The House minority leader says "MAGA Republicans" pose a threat to Social Security, Medicare and American democracy.

Prosecutors claim that Trump's valet had photos of classified documents on his phone.

Biden is ignoring the wave of protests by Indigenous people across the U.S. who see their land being destroyed by droughts, pipelines, and mineral mines.

The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money trial fined him for violating his gag order and warned the ex-president that additional violations could result in jail time.

Gabrielle Berbey and Peter Balonon-Rosen are joining as producers. Andrea Kristinsdottir is joining as an audio engineer. Vox managing editor Natalie Jennings announced today that Gabrielle Berbey, Peter Balonon-Rosen, and Andrea Kristinsdottir are joining the site’s audio division. Berbey begins her role today, and Balonon-Rosen and Kristinsdottir will start May 13. Gabrielle Berbey is joining Vox as a producer on the forthcoming Future Perfect podcast. She is a reporter and producer whose stories have aired on narrative shows across public radio. Previously, she produced for WNYC’s More Perfect and The Experiment, a collaboration between WNYC and the Atlantic. She also led the production of a series on the history of Spam and how it shaped meatpacking’s labor movement. She began her career at PBS, where she helped produce Frontline’s investigative podcast and worked on Ken Burns’s series about Muhammad Ali. Her reporting has been featured on shows such as Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting, Planet Money, Latino USA, and 99% Invisible. Peter Balonon-Rosen is joining Today, Explained as a producer. He comes from Throughline, the NPR narrative history podcast, where he was most recently the lead producer on a series about the history and future of constitutional amendments. Before that, he was at Marketplace for six years, where he was the founding producer of This Is Uncomfortable, a narrative show about wealth and inequality. At Marketplace, he also worked as a producer/reporter on the Uncertain Hour podcast, where he reported a collaboration with Reveal about minor league baseball’s labor history. Peter is drawn to stories about inequality, culture, and racial identity. Andrea Kristinsdottir is joining Vox as an audio engineer. She is a Signal and Webby Award-winning audio engineer, composer, and sound designer. Some of her favorite projects from the last few years are Blind Plea, LeVar Burton Reads, The Paris Review, Storytime With Seth Rogen, and “Before Route One” for BBC’s Between the Ears. Hailing from Iceland, she has lived in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Japan, and several US states.

Despite all the coverage of the protests over Israel’s war in Gaza, it can be remarkably difficult to understand what the players are actually saying. On social media, partisans on both sides cherry-pick extreme comments or incidents, as a way to suggest that their opponents are comprehensively rotten. Others invoke broadly held values—free speech, peaceful protest, human rights—without explaining how they apply in specific circumstances. And many of the media stories have only worsened the confusion, by employing imprecise and euphemistic language that obscures more than it illuminates.As a result, the American public remains badly informed about both the war itself and the movement against it, a dynamic that has steadily grown worse as campus protests—and the rate of (sometimes violent) arrests—has intensified. This lack of clarity may be especially damaging to people who both oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza and who want to see long-term peace—a group long marginalized by Israel hawks and expansionists—but who may also find themselves surprised and troubled by the stated objectives of many of the groups leading the protests. And there is a growing risk, as the backlash to the protests grows both more violent and more litigious, that the extreme claims, demands for ideological purity, and rejection of nonviolence advanced by some of the protest leaders will undermine a movement that many liberals agree is morally urgent.Here is a sadly typical example of the phenomenon I’m seeing: The Washington Post recently published an article headlined, “They Criticized Israel. This Twitter Account Upended Their Lives.” The story, by reporter Pranshu Verma, looked at the organization StopAntisemitism, which, according to the Post’s summary, “has flagged hundreds of people who have criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza. Many were swiftly fired.”But that’s not actually an accurate description of the reality The Post is reporting. The people featured in this article did not simply criticize Israel or its actions in Gaza. One woman was fired from her job at a branding firm for a video in which she declared that “radical solidarity with Palestine means … not apologizing for Hamas.” (Refusing to say a bad word about a U.S.-designated foreign-terrorist group is undoubtedly not the way her firm wanted to be branded.) Another person, a therapist, was caught on video ripping down a poster of Israeli hostages. She subsequently promoted the conspiracy theory that the Israelis taken by Hamas on October 7 were actually kidnapped by their own country. (She said later that she hadn’t meant what she’d said, but that she’d torn down the poster because it used the term “Hamas terrorists,” which undermined the Palestinian cause. Her clinic, the Post reported, fired her.)[Iddo Gefen: What ‘Intifada Revolution’ looks like]The story mentions just two other people whose lives were “upended” because they “criticized Israel.” StopAntisemitism “has flagged people for a variety of statements the organization considers antisemitic,” the Post reported, “including a college instructor who called Israelis ‘pigs’ and a high school basketball coach who wore a shirt with a watermelon, a symbol of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, to a game.” The coach is the most sympathetic person in the story, although the Post fails to mention that he wore the shirt to a game in which his team was playing a Jewish school. Those who were—in my opinion, unjustifiably—angry about the shirt seem to feel that the symbol wasn’t a general expression of support for Palestinians, but targeted at a group of Jewish high schoolers. Either way, the coach was suspended, and apologized. The college instructor, who is no longer employed by her school, did not, but “called Israelis ‘pigs’” does not quite capture her comments, which included, “Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement,” and, “May they rot in hell.”The Post story raises important questions: Should these people, or others whose views are unpopular in a particular community or workplace, have been fired from their job? What are the ethics of reposting their social-media comments or footage of their public acts on an account devoted to making private citizens face personal or professional consequences? How much do we want to rely on viral social-media posts to police ugly behaviors and comments? But these questions are much more difficult to answer when the situations that gave rise to them are fundamentally mischaracterized.News outlets have a duty to both accurately report the news and include the context necessary for readers to understand it. The Post article not only casts the whitewashing of Hamas and the murders it committed as “criticism” of Israel, it also fails to explain Hamas’s aims—which include the complete destruction of Israel by any means, including the mass murder of innocent civilians. What happens to public discourse around the most controversial issues when media outlets don’t talk about what we’re actually talking about?Campuses across the country are seething over Gaza. On social media, in Congress, and in the media, debates rage over whether these protests are admirable, gatherings of idealistic young people voicing their dissent over a war that has reportedly killed more than 30,000 Palestinians, many of them innocent children and women, or whether the protesters are entitled, terrorism-excusing rule-breakers who should face consequences when they intentionally flout the law.Much of this conversation has been carried out in bad faith, such as when grandstanding Republicans decided to haul university presidents before Congress for a public dressing-down. And the decision of administrators at several schools—including Columbia University, NYU, UCLA, and the University of Texas at Austin—to ask aw enforcement to break up student encampments and demonstrations represented a dramatic, and inflammatory, escalation.Part of the debate turns on whether the protests are anti-Semitic. And it has been easy to find examples of blatant anti-Semitism, some of it from standard-fare lunatics and much of it from actual pro-Palestinian protesters; some of it on college campuses, and much of it part of other protests held off-campus and comprising many people who are not students. One problem, though, is that campus higher-ups and the broader public can’t agree on what anti-Semitism is. There are obvious examples: Yelling at Jews to “go back to Poland,” for instance. But the waters get murkier when it comes to anti-Zionism: Are chants calling for the destruction of Israel anti-Semitic, or merely anti-Zionist? What about chants cheering on Hamas? Who gets to draw the line: Jewish students who say they feel threatened, observers who are upset and offended, protesters (some of them Jewish), or critics who say feelings aren’t facts and even stringent anti-Zionism isn’t anti-Semitism?The question of anti-Semitism is an important one, especially because colleges and universities have long made it their business to police on-campus bias and discrimination (and are obligated under federal law to ensure that all of their students can access an education). But it is not the only relevant question. More salient, and less explored even by major media outlets, is this: What do the protesters actually stand for?According to some news outlets, the protests are best characterized as “anti-war.” And that’s true insofar as the groups leading e the protests do oppose Israel’s war in Gaza, and no doubt many of the demonstrators show up because they’ve watched horror after horror unfold, sympathize with a long-oppressed population that is now being killed by the thousands, and want to voice their desire for the violence to cease. But the protests—both on college campuses and those led by broader, noncampus groups—have articulated demands and ideologies. News outlets have a responsibility to report what those are, and are largely failing.Many of the protest groups agree with that critique of the coverage. National Students for Justice in Palestine posted on Instagram, “Do not cover our protests if you will not cover what we are fighting for.” On-campus demands vary from college to college, but generally include that the university divest from companies doing business with Israel, cut ties with Israeli universities and academics, offer amnesty to all student and faculty protesters who have broken laws or campus rules, and implement total transparency for all university investments and holdings.[Michael Powell: ‘We want all of it’]But those demands are not the sum total of the protest groups’ aims. Two of the student groups coordinating the encampments at Columbia, for example, published a guide answering the question “What principles must one align with in order to sign onto our coalition?” and clarifying “the cause we are fighting for.” The core principles include the Thawabit, originally published in 1977 and characterized as nonnegotiable Palestinian “red lines” (albeit ones from which many advocates for peace and statehood who actually live in Palestine have since deviated). Those include a right to Palestinian statehood, making Jerusalem the capital of Palestine, the right of return, and the right to resistance, even armed resistance, or “struggle by all available means.”These groups have also routinely refused to condemn the Hamas attacks of October 7 that led to the Israeli incursion, even while they have found time to condemn far less egregious acts. (An October 12 statement from Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine and Columbia Jewish Voices for Peace lambasted those calling for peace and issued five separation condemnations of Columbia, including two for emails that voiced sympathy for Israelis without sufficient recognition of Palestinian suffering.) Some protest leaders and professors have explicitly said that they will not condemn Hamas, or that requests to do so are a distraction; others have overtly embraced the organization.Similar ideologies and goals have taken center stage at off-campus protests as well, with banners pledging to secure Palestinian freedom By Any Means Necessary and chants cheering on Hamas and rejecting a two-state solution in favor of the end of Israel (“We want all of ’48”). Protesters should be free to gather and make their demands of course, but these particular demands are not, by any reasonable definition, “anti-war.” Protesters who endorse these ideas are against Israel’s war in Gaza, but do not seem to be opposed to bloodshed if it’s in the service of extinguishing the world’s only Jewish state. (What else does “by any means necessary” connote if not an embrace of any means necessary, no matter how vicious?) These groups are not calling for all combat to end. Too many support any self-styled “resistance” group that, like Hamas, uses violence against civilians to achieve its ideological and theological aims.This does not make every protester a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, as some have claimed. Contrary to what National Students for Justice in Palestine itself argues, showing up at a protest does not and should not require pledging allegiance to the maximal demands of its organizers. Nor do those demands, in my view, negate the moral urgency of the protests, which in the aggregate—if not at their organizational core—are about ending a bloody war. And although there are no polls or data on what the many protesters who are not aligned with the major pro-Palestinian groups think, my personal sense is that the majority are horrified by the brutality they see Palestinians enduring and believe this war is a moral atrocity. They protest because they want to see it end—not because they have any sophisticated understanding of the “intifada revolution” the organizers often champion, or because they are “pro-Hamas,” as so many conservative outlets claim.If the public is to understand the protests, then journalists need to give a sense of proportion, and at least attempt to cover what average demonstrators think and why they show up. But they also need to do exactly what protest organizers ask, which is to clearly articulate those organizers’ demands and positions. And for people who are horrified by the war but do not support Hamas or like-minded groups and who do not champion the destruction of Israel (or the mass expulsion and murder of millions of Jews that they fear would come with the end of the state), it’s especially important to understand and take seriously what protest leaders are saying.If you disagree with the organizers—and I imagine a lot of people who oppose this war, including many who are protesting, do—then the decision becomes whether to participate anyway because the stakes are so high, sit it out because the disagreements run so deep, attempt to wrest control and put forward goals that are much more popular with the American public, or attempt to make the existing movement a big-enough tent to allow in “Zionists” who oppose violence of all kinds and support an independent Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one.None of that is possible when conservative news outlets tar all of the protesters as pro-Hamas, while more liberal ones suggest they are merely anti-war.This same failure has emerged in the coverage of the counterprotests. Just outside the Columbia gates, well-known Trump-affiliated Christian nationalists were among the organizers of a pro-Israel rally—if you can call a group whose apocalyptic religious aims require the return of Jews to Israel so that they might all convert or die when Christ returns “pro-Israel.” And there has been remarkably little reporting on the ideologies, affiliations, and goals of the counterprotesters, despite reports that they have also been making threats and shouting bigoted comments, including “go back to Gaza.” At UCLA, counterprotesters are widely reported to have fomented serious violence against the pro-Palestinian activists in an encampment and to have brutalized student journalists. Are these demonstrators, who seem to have grown more aggressive in recent days, really merely “pro-Israel”? Or are their more expansive ideologies, and perhaps other connections, at play?[Conor Friedersdorf: Columbia University’s impossible position]Although many observers and commentators invoke the right to protest or the right to free speech, the student protesters seem disinclined to make free-speech or assembly claims to justify their actions, perhaps realizing that many of the tactics they are using are outside the First Amendment’s protections. And even as student protesters stand accused of making their fellow students feel unsafe with their anti-Zionism and with their allegedly anti-Semitic behaviors, those same protesters do not shy away from claims that their safety is being threatened by people whose ideas they oppose, or from demands that those people be removed from campus. To try to parse the protests using generally applicable standards of free speech or content-neutral campus rules is to misunderstand what many of the protesters are asserting, which is less about any particular norm and more about moral clarity. Israel, many protesters argue, is conducting a genocide, and they need to stand in opposition. It could not be clearer.The protesters’ simple argument is that their cause is righteous and should therefore be supported, and that their schools should enable their protests. These schools are communities, as administrators continuously remind them. Non-righteous causes and individuals, the protesters believe, should not be allowed. A community’s norms are set not only by the law, but by what that community deems acceptable, moral, and desirable. But, from the other perspective, college campuses that receive federal dollars are required to ensure that all students can access an education safely and without discrimination—an obligation that some Jewish students and political leaders say is being compromised by anti-Israel protesters.And so the protests also raise a question of content, not just one of content-neutral norms. Or at least, this has been the position of the protesters, who do not believe that content-neutral time-place-manner restrictions on protest should apply to them. If these protests were about a less popular campus cause—say, in opposition to Donald Trump’s criminal trials, or to petition their schools to end affirmative action, or to demand that their school do more to support Israel’s war in Gaza—it is hard to imagine such a full-throated demand that students be permitted to violate generally applicable protest rules. But the rules seem to be considered broadly irrelevant here, in light of the stark moral claims.In the protesters’ defense, they do have a stark moral claim in their generalized opposition to a grotesque ongoing war. And their actions echo those of Vietnam War protesters, who also took up a righteous cause, shook the nation, used unpopular and disruptive tactics, and were widely criticized, before being ultimately vindicated in their belief that the deployment of U.S. troops to Vietnam was tragic, immoral and unnecessary. One has to wonder if that movement, and the leftist movements that developed in its aftermath, would have been more successful in achieving a variety of goals had it not devolved into the maximalism of chanting “One side’s right, one side’s wrong, victory to the Vietcong,” engaging in bombings, and offering support for the murderous Khmer Rouge.Of course, one does not have to wonder if college administrators feel proud of their decision to call in law enforcement. In the Vietnam era, when they did so, some students were killed, many were arrested, and schools, including Columbia, have for decades considered their response a badge of shame.Today, a clear line of argument has emerged from many progressive commentators: First, the overwhelming majority of the protesters are peaceful and not anti-Semitic. Second, it undermines and mischaracterizes a vital movement to focus on a few bad actors who spout anti-Semitic vitriol, or to emphasize a few chants that glorify Hamas or call for the destruction of Israel. Third, the obsessive coverage of these protests is coming at the expense of the much more important story, which is the war itself. And in many respects, this is a sensible position. A war costing tens of thousands of lives, conducted by a key U.S. ally following a horrific terrorist attack, is a much more important story than whatever college students are doing in the United States. The violent crackdowns on these protests strike many, myself included, as far more troubling than the protests themselves. And it isn’t fair to conflate what a handful of protesters do or say with a much broader movement.But again, many news outlets, journalists, and commentators are sidestepping the content of the protests and the demands of the protesters, both on and off college campuses. The content and demands shouldn’t have any bearing on whether the police are called in (or on whether the National Guard should be called in—an appalling and deeply illiberal and authoritarian suggestion). But progressives who oppose violence on all sides should have a clear sense of what those who claim to speak for this movement are advocating, so they can decide where to participate and where to push back—protest movements are dynamic things, and can be reshaped by those invested in their outcome. And the public should understand protesters’ demands and aims, as well as those of the counterprotesters. The only way that happens is if media outlets forgo euphemism and are clear on what individuals and leaders actually say. And on that much, at least, even the protest organizers seem to agree.

A HELOC could be a smart way to fund home renovations this spring, but it's not the best option in every case.

Chad is holding a presidential election after three years of military rule under interim president Mahamat Deby Itno, who assumed power following his father's death.

A third week of witnesses are set to take the stand in Donald Trump's New York criminal trial as the prosecution continues its case detailing alleged payments the former president made to cover up a sexual relationship with two women. On Friday, Trump's former communications director Hope Hicks broke down in tears as she testified. CBS News investigative reporter Graham Kates has more.

Russia's Defense Ministry has announced plans for drills simulating the deployment of nuclear weapons. This follows comments by Western officials about the war in Ukraine.

Germany has recalled its ambassador to Russia for a week of consultations in Berlin following an alleged hacking campaign targeting Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s party.

U.S. Marines and Filipino troops conducted combat drills in the Philippines on Monday. The military drills involve more than 16,000 personnel, officials said.

A man has confessed to killing a woman at her apartment near Oklahoma City in 2016. He is being held on a first-degree murder charge.

On Monday, Judge Juan Merchan threatened former President Donald Trump with jail sanctions should gag order violations continue.

Putin's army lost 89 artillery systems in a single day, according to the data released by Ukrainian officials.

Many older Americans have watched with amazement and horror as pro-Palestine protests gathered steam on college campuses, veering toward support for Islamist terrorists and even hatred of America itself.

An outbreak of the disease has prompted a public health emergency in Long Beach, Calif., with officials concerned over the potential exposure of 170 people.

Follow the latest developments in former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial in New York.

Kardashian has found herself at the receiving end of a joke made by the comedian during a Netflix special.

Humans have always been explorers. For better or worse, something in our collective makeup seems to push us to discover new things, understand the enigmatic, or reach past the limits of what we imagine is possible. Some people dream about what the cosmos could contain; scientists launch probes into space, and astronauts travel beyond Earth’s atmosphere. Others go on life-threatening quests, such as climbing the planet’s tallest peaks and diving into the sea’s deepest trenches, to tap into the wonder, fear, and awe that come from experiencing—and surviving—the places on Earth most hostile to human life.The six books below reflect on what drives our species to seek out the uncharted and unknown. In each, what propels an individual’s desire to expand their experiences differs; some stories follow people yearning for adventure or to set a record, while other protagonists turn to exploration when they want to run away from something. No matter where these books take us, whether they cover searching for life beyond our planet or diving miles deep into the ocean to discover ecosystems heretofore unknown, their pages bring readers along for the ride. Gallery Books Contact, by Carl SaganIn Sagan’s 1985 novel, the astronomer Ellie Arroway is the leader of a scientific endeavor called Project Argus, a network of radio telescopes that picks up a message from an extraterrestrial source. The missive includes blueprints to build a machine that can take a group of humans … somewhere. Sagan’s story weaves Ellie’s personal life, particularly her relationship with her parents, together with Earth’s many competing efforts to build (or destroy) a working version of this machine. Though the novel doesn’t shy away from humanity’s propensity to sow discord and violence, Sagan’s story has a through line of hope—Contact is ultimately about how people’s tendency to seek the unknowable can lead them to better understand themselves and others. By the end of the novel, Ellie—who has traveled to the stars and back—realizes that “for small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.” This message resonates nearly four decades later, as humans wade farther and farther into the galaxy. Doubleday The Underworld: Journeys to the Depths of the Ocean, by Susan CaseyFor all of humanity’s stargazing, the deepest trenches of Earth’s oceans remain relatively unexplored. Many people consider the sea “the earth’s haunted basement—sinister, shrouded in blackness, spewing molten rock and poisonous gases, a den of freaky beings and hoary specters—and they would rather stay upstairs,” Casey writes in her book about those who do seek to journey to the bottom of the sea, where “intraterrestrial” life thrives. Casey herself is one of those people, and in The Underworld, she showcases others whose vocations send them into the ocean’s depths. But the book isn’t only about humans: Equal time is given to the creatures that live down there—including animals that aquanauts have given flippant monikers to, such as assfish, snailfish, weirdfish, and rattails—and underwater natural phenomena, such as black smoker hydrothermal vents, chimneylike structures that spew a sulfide-rich “smoke” into the water. Through Casey’s research, interviews, and firsthand experience, readers journey to the abyssal and hadal zones of the ocean, which run 10,000 to 36,000 feet deep, and get to share the “alchemical mix of wonder and fear” the author finds there.Read: The Titanic sub and the draw of extreme tourism One World Lone Women, by Victor LaValleExploration isn’t always about running toward something—at times, it’s about running away from something else. Lone Women uses the trappings of the American West, a complicated, enduring cultural symbol of a supposedly untouched frontier, to delve into the human tendency to try to escape the past. It follows Adelaide Henry, a Black woman who leaves her family's California farm in 1915 under violent circumstances and lugs a mysterious trunk to Montana, where the U.S. government is offering free land to those who homestead there. The trunk’s undisclosed, possibly supernatural contents disturb Adelaide, and seem directly related to what she’s trying to leave behind. Over the course of the book, we see her failed attempt to shut that part of her past away as she tries to build a life in the brutal landscape of the Great Plains, a place that can destroy anyone who’s unprepared or without friends—or be a refuge for those looking to build a new home with space for the love, and suffering, that comes with living. Read: The ‘curious’ robots searching for the ocean’s secrets Vintage The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt’s Darkest Journey, by Candice MillardTeddy Roosevelt lived his life by fighting his way through it, pummeling any hardships or setbacks with relentless action and an indomitable force of will. In 1912, he lost a presidential election that would have given him a third term. The defeat devastated him, and—as he was wont to do—he sought an endeavor that would put his mental and physical limits to the test. He decided on an expedition to an unmapped expanse of land in South America, which to North Americans represented an alluring, seemingly impenetrable wilderness. Once he landed in Brazil, he was persuaded to explore an Amazonian tributary ominously and aptly called the River of Doubt. “If it is necessary for me to leave my bones in South America, I am quite ready to do so,” he wrote. Roosevelt did, in fact, almost die on that trek. He and the men who accompanied him were, “for all their own experience and knowledge, vulnerable outsiders,” Millard writes. She goes on to describe how their hubris on that journey made them “clumsy, conspicuous prey” at the mercy of not only the Cinta Larga tribe, whose members shadowed them throughout and could have killed them easily if they’d decided to, but also the flora and fauna they knew little about. The River of Doubt is a riveting look at how exploration can be laden with arrogance and ignorance. Millard vividly recounts how Roosevelt brought both with him into the Amazon, and how much both cost him.Read: The difference between exploring and tourism Vintage Into the Wild, by Jon KrakauerIn April 1992, a 24-year-old man named Chris McCandless walked into the wilds three hours outside Fairbanks, Alaska, intent to live off the land without any modern conveniences. “I don’t want to know what time it is. I don’t want to know what day it is or where I am. None of that matters,” he told the man who dropped him off at the edge of the bush. McCandless never made it out—he died in the home he’d made in an abandoned bus sometime that August. His journey was reckless—he was unprepared in terms of both supplies and the knowledge of how to survive. His story, which Krakauer first recounted in an article for Outside magazine, angered many: How could McCandless have been so foolhardy? (Krakauer’s account also doesn’t capture all of his subject’s life: Chris’s sister Carine alleged years later that their parents had physically and mentally abused both children; they called her memoir “fictionalized.”) McCandless, however, was confounded by people passively staying within the confines of a civilization that he found crushing. Krakauer’s recounting of his final months is captivating, giving readers a window into McCandless’s mentality; it is a tragic portrait of a man whose urge to escape into nature was so strong and alluring that, decades later, the circumstances of his death have morphed into legend. William Morrow Seveneves, by Neal StephensonAt certain moments, the impetus to go somewhere new isn’t about gaining knowledge or traveling simply for the novelty: Sometimes, it’s the only way to survive. In Seveneves, the moon explodes, making Earth uninhabitable for humans. The bulk of the story centers on the 1,500 or so people who struggle in the aftermath of the disaster, living initially in ad hoc habitats built around the International Space Station. Most of them die in these first years, destroyed by mounting internal discord and by the struggle to gain the basic resources—water, air, food—required for life. Stephenson goes deep into the science of their attempts to make it, and the book will fire up anyone who, for example, wants to know in detail how humans might be able to capture water from a passing ice comet. Ultimately, only seven women able to bear children remain, and they later set up base in a cleft of the broken moon. Then, about two-thirds of the way through the book, the action leaps 5,000 years into the future, where a civilization with billions of genetically altered humans seeks to reclaim Earth. Stephenson’s considerable extrapolations about what humans—or their genetically altered future descendants—will do to survive make the novel a fun, philosophical, and surprisingly hopeful read.

Roughly 878,500 people were naturalized and became U.S. citizens in the 2023 fiscal year that annually begins October 1.

Ursula Von der Leyen, the European Commission president, pushed Beijing to help rein in Russia’s war in Ukraine after meeting with the Chinese and French leaders in Paris.

The South Dakota governor continues to receive backlash over details in her upcoming book, with Trump also said to be outraged.

Democrats are concerned there isn't enough "energy" behind President Biden's re-election campaign to win him another term, according to a recent report.

A woman shared the footage showing her dog coming over to say hello to his owner through the two-way microphone.

Andy Pages, who has provided a big lift for the Dodgers, was once nearly traded to the Angels until Arte Moreno changed his mind.

For employees, managers, and even leaders struggling in their jobs, here are the signs to look for when it's time to move on — and how to manage the transition gracefully.

"The way they laughing and smiling. I just know that dog drive them crazy but they love it," one TikTok user wrote.

Polyamory is everywhere these days—except protected under the law. But some advocates have an idea about how to change that.

Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem talks about her recently released book, "No Going Back." It includes stories from her time as a governor and congresswoman, and some that have drawn criticism, including one about her killing a hunting dog.

ADAM ROSEINGLEWOOD, Calif. — There’s locker-room talk, and then there’s what the entire global Netflix subscriber base may have witnessed Sunday night.Seven-time Super Bowl champion quarterback Tom Brady allowed his former teammates, coach, owner, his longest on-field rival, a couple of celebrities and a pack of truly unleashed comedians go off on him in the largest-attended, longest-ever and most likely most-watched live broadcast of a comedy roast from the Kia Forum for the Netflix is A Joke Fest. The old Friars Club roasts in New York City may have gone longer and featured as much raunch back in the day, but none of those events were ever live streamed globally to a potential audience in the mega millions.Kevin Hart set the tone and the bar below the belt from the get-go as the roast’s host, saying this about the Forum’s previous sports dynasty owners of the 1980s Los Angeles Lakers. “They called this place Showtime because Jerry Buss used to show everybody his dick in this building,” Hart joked. “A lot of nasty shit has happened in this building … I wish I had a blacklight right now, I’d turn that bitch on now so y’all can see all the cum stains you sitting on in these nasty-ass seats.” He then cackled, adding: “Hahaha! That’s right. You better get comfortable being uncomfortable, baby!”Read more at The Daily Beast.

Judge Juan Merchan on Monday said he will consider a jail sentence for former President Trump if he continues to violate the gag order imposed upon him in his unprecedented criminal trial.

"This impressive bird has long been noted for its speed, grace, and aerial skills," the National Park Service says. "Now, it is also a symbol of America's recovering threatened and endangered species."

A harrowing story of survival after a family of four in Texas is rescued by a storm chaser after a direct hit from a tornado.

Severe storms bring deadly flooding to Texas, with dangerous tornadoes in the forecast tofday. Also, Israel warns civilians to get out of Rafah after a setback in cease-fire and hostage talks with Hamas. All that and all that matters in today's Eye Opener.

"So if you think you're having a bad day, look at what my toddler did to my car this morning," the frustrated mom said on TikTok.

Jordan's King Abdullah II visited President Joe Biden at the White House for an informal meeting to discuss challenges facing the allies, like Israel's possible Rafah ground offensive.

Canada's first lady Sophie Grégoire Trudeau talks working through trauma, relationships in the public eye and her new book exploring mental health

Experts say home prices are likely to rise or stay the same in the near term if mortgage rates remain high.

Strong, long-lived tornadoes are possible in Oklahoma and Kansas on Monday as ingredients come together for a significant severe storm outbreak.

Former President Donald Trump's hush money trial continues in New York. Follow here for the latest live news updates, analysis and more.

The last episode of "Friends" aired on May 6, 2004, yet the appeal of the show is evident 20 years later in the popularity of these five New York City tourist attractions.

Biden has a record-low approval rating six months before the November election.

The announcement marked the latest disruption at a school roiled by weeks of pro-Palestinian protests and a police response that led to dozens of arrests.

"The legacy of it is incredible but it wasn’t great at the time."

Follow the Post’s live updates for the latest news, analysis and photos from the Trump trial in NYC.

Columbia University announced on Monday it is cancelling its campus-wide graduation ceremony.

Brendan McDermid/Pool/AFP via GettyDonald Trump has booked a one-way ticket to jail, and the judge overseeing his ongoing New York criminal trial on Monday said he’s ready to send him there at any moment.New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan started the fourth week of Trump’s trial with a speech that’s more than a year in the making, explaining why he hasn’t yet thrown the politician into the slammer—making what he called his final warning to the former president.“I’ll find you in criminal contempt for the tenth time,” Merchan said in a stark tone. “It appears that the $1,000 fines are not serving as a deterrent. Therefore, going forward, this court will have to consider a jail sanction. Mr. Trump, it’s important to understand the last thing I was to do is put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States, and possibly the next one as well.”Read more at The Daily Beast.