plan that includes new limitations on corporate tax credits.

The budget includes a provision that restricts the maximum tax credit companies can claim in a given year to $5 million or 50% of a company’s tax state tax liability, whichever is greater.

Hollywood industry representatives had warned the governor’s office that the new restrictions could affect the state’s production incentive program, which was just bolstered last year to an annual cap of $750 million.

The film and TV industry in Southern California has struggled to rebound from the effects of the pandemic, the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023 and the exodus of production to other states and countries.

Members who voted for the budget bill had believed there was a carve-out for the film and TV tax credit program, said Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus.

“I don’t think that anyone understood what this cap was, what it did and that it effectively kneecapped and reverses the progress that we made last year,” Zbur, who co-authored last year’s bill, said in an interview. “We need to have people understand that these changes, which I think people believed were minor, are really significant and will result in significant job loss if we don’t fix them.”

The new changes to the state’s film and TV tax credit program, which included expanded eligibility for additional shows and films, came after intense lobbying from studios and industry workers, who argued that more funding was necessary to lure production back from other states and countries.

Last week, the California Film Commission said the expanded tax credit program was set to deliver $6.6 billion in direct production spending in-state and more than 34,000 cast and crew jobs across the 170 total film and TV shows that received production incentives this year.

In its Annual Economic Report, published on Sunday, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), known as the central bank for central banks, warned that the enormous spending on AI is accumulating financial vulnerabilities that could amplify any future shock and spread from markets into the wider economy.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Presenting the findings, BIS general manager Pablo Hernández de Cos said the message was one of “urgency”, with policymakers urged to act before any reversal makes the eventual adjustment more painful.

At the core of the warning is the scale of the spending, despite massive investment having supported global growth over the past year.

The five largest “hyperscalers”, the technology giants racing to build AI infrastructure, are on track to commit more than $1 trillion (€878bn) to AI-related investment across 2025 and 2026, a pace that is outstripping their earnings and free cash flow and pushing some to borrow heavily to keep up.

The BIS suggests this race is fuelled by a belief that only a handful of dominant players will ultimately prevail, encouraging firms to pour money into projects whose returns remain deeply uncertain.

Echoes of past manias

The report sets today’s AI boom against a long historical lineage, from the canal mania of the 1830s and Britain’s railway mania of the 1840s to the electrification of the 1920s and the dotcom bubble.

Each began with a genuine technological breakthrough that attracted more capital than commercial returns could justify, the BIS notes, with each episode ending “with an eventual reversal in investment, inducing economy-wide recessions”.

Compounding the danger are stretched share prices and opaque financing.

The BIS highlights the spread of “circular financing”, in which chipmakers and cloud giants take equity stakes in AI labs that then commit to buying their chips and computing power, effectively recycling money back to the original investors as revenue.

Much of the funding now flows through hedge funds and private credit vehicles that face lighter scrutiny than banks.

According to Zhang Tao, the BIS chief representative for Asia and the Pacific, that reliance on non-bank channels means an AI downturn could unwind into a sharper, faster crash than a traditional banking crisis.

The hidden costs of data centres

Beyond financial markets, critics argue the true cost of the AI build-out is being obscured in plain sight.

A central concern, examined by the Wall Street Journal, is how the technology giants account for their data centres.

By assuming the expensive equipment inside them will stay useful for longer, firms can spread its cost over more years, lowering the depreciation charged against profits in any given period and making earnings look healthier than the underlying cash burn implies.

However, the specialist chips at the heart of these facilities may become obsolete far faster than those extended schedules assume, leaving a gap between reported profits and economic reality, as well as a balance sheet more exposed than it appears should demand disappoint or a sizable need to replace hardware arise.

The physical scale is staggering.

Columbia University economist Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh estimates the build-out could cost in the region of $8 trillion (€7tn) over the next six years, financed in part through the kind of off-balance-sheet arrangements the BIS flagged.

The costs are also no longer confined to corporate accounts.

Some economists now warn of a so-called “third wave” of inflation, after the pandemic and tariffs, driven this time by the AI build-out. As chip manufacturers prioritise high-margin parts for AI servers, the resulting squeeze on memory and storage has rippled out to consumer electronics.

For example, Apple raised prices on its MacBooks, iPads and other devices last week, citing an “extraordinary surge in demand for memory and storage” and saying it had “never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly”.

The company’s shares fell around 6%, their worst day in over a year, as Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony have also made similar moves.

Beyond hidden costs and inflationary pressures, where the strain may spread furthest is raw power.

Goldman Sachs expects data centres to account for nearly half of the growth in US electricity demand by 2030, with consumer power prices forecast to rise around 6% a year through 2026 and 2027.

The BIS itself notes that the build-out’s hunger for electricity is already pressuring prices and input costs, with potential spillovers to inflation, though it stresses, as do many economists, that AI could yet prove disinflationary if its promised productivity gains eventually arrive.

The Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the administration of US President Donald Trump to do away with a special legal status for Haitians and Syrians has sent shockwaves through communities across the country.

Immigration advocates say the 6-3 majority decision allowing the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) will have a resounding impact on nationals of Haiti and Syria, raising the spectre of deportation and family separation, while likely leaving US employers in the lurch.

But the ruling is set to have more far-reaching implications, advocates have warned, creating a new tool to “empower Trump’s ICE deportation machine to take away legal protections and work permits from hundreds of thousands of people”, according to Hector Sanchez Barba, the president of the Mi Familia Vota advocacy group.

“This has been a defining element of the Trump- [White House adviser Stephen] Miller campaign of cruelty, revoking legal or temporary status, taking away work permits and forcing immigration judges to dismiss cases to accelerate detentions and deportations,” Barba said in a statement following Thursday’s ruling.

Here’s what to know.

What does the ruling mean for Haitians and Syrians on TPS?

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was created by Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. It allowed the executive branch, particularly the Secretary of Homeland Security, to declare that it is unsafe for foreigners to return to their home countries in light of extraordinary temporary conditions, such as armed conflict, natural disasters or other internal crises.

When a country is designated under TPS, its nationals are granted temporary legal status to reside and work in the US.

Haiti was first designated for TPS following the devastating earthquake in 2010, which killed over 250,000 people. The status has been repeatedly renewed as the Caribbean nation has suffered overlapping political, security and humanitarian crises.

Syria has been designated for the status since 2012, after the start of the civil war which lasted almost 14 years.

All told, about 350,000 Haitians and about 6,000 Syrians are believed to be in this status.

Immigration advocates say the ruling will send TPS recipients scrambling to find other legal pathways to stay in the US or become deportable under Trump’s mass deportation drive.

Given that both countries have been designated for TPS for over a decade, the decision also raises the spectre of family separation, particularly for parents with children born in the US.

“Ending these protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and thousands of Syrians will tear families apart, disrupt workplaces and communities and place vulnerable individuals at risk,” Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) national executive director Nihad Awad said.

“Many TPS holders have lived in our nation for years, raised American children, built businesses, contributed to our economy and become integral members of their communities.”

What does it mean for US employers?

Several labour organisations and unions have underscored the impact the sudden change in status could have on US industries.

Neidi Dominguez, the executive director of Organized Power in Numbers, called the ruling a “gut punch that requires workers, immigrant communities and the employers who rely on them to hit back together through our organising”.

“They work in hospitality, food service, education, construction, health care and every industry,” Dominguez said. “These are our coworkers, our neighbours and the backbone of the economy across this country, from service to construction and healthcare.”

The healthcare industry is expected to be particularly hard-hit by the decision, with the Migration Policy Institute finding that Haitian immigrants held over 103,000 healthcare jobs in 2021.

“This unconscionable ruling will leave thousands more immigrants – not just registered nurses and healthcare workers, but also teachers, airport workers, hard-working people – vulnerable to the Trump administration’s deadly, money-making deportation machine,” the National Nurses United union said in a statement.

“This decision will further strain our healthcare workforce and worsen the nurse staffing crisis,” it said.

Why does this extend beyond Haitian and Syrian TPS?

Lower courts had previously ruled that the Trump administration did not follow proper procedures, including conducting an inter-agency review to determine that conditions in both countries had improved, in terminating TPS for Haiti and Syria.

But, as Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council, explained, the Supreme Court’s majority ruling did not even address whether the Department of Homeland Security Secretary had followed the legally mandated procedures in terminating TPS.

“Rather, the Court said that questions of whether the DHS secretary followed the law cannot be heard by courts in the first place,” he wrote, “meaning that in the future even an openly unlawful decision to grant or terminate TPS could be entirely insulated from judicial review”.

The ruling will further allow the Trump administration to “return to federal court in other cases and overturn decisions ruling against the termination of TPS for countries such as Venezuela, Somalia, Ethiopia and others”, he added.

Angelica Sedgwick Oun, a US immigration researcher at Human Rights Watch, said the ruling “leaves the DHS secretary with unfettered power to make a life-and-death decision about whether it is safe enough to send someone back to a country facing rampant violence, like Haiti, or conflict, like Syria, without meaningfully consulting on human rights conditions there”.

What comes next?

Because the Supreme Court is the top appellate court in the US, there is little recourse available through the judiciary.

But an array of advocacy groups have called on Congress to intervene.

In a rare bipartisan move on immigration, the US House of Representatives in April passed an extension to Temporary Protected Status for Haitians until 2029. The Senate has not yet taken up the measure.

Others have called on Congress to pass legislation to assert a process for courts to review any TPS terminations.

Both Amnesty International and Oxfam released reports this week documenting a rise in state-backed Israeli settler violence across the occupied West Bank over the past three years. What’s driving the escalation? Al Jazeera’s Marah Rayan breaks it down.

WASHINGTON — Republicans are warning the White House that a critical surveillance authority is likely to lapse this week amid bipartisan backlash over President Trump’s pick to lead the nation’s intelligence community.

Sen. Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sounded the alarm over the weekend after a failed procedural vote to extend the program.

The senators in a letter urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to prepare “for a potential significant gap in foreign intelligence collection” if the authority expires. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, set to lapse June 12, allows agencies including the CIA, National Security Agency and FBI to collect communications from foreign targets overseas without a warrant.

Efforts to secure a long-term extension of the program already faced hurdles because of bipartisan concerns that the program can incidentally collect Americans’ communications. Privacy advocates and some lawmakers have been pushing to create a new warrant requirement before those communications can be searched.

Senate leaders from both parties appeared to be nearing agreement on a long-term extension. But the effort collapsed after Trump selected federal housing finance regulator Bill Pulte to serve as acting director of national intelligence.

“I know how important this tool is. Why the president would throw this live hand grenade of Bill Pulte in 10 days before this is due to expire, I’m not sure,” Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Pulte pick upends bipartisan deal

Early Friday morning, after senators spent the night debating separate immigration legislation, seven Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in blocking a long-term extension of the surveillance authority.

Democrats and several Republicans registered their opposition to Trump’s selection of Pulte, arguing the federal housing finance regulator lacks the experience needed to oversee the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies.

“The naming of Pulte to that position, although the timing arguably wasn’t the best, I still don’t think it ought to derail something that’s this important,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said.

Thune has expressed concern over Pulte’s pick, saying the nation’s top intelligence post should not be “weaponized” and that the job should be filled by “professionals.” Cotton, who rarely strays from supporting Trump and a leading advocate for the surveillance authority, declined to endorse Pulte, saying only that he had “no observations on the matter.”

“He’s not qualified for the long-term position,” Republican Sen. James Lankford, another member of the Intelligence Committee, told “Fox News Sunday.” “That’s been clear on this. He has no national security background.

Both Republican and Democratic senators skeptical of Pulte pointed to his record at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. In the role, he’s been linked with criminal referrals over allegations of mortgage fraud by public officials Trump sought to punish, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat; Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; and Lisa Cook, a board member of the Federal Reserve.

Republicans will need to garner some Democratic support to pass any extension of the surveillance authority in the Senate. But a breakthrough appears difficult so long as Pulte remains in the position, which Trump said last week would only be temporary.

“I don’t see any path to convincing enough Democrats,” Warner said on CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked if renewal was possible with Pulte in the position.

The current reauthorization debate is hardly the first time that lawmakers have grappled with the fate of the surveillance program, particularly after a flurry of revelations about government misuse of the vast trove of intelligence it collects.

The topic in recent years has scrambled predictable partisan alliances, with Democratic critics of the Trump administration uniting with skeptics of government power on the right in voicing concerns about Section 702’s renewal.

In 2024, for instance, those divisions nearly caused the program to lapse. The Senate barely missed its midnight deadline that year before approving by a 60-34 margin legislation to reauthorize Section 702 that was subsequently signed by then-President Joe Biden.

A spokesperson at the Justice Department did not immediately return messages seeking comment Monday about the national security concerns that would be created if the program lapses. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence referred inquiries to the White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“America faces real threats from foreign adversaries, terrorists, cyber actors, and hostile intelligence services,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on social media Sunday. “Section 702 remains one of our nation’s most effective tools for identifying and disrupting those threats before they reach our shores.”

Cotton and Grassley said they believed Democratic leaders would not support another short-term extension of the surveillance authority and urged Rubio to prepare contingency plans. They said Trump should consider an executive order to prevent a disruption in intelligence collection.

Cotton and Warner had said they were close on a bipartisan deal on a long-term extension and could still move quickly should a change occur before Friday. Still, the bill would likely need to go through the House — and the two chambers so far have disagreed on a separate issue regarding central banking digital currency.

“If we go dark next week, right before the World Cup FIFA games, and the 250th anniversary, that would be the most grossly irresponsible thing I’ve seen Congress do in my 22 years in office,” Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Cappelletti, Jalonick and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

BOSTON — Former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell used one of his first major public appearances since leaving office to defend independent institutions while accepting an award Sunday honoring his efforts to preserve the central bank’s independence.

Speaking at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library overlooking Boston Harbor, Powell called universities, courts, Congress and the central bank “the foundation and the embodiment of our democracy” and argued that the Fed’s independence was a “priceless asset” that must be protected.

It was one of his most direct defenses of Fed independence, warning that a single administration’s decision to remove bank officials over policy differences would open the way for future elected officials to follow suit, ultimately undermining the credibility that the Fed has spent decades building.

Powell, who frequently clashed with President Trump during his eight years as chair, stepped down as his term expired in May. He was succeeded by Kevin Warsh, whom Trump selected to lead the central bank.

After stepping down as chair, Powell took the unusual step of keeping his seat on the Fed’s governing board, which he has until January 2028. By doing so, he has deprived the Trump administration of an opportunity to appoint another member of the board.

The Trump administration has also sought to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, which would open an additional seat on the rate-setting committee the president could fill. Yet Cook sued and the courts have so far let her keep her seat.

While Powell never mentioned Trump by name Sunday, he repeatedly returned to the importance of protecting institutions from political pressure and preserving public trust in their independence.

“Like many other institutions, the Fed has been undergoing a stress test,” he said. “Congress wisely chose to insulate monetary policy decisions from political pressure. All other advanced economy nations have done the same.”

Since 1989, the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award has recognized public servants who make what the foundation describes as courageous decisions of conscience despite personal or professional consequences.

Previous recipients include former Presidents Barack Obama and George H. W. Bush, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former Vice President Mike Pence.

In March, the foundation said it was awarding Powell for protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve “despite years of personal attacks and threats from the highest levels of government.”

Trump harshly criticized Powell throughout his tenure as chair, frequently attacking the Fed’s interest-rate decisions and urging the central bank to cut borrowing costs more aggressively.

Beyond the Federal Reserve, Powell defended U.S. universities and research institutions, the Constitution, Congress and the court system.

“The United States has long been the leader of the world’s freedom-seeking people — the indispensable nation. Other countries know us as a nation built on integrity, and that integrity must be maintained,” he said.

In his remarks, Powell indirectly acknowledged mistakes as chair. The Fed is legally required to seek stable prices, but inflation surged amid the pandemic’s supply chain crunch. Many economists believe the central bank should have raised interest rates more quickly in response.

“At the Fed, we are, of course, human and thus imperfect,” Powell said. “When we make mistakes, we acknowledge them and change course.”

Powell was honored alongside residents of Minnesota’s Twin Cities, who received the award for what the Kennedy Foundation described as acts of courage during a federal immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests and the deaths of Minneapolis mother Renée Good and nurse Alex Pretti, both of whom were killed while observing or documenting enforcement activity.

“It’s wonderful just to be invited, honoring Renée,” Good’s father, Tim Granger, said as he entered the library with family members.

Kennedy’s only surviving child, Caroline Kennedy, and her son, Jack Schlossberg, said in a statement that without people like Powell and those in Minnesota “willing to put their lives on the line to hold America to its promises, our democracy can’t survive.”

Attendee U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is running for governor of Minnesota next year, reflected that the award was unusual because it recognized ordinary residents rather than elected officials.

“This didn’t go to an elected leader for a reason,” Klobuchar said. “It’s because the people stood up. They stood up by marching 50,000 strong. They stood by bringing kids they didn’t even know — strangers’ kids — to school, by bringing them groceries and they didn’t blink. And that’s what this award is about. It’s about courage.”

Willingham writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report from Washington.

A study has named Europe’s most overrated tourist attractions, with a number of bucket-list destinations that visitors say aren’t worth the bother due to overcrowding and expensive tickets

As the summer season kicks in, queues at Europe’s most popular attractions are set to grow even longer – but landmark named as an ‘overrated’ hotspot may simply not be worth the wait.

A data analysis examining a range of Europe’s top attractions, assessing average review scores alongside factors such as overcrowding, cleanliness and entertainment value, has revealed the ten most overrated sights on the continent. Surprisingly, many of them are iconic landmarks that feature on countless tourists’ bucket lists.

Topping the list is the vast Palace of Versailles, the lavish château commissioned by King Louis XIV on the outskirts of Paris. Despite the estate’s undeniable grandeur, the study – carried out by price comparison site idealo found a significant number of reviews from disenchanted visitors, with nearly a third of reviewers flagging overcrowding as a major gripe.

Although the palace holds an impressive 4.7 rating on Google, a clear pattern of complaints emerges among its negative reviews. One frustrated visitor wrote: “It’s another tourist trap. This place is so crowded. Most art works are of replicas, the real ones are stored at the Louvre museum.

“There’s not enough toilet facilities for the number of visitors and every part of the palace requires another ticket: the king’s apartment, the queen’s apartment, the garden, the virtue, all cost extra.”, they added.

Another review from several months back stated: “It was impossible to enjoy the palace with the sheer number of people crammed into the spaces-it even felt unsafe in such a crowd.” However, a more enthusiastic review declared: “Beautiful place to visit. So much history! Fantastic architecture and amazing art.”

Coming in second was Park Güell in Barcelona, and while this collection of outdoor spaces designed by Antoni Gaudí boasts plenty of distinctive architectural elements, not every visitor was won over, reports the Express.

One critical review remarked: “My honest opinion is don’t bother. It’s €18 to walk around a kind of country park. There are 3 houses which you can see better on the website. How people are rating it 4 I do not know.

“Nothing but a money making tourist trap. The walk up to the entrance is about 20 minutes uphill and loads of steps too. Seriously, don’t waste your money.”

Yet a recent review offered: “It’s a very nice park with several great spots for taking photos. I recommend buying tickets in advance, but you can also get them on-site if you go early. I recommend going in the morning when the park opens.”

Claiming third place was the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, celebrated for its world-renowned frescoes adorning the ceiling, painted by Michelangelo. But despite its stunning 16th century artwork and legendary reputation, not everyone enjoyed their experience.

Many reviewers grumbled that the visit felt hurried, excessively crowded, and that photography of the famous ceiling was prohibited. One tourist described being: “Forced through a maze like cattle. Took an hour to get to the Chapel once we entered. Only saving grace wax we bought tickets to miss the regular line. I think people were waiting over an hour just to get in.”

Another complained: “The artwork is of course amazing. However, the shoulder to shoulder crowding throughout the museum made it difficult to appreciate anything but oversold tickets.”

Europe’s most overrated tourist attractions in 2026 – full list

1. Palace of Versailles, Versailles
2. Park Güell, Barcelona
3. Sistine Chapel, Vatican City
4. Neuschwanstein Castle, Bavaria
5. Prague Castle, Prague
6. Leaning Tower of Pisa, Pisa
7. Brandenburg Gate, Berlin
8. Arc de Triomphe, Paris
9. Louvre Museum, Paris
10. Eiffel Tower, Paris

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Nestled along the picturesque UK shoreline is a stunning beach with azure waters and stretches of soft sand – but it’s left visitors a little taken aback for one reason

A beautiful UK beach with crystal-clear turquoise waters is often dubbed the ‘Bali of the UK’, but there’s more than meets the eye.

Nothing says heatwave like a day out at the beach, and the UK is brimming with stretches of golden coastline, dramatic chalk white cliffs, and azure waters that could easily be mistaken for those found in the Caribbean. That’s if you know where to look. And one stunning beach might just stand out from them all, for more reasons than one.

Nestled on the south coast of the Penwith Peninsula in Cornwall is Pedn Vounder Beach, tucked away in a secluded, tidal cove, which could arguably be one of the most beautiful UK shores. The beach is characterised by crystal-clear turquoise waters and unspoilt, soft, golden sand, framed by towering cliffs in a UK oasis.

READ MORE: Beautiful ‘city of dreaming spires’ has UK’s best bookshops and runs on its own time

OPINION

Amy Jones

During low tide, shallow, aquamarine pools are formed – perfect for a dip during the warmer months, although people should be aware of the currents and the steep terrain to access the beach. However, it’s well worth the walk down, as those looking for a little slice of paradise will be rewarded with picture-postcard vistas of the beach, often dubbed the ‘Bali of the UK’.

It remains untouched, with stretches of pristine sand to enjoy and the lapping of azure waters in a secluded location away from the busier seaside resorts. But those taking the rugged route down to the breathtakingly beautiful beach might be caught off guard, as it’s often been known as an unofficial naturist beach.

One traveller commented on Facebook: “Beautiful but absolutely had a shock as we weren’t aware of what type of beach it was!”

Another agreed: “My partner and I also didn’t know this was a clothing-optional beach until we got down to it and saw much more than we were expecting!”

A third added: “Same until we got there.”

On TripAdvisor, one visitor also revealed: “This is a nudist beach, and the climb down is not for the faint-hearted. However, there are clear signs warning you of both of these on the way down.”

They later added: “One of the most breathtaking beaches I have ever visited. The waters were crystal blue and the beach beautifully sandy.”

Commenting further, another traveller shared: “There are clothed and unclothed bodies. Most of the nude people are on the left end of the beach, and everyone is very respectful.”

Other explorers issued a warning to those looking to access the secluded beach due to its challenging walk down.

One shared on TripAdvisor: “This beach cove really is gorgeous, the water is crystal clear and a stunning turquoise colour, you wouldn’t believe it’s in the UK! Only about a mile from the nearest parking lot, but it definitely isn’t a trip for the faint-hearted. It is a very steep hike/climb down to get onto the beach, virtually rock climbing. Make sure you take all the essentials too, as there is nothing around once you get there.”

Another commented: “A stunning beach it is quite a climb down over the rocks so you do need to be prepared for this. The beach is definitely worth the climb, especially when the tide goes out. The best beach I have been to.”

One more shared: “Totally amazing – but mainly writing this review for some advice for others, we’ve been going for 30 years, but due to social media, lots of people are now trying. “You need to be pretty fit, mobile and able to descend down a cliff face to access – getting down with buggies or people with mobility difficulties will find it difficult.”

They added: “Also, it is a nudist beach, has been for years and years – if people have an issue with this, it’s probably not the beach for you.”

Yet for those up for the challenge, who have checked the tide and planned a route, might just be met with some of the most stunning vistas that easily rival those found in the Caribbean or Bali.

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com

May 13 (UPI) — A group of opposition lawmakers in Argentina filed an expansion of an impeachment request against President Javier Milei, warning of a “concrete and verifiable risk” that the country could become militarily involved in a potential U.S.-driven action against Cuba.

Under Argentina’s legislative system, an expansion of an impeachment request involves adding new facts, arguments or evidence to existing complaints against a public official, in this case the president, for evaluation by Congress’ Impeachment Committee.

The filing was submitted Monday by lawmakers from Unión por la Patria led by Congressman Juan Marino, although the news and details of its contents were publicly disclosed by the lawmakers Tuesday.

They expand on complaints already included in the impeachment proceedings facing the president in Argentina’s lower house of Congress.

According to local media outlets Clarín and Noticias Argentinas, the lawmakers contend a risk exists of Argentina providing “material collaboration” in a potential military aggression against Cuba in coordination with Washington.

“The matter of war and peace does not belong to the personal discretion of the president,” the opposition filing states, arguing that any troop deployment or military participation abroad requires congressional authorization under Argentina’s Constitution.

The lawmakers linked their concerns to recent remarks by Milei during an appearance at the Milken Institute, where he said Latin America must eliminate the “remnants of communism.”

“Today, the American dream extends from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and we hope it will soon also include our beloved Cuba and Venezuela,” Milei said during the event, according to videos circulated on social media.

The complaint also references the military operation known as “Lanza del Sur” — joint exercises between Argentine and U.S. forces — and Milei’s recent visit to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during its passage through waters near Argentina.

The lawmakers also questioned Executive Decree 264/2026, sayingit could facilitate military cooperation and troop movements without sufficient parliamentary oversight.

In a video posted on X, Marino said a risk exists that Argentina could become one of Washington’s first allies to support a potential intervention in Cuba due to the political closeness between Milei and President Donald Trump.

“There is a risk that Milei could participate militarily in an invasion of Cuba,” Marino said. “He is publicly endorsing Trump’s wars, involving Argentina and carrying out military exercises with the United States without going through Congress.”

Milei already faces several impeachment requests in Congress over alleged misconduct in office. Among the most recent is a complaint filed over his public promotion of the $LIBRA cryptocurrency token, which collapsed after its launch and caused multimillion-dollar losses for investors.

The request filed this week was signed by Juan Marino, Pablo Todero, Lorena Pokoik, Sabrina Selva, Hilda Aguirre, Gabriela Pedrali and Jorge Araujo Hernández.

So far, the Argentine government has not publicly responded to the accusations.

SANTIAGO, Chile, May 8 (UPI) — An economic reform plan Chilean President José Antonio Kast announced to revive the country’s economy is drawing criticism over its potential short- and medium-term fiscal impact, as the International Monetary Fund lowered its growth projections for Chile.

The IMF’s World Economic Outlook report had estimated in mid-April that Chile’s gross domestic product would grow 2.4% in 2026 and 2.6% in 2027. However, the organization said this week it revised those projections to 2.2% this year and 2.5% in 2027 if external conditions and the country’s fiscal situation improve.

“Economic activity, driven by investment and exports in 2025, faces a period of heightened uncertainty,” the IMF said.

The report said higher copper production and prices support growth expectations, but warned of risks that include the crisis in the Middle East, rising oil prices and loss of domestic competitiveness tied to the sharp public spending cuts promoted by Kast.

The Chilean president’s plan includes proposals to reduce corporate taxes and cut bureaucracy in an effort to stimulate private investment. Congress is discussing tha proposal.

“Amid persistently high inequality, social discontent also remains a risk,” the IMF report said.

The IMF is not the only institution warning about the risks associated with the government’s National Reconstruction Plan.

Chile’s Autonomous Fiscal Council, an independent public agency tasked with monitoring the sustainability of fiscal policy, warned about the proposal’s possible impact on the country’s fiscal balance and public debt.

“The project commits fiscal spending with a high degree of certainty in the short term and reduces permanent revenue, while the positive effects depend on more uncertain future income associated with growth, which could lead to a deterioration in the fiscal balance if growth does not materialize at the estimated magnitude and speed,” the council said.

Jaime Bastías, director of the auditing school at Finis Terrae University, told UPI the IMF’s downgrade was “absolutely” expected because Chile’s central bank had already made a similar adjustment, while debate over financing the government’s proposal continues to intensify.

“The government’s plan can be an engine that helps us face the storm we are going through, but that is heavily conditioned on the state maintaining orderly public finances. The IMF says that if the proposed tax cuts are not offset through other channels, the country’s debt will grow too much, and that will create another problem,” Bastías warned.

Carlos Smith, a researcher at the Center for Business and Society Research at Universidad del Desarrollo, told UPI the IMF report shows that both external and domestic factors are likely to weaken household income and affect consumer spending.

“Consumption is one of the main drivers of Chile’s GDP. The IMF expects it to contract and that is already beginning to show, along with a very weak labor market. Chile is in a much weaker condition,” he said.

Smith said that although the IMF lowered its growth forecasts, the organization still appears optimistic about the long-term positive impact of the government’s proposed reforms.

“The impact will materialize more slowly than the finance minister expects. Therefore, the IMF is suggesting more efficient alternatives such as lower costs or more limited subsidies to create new jobs,” Smith said.

He added that while Ciles should adjust some aspects of the reform, he believes the plan is still moving in the right direction.

“I agree with the IMF that the proposal needs refinement and should focus on removing obstacles to investment projects without lowering the standards of our legislation or environmental protections. If that is achieved, I believe there is a possibility of reaching 3% growth by the end of the decade,” he said.

Bastías agreed, saying Chile could grow at 3% by 2030 if copper prices remain high, production increases and more private investment arrives.

“It is an optimistic scenario where we need to focus on stimulating those three factors. If that favorable future does not materialize, we will all pay the costs,” he said.