Former nurse busted for abuse after 3 premature babies suffer fractures at Virginia hospital

Wind chills are near 20 degrees all the way south to the Gulf Coast.

Meta has appointed three new members to its board of directors

He was known for his fiery anti-immigrant rhetoric that earned him both staunch support and widespread condemnation.

Sharon Stone is "choosing" to be happy 24 years after a near-fatal blain bleed. At the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday night, the "Casino" actress explained how she views the world.

Mike Johns ordered a Waymo, the self-driving rideshare service from Google, but found himself in a malfunctioning car driving in a never-ending loop around the parking lot he was in.

Edmund Wilson hated mysteries. In the 1940s, one of the most respected literary critics in America outlined his objections to the genre in a pair of caustic essays, “Why Do People Read Detective Stories?” and “Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?” After receiving a deluge of irate responses, Wilson conceded that he had recently been reading himself to sleep with the Sherlock Holmes series, enthralled by its “fairy-tale poetry of hansom cabs, gloomy London lodgings, and lonely country estates.” He contended, however, that Holmes’s cases occupied a special category: “They are among the most amusing of fairy-tales and not among the least distinguished.”If Sherlock Holmes really is the last of the classic fairy-tale heroes, he may also be the first to have been protected by modern intellectual-copyright law. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle introduced Holmes to his loyal companion, Dr. Watson, in the 1887 novel A Study in Scarlet, but the final stories didn’t fall out of copyright until January 1, 2023. Now that the characters are unambiguously free to use, numerous Holmes projects are scheduled to premiere or begin filming in the coming year alone, including Guy Ritchie’s Young Sherlock series on Amazon; Watson, a CBS procedural starring Morris Chestnut; and Sherlock & Daughter with David Thewlis on the CW. Brendan Foley, the creator of Sherlock & Daughter, told me that “the escape of Holmes and Watson into the public domain” might not be the only explanation for the coming surge, but “it certainly didn’t hurt.”The latest spin-offs can safely ignore the confusing rights issues that plagued earlier adaptations. For the big-budget action movies that Ritchie directed with Robert Downey Jr., Warner Bros. took the extraordinary step of signing agreements with two competing entities that claimed to own Holmes. Robert Doherty, the creator of Elementary, which reimagines Holmes in present-day New York, told me in an email that the rights situation for his CBS series was “murky” but that a deal was struck out of an abundance of caution: “I think the view on the studio side was that the characters were indeed in the public domain. At the same time, all parties wanted to tread very carefully.”Although the Holmes copyright debacle has finally expired, it offers a preview of even more contentious battles to come. Modern audiences have plenty of experience with the notion of a series character, developed over decades, who inspires both “fan works”—a concept that Holmes devotees essentially invented—and a seemingly endless string of reboots. For one glaring example, a little more than a decade from now, the public domain will welcome the earliest stories featuring another hero often called “the world’s greatest detective”: Batman. And his current owners will have every reason to study the playbook of the Doyle estate.The confusion surrounding Holmes stands as a cautionary tale about the manipulation of copyright law—not by opportunists exploiting a valuable piece of intellectual property, but by the character’s official custodians. Last year marked the 50th anniversary of Nicholas Meyer’s novel The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, which imagined Sigmund Freud treating Holmes for his addiction to cocaine. Its release was delayed for months by negotiations with Doyle’s copyright holders, resulting in what Meyer now calls “no seven-per-cent solution, I promise you.”After the novel became a best seller, Meyer wrote five sequels, including last year’s Sherlock Holmes and the Telegram From Hell, but he told me that he might never have attempted the first novel if he had foreseen the ensuing headaches: “I had done a back-of-the-envelope calculation and convinced myself that Holmes was in the public domain. Math is not my strong suit.” Yet even for the experts, untangling the facts of the case has always been a three-pipe problem—the kind of mystery that Holmes could solve only after three pipefuls of his favorite shag tobacco.[Read: Sherlock Holmes, unlikely style icon]Over the four decades during which Doyle wrote the original stories, international copyright law was rapidly evolving. After the author died in 1930, a colorful array of contenders fought over the rights, including his playboy sons, Denis and Adrian; Denis’s widow, the former Princess Nina Mdivani; and the producer Sheldon Reynolds and his wife, Andrea, who had a very public affair with the notorious socialite Claus von Bülow. Eventually, those rights coalesced under the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd., which is overseen by various family members. (There are no direct descendants.) But the confusion didn’t end there. The four novels and 46 short stories published before 1923 entered the public domain in 1998. Only the last 10 stories in the series were covered by the Copyright Term Extension Act—nicknamed the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act,” after its most famous beneficiary—that passed later that year, postponing future expirations of some copyrights by decades.Yet the Doyle estate used those late stories as a wedge, arguing that it retained licensing rights for all works featuring Holmes and Watson during the remaining quarter of a century before the final tales—widely seen as the worst of the bunch—fell out of copyright. Their claim: The characters didn’t assume their definitive form until the series was complete. The estate based its argument on a distinction between “flat” and “round” fictional characters first proposed by E. M. Forster in his 1927 book, Aspects of the Novel, a concept frequently invoked in high-school literature classes but never previously tested in court.In its legal filings, the estate drew a contrast between “flat” characters without depth—such as Superman and Amos and Andy—and “round” characters such as Holmes, who were capable of complexity and change. Doyle, it said, continued to develop Holmes to the very end, gradually transforming him from a reasoning machine into an empathetic figure who displays affection for women, dogs, and even his long-suffering partner. And it soon became clear that this argument would have enormous implications for copyright holders, who would be motivated to retain control over their characters by changing them incrementally for as long as possible.In 2013, the estate was sued by the prominent Sherlockian Leslie S. Klinger, who refused to pay a licensing fee for an anthology of new Holmes stories by contemporary writers. Klinger said that all of the detective’s crucial components—including his “bohemian nature” and his “aptitude for disguise”—were established early in the series. (As other commentators have noted, some of Holmes’s most recognizable characteristics—the deerstalker cap, the distinctive curved calabash pipe, the phrase “Elementary, my dear Watson”—never appeared in Doyle’s stories at all.)After the case was decided in Klinger’s favor, an appeal ended up before U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner, who upheld the ruling and ordered the estate to pay all legal costs, criticizing its strategy as “a form of extortion” against creators: “It’s time the estate, in its own self-interest, changed its business model.” Yet the lingering “fog of uncertainty,” as Klinger’s lawyer described it, allowed the estate to continue policing its claim on elements from the final run of stories, especially their alleged depiction of a more emotional Holmes.In 2015, the estate filed suit against the makers of Mr. Holmes, an Ian McKellen film adapted from a novel by Mitch Cullin, who complained to a reporter, “It is cheaper for corporations to settle than go to court, and I believe the estate is not only keenly aware of that reality, but that they bank on it as an outcome.” Five years later, it went after the Netflix movie Enola Holmes, contending that the estate owned the stories that defined the version of Holmes “stamped in the public mind.” Both suits were likely privately settled, but with all rights now expired, the estate has turned to what its head of licensing, Tim Hubbard, described in an email as “authenticat[ing] projects and partnerships where our collaborators want to be connected to the source.” (The estate declined to address specific questions about its legal strategies or arguments.)[Read: Generative AI is challenging a 234-year-old law]It has also been relieved of the obligation to make an argument that Meyer, the author of The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, succinctly dismissed to me as “bullshit.” The estate created a false narrative about the character it was supposedly protecting, Meyer argued, ignoring the abundant earlier evidence of what Watson calls the “hidden fires” smoldering beneath the exterior of the otherwise rational Holmes, who displays humor, empathy, and emotion throughout the series.One could plausibly claim, as Klinger suggested, that all of the important aspects of the character were there from the very beginning. In his seminal 1910 essay, “Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes,” the theologian Ronald A. Knox identified 11 elements of the archetypal case. According to Knox, the only story that contained the full list was none other than A Study in Scarlet, which was published in the United States by J. B. Lippincott in 1890.Betsy Rosenblatt, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told me that the novel’s U.S. copyright would have lasted a maximum of 56 years, meaning that the characters should have entered the public domain in America in 1946. If creators had been allowed to independently explore eight decades sooner one of the most popular fictional characters in history, our picture of Holmes might have been immeasurably enriched.These issues aren’t merely historical or hypothetical. In 2034, the oldest Superman comics will enter the public domain, followed a year later by Batman. Jay Kogan, a senior vice president in charge of legal affairs at DC Comics, has advocated for protecting the company’s stake in its superheroes “by gradually changing the literary and visual characteristics of a character over time.” Whereas Holmes evolved organically—or so the estate has claimed—Bruce Wayne might don new costumes only so that a corporation can assert control over “the de facto standard” of the Dark Knight.Creativity, however, doesn’t follow the logic of copyright law. Once a character becomes a cultural possession—with the “fairy-tale” quality that enchanted Edmund Wilson—even a rudimentary form will carry the aura of its other incarnations. As soon as the earliest version of Batman is freely available, creators will benefit from his full history, turning these associations to all kinds of surprising ends. This is exactly why copyrights expire. Holmes and Watson are eternal not because they are mysteriously “round,” but because they are flat enough to fit into new stories for every generation.E. M. Forster, who defined these categories in the first place, saw that flatness can be enormously satisfying: “We all want books to endure, to be refuges, and their inhabitants to be always the same, and flat characters tend to justify themselves on this account.” Doyle himself knew that such reliability could be a source of comfort. In the 1917 story “His Last Bow,” which transposed the pair from the Victorian era into the Great War, Holmes offered a backhanded compliment to his faithful friend: “Good old Watson! You are the one fixed point in a changing age.”

“The countdown clock on the next catastrophic crash has already started,” Dennis Kelleher, the president of the nonprofit Better Markets, told me.In the past few weeks, I have heard that sentiment or similar from economists, traders, Hill staffers, and government officials. The incoming Trump administration has promised to pass crypto-friendly regulations, and is likely to loosen strictures on Wall Street institutions as well.This will bring an unheralded era of American prosperity, it argues, maintaining the country’s position as the head of the global capital markets and the heart of the global investment ecosystem. “My vision is for an America that dominates the future,” Donald Trump told a bitcoin conference in July. “I'm laying out my plan to ensure that the United States will be the crypto capital of the planet and the bitcoin superpower of the world.”[Annie Lowrey: The three pillars of the bro-economy]Financial experts expect something different. First, a boom. A big boom, maybe, with the price of bitcoin, ether, and other cryptocurrencies climbing; financial firms raking in profits; and American investors awash in newfound wealth. Second, a bust. A big bust, maybe, with firms collapsing, the government being called in to steady the markets, and plenty of Americans suffering from foreclosures and bankruptcies.Having written about bitcoin for more than a decade—and having covered the last financial crisis and its long hangover—I have some sense of what might cause that boom and bust. Crypto assets tend to be exceedingly volatile, much more so than real estate, commodities, stocks, and bonds. Egged on by Washington, more Americans will invest in crypto. Prices will go up as cash floods in. Individuals and institutions will get wiped out when prices drop, as they inevitably will.The experts I spoke with did not counter that narrative. But if that’s all that happens, they told me, the United States and the world should count themselves lucky. The danger is not just that crypto-friendly regulation will expose millions of Americans to scams and volatility. The danger is that it will lead to an increase in leverage across the whole of the financial system. It will foster opacity, making it harder for investors to determine the riskiness of and assign prices to financial products. And it will do so at the same time as the Trump administration cuts regulations and regulators.Crypto will become more widespread. And the conventional financial markets will come to look more like the crypto markets—wilder, less transparent, and more unpredictable, with trillion-dollar consequences extending years into the future.“I have this worry that the next three or four years will look pretty good,” Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell and a former International Monetary Fund official, told me. “It’s what comes after, when we have to pick up the pieces from all the speculative frenzies that are going to be generated because of this administration’s actions.”For years, Washington has “waged a war on crypto and bitcoin like nobody’s ever seen,” Trump told crypto entrepreneurs this summer. “They target your banks. They choke off your financial services … They block ordinary Americans from transferring money to your exchanges. They slander you as criminals.” He added: “That happened to me too, because I said the election was rigged.”Trump is not wrong that crypto exists in its own parallel financial universe. Many crypto companies cannot or choose not to comply with American financial regulations, making it hard for kitchen-table investors to use their services. (The world’s biggest crypto exchange, Binance, declines even to name which jurisdiction it is based in; it directs American customers to a smallish U.S. offshoot.) Companies such as Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo tend to offer few, if any, crypto products, and tend to make minimal, if any, investments in crypto and crypto-related businesses. It’s not so much that banks haven’t wanted to get in on the fun. It’s that regulations have prevented them from doing so, and regulators have warned them not to.This situation has throttled the amount of money flowing into crypto. But the approach has been a wise one: It has prevented firm failures and crazy price swings from destabilizing the traditional financial system. Crypto lost $2 trillion of its $3 trillion in market capitalization in 2022, Kelleher noted. “If you had that big of a financial crash with any other asset, there would have been contagion. But there wasn’t, because you had parallel systems with almost no interconnection.”Forthcoming regulation will knit the systems together. Granted, nobody knows exactly what laws Congress will pass and Trump will sign. But the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21, which passed the House before dying in the Senate last year, is a good guide. The law was the subject of intense lobbying by crypto advocates with billions on the line and cash to spend, including $170 million on the 2024 election. It amounts to an industry wish list.FIT21 makes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission, the regulator of most crypto assets and firms and requires that the CFTC collect far less information from companies on the structure and trading of crypto products than securities firms give the SEC.[Annie Lowrey: The Black investors who were burned by Bitcoin]Beyond loose rules, financial experts anticipate loose enforcement. The CFTC predominantly oversees financial products used as hedges by businesses and traded among traders, not ones hawked to individual investors. It has roughly one-fifth the budget of the SEC, and one-seventh the staff. And in general, Washington is expected to loosen the strictures preventing traditional banks from keeping crypto on their books and preventing crypto companies from accessing the country’s financial infrastructure.According to Prasad, this regime would be a “dream” for crypto.Trump and his family are personally invested in crypto, and the president-elect has floated the idea of establishing a “strategic” bitcoin reserve, to preempt Chinese influence. (In reality, this would mean deploying billions of dollars of taxpayer money to soak up speculative assets with no strategic benefit to the United States.) How many Republicans will invest in crypto because Trump does? How many young people will pour money into bitcoin because his son Eric says its price is zooming toward $1 million, or because the secretary of commerce says it is the future?Nothing being considered by Congress or the White House will reduce the inherent risks. Crypto investors will remain vulnerable to hacking, ransomware, and theft. The research group Chainalysis tallied $24.2 billion in illicit transactions in 2023 alone. And if the U.S. government invests in crypto, the incentive for countries such as Iran and North Korea to interfere in the markets would go up exponentially. Imagine China engaging in a 51 percent attack on the bitcoin blockchain, taking it over and controlling each and every transaction. The situation is a security nightmare.Americans will be exposed to more prosaic scams and rip-offs too. The SEC has brought enforcement actions against dozens of Ponzi schemers, charlatans, and cheats, encompassing both the $32 billion sham-exchange FTX and ticky-tacky coin firms. Nobody expects the CFTC to have the muscle to do the same. And FIT21 leaves loopholes open for all kinds of scuzzy profiteering. A crypto firm might be able to run an exchange, buy and sell assets on its own behalf, and execute orders for clients—legally, at the same time, despite the conflicts of interest.Simple volatility is the biggest risk for retail investors. Crypto coins, tokens, and currencies are “purely speculative,” Prasad emphasized. “The only thing anchoring the value is investor sentiment.” At least gold has industrial uses. Or, if you’re betting on the price of tulip bulbs, at least you might end up with a flower.With crypto, you might end up with nothing, or less. A large share of crypto traders borrow money to make bets. When leveraged traders lose money on their investments, their lenders—generally the exchange on which the traders are trading—require them to put up collateral. To do that, investors might have to cash out their 401(k)s. They might have to dump their bitcoin, even in a down market. If they cannot come up with the cash, the firm holding their account might liquidate or seize their assets.A report released last month by the Office of Financial Research, a government think tank, makes clear just how dangerous this could be: Some low-income households are “using crypto gains to take out new mortgages.” When crypto prices go down, those families’ homes are going to be at risk.Many individual investors do not seem to understand these perils. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has had to warn the public that it does not protect crypto assets. The Financial Stability Oversight Council has raised the concern that people do not realize that crypto firms are not subject to the same oversight as banks. But if Trump is invested, how bad could it be?Regulators and economists are not worried primarily about the damage that this new era will do to individual households, however. They are worried about chaos in the crypto markets disrupting the traditional financial system—leading to a collapse in lending and the need for the government to step in, as it did in 2008.Where Wall Street once saw fool’s gold, it now sees a gold mine. Ray Dalio of Bridgewater called crypto a “bubble” a decade ago; now he thinks it is “one hell of an invention.” Larry Fink of BlackRock previously referred to bitcoin as an “index of money laundering”; today he sees it as a “legitimate financial instrument”—one his firm has already begun offering to clients, if indirectly.Early in 2024, the SEC began allowing fund managers to sell certain crypto investments. BlackRock launched a bitcoin exchange-traded fund in November; one public retirement fund has already staked its pensioners’ hard-earned cash. Barclays, Citigroup, JPMorgan, and Goldman Sachs are doing crypto deals too. Billions of traditional-finance money is flowing into the decentralized-finance markets, and billions more will as regulators allow.[Charlie Warzel: Crypto’s legacy is finally clear]What could go wrong? Nothing, provided that Wall Street firms are properly accounting for the risk of these risky assets. Everything, if they are not. Even the sturdiest-seeming instruments are dangerous. Stablecoins, for example, are crypto assets pegged to the dollar: One stablecoin is worth one dollar, making them useful as a medium of exchange, unlike bitcoin and ether. Stablecoin companies generally maintain their peg by holding one dollar’s worth of super-safe assets, such as cash and Treasury bills, for every stablecoin issued.Supposedly. In the spring of 2022, the widely used stablecoin TerraUSD collapsed, its price falling to just 23 cents. The company had been using an algorithm to keep TerraUSD’s price moored; all it took was enough people pulling their money out for the stablecoin to break the buck. Tether, the world’s most-traded crypto asset, claims to be fully backed by safe deposits. The U.S. government found that it was not, as of 2021; moreover, the Treasury Department is contemplating sanctioning the company behind tether for its role as a cash funnel for the “North Korean nuclear-weapons program, Mexican drug cartels, Russian arms companies, Middle Eastern terrorist groups and Chinese manufacturers of chemicals used to make fentanyl,” The Wall Street Journal has reported. (“To suggest that Tether is somehow involved in aiding criminal actors or sidestepping sanctions is outrageous,” the company responded.)Were tether or another big stablecoin to falter, financial chaos could instantly spread beyond the crypto markets. Worried investors would dump the stablecoin, instigating “a self-fulfilling panic run,” in the words of three academics who modeled this eventuality. The stablecoin issuer would dump Treasury bills and other safe assets to provide redemptions; the falling price of safe assets would affect thousands of non-crypto firms. The economists put the risk of a run on tether at 2.5 percent as of late 2021—not so stable!Other catastrophes are easy to imagine: bank failures, exchange collapses, giant Ponzi schemes faltering. Still, the biggest risk with crypto has little to do with crypto at all.If Congress passes FIT21 or a similar bill, it would invent a novel asset class called “digital commodities”—in essence, any financial asset managed on a decentralized blockchain. Digital commodities would be exempted from SEC oversight, as would “decentralized finance” firms. In the FIT21 bill, any firm or person can self-certify a financial product as a digital commodity, and the SEC would have only 60 days to object.This is a loophole big enough to fit an investment bank through.Already, Wall Street is talking up “tokenization,” meaning putting assets on a programmable digital ledger. The putative justification is capital efficiency: Tokenization could make it easier to move money around. Another justification is regulatory arbitrage: Investments on a blockchain would move out of the SEC’s purview, and likely be subject to fewer disclosure, reporting, accounting, tax, consumer-protection, anti-money-laundering, and capital requirements. Risk would build up in the system; the government would have fewer ways to rein firms in.Crypto regulation could end up undermining the “broader $100 trillion capital markets,” Gary Gensler, the soon-to-be-former head of the SEC and the crypto industry’s enemy No. 1, has argued. “It could encourage noncompliant entities to try to choose what regulatory regimes they wish to be subjected to.”[Annie Lowrey: When the Bitcoin scammers came for me]We have seen this movie before, not long ago. In 2000, shortly before leaving office, Bill Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The law put strictures on derivatives traded on an exchange, but left over-the-counter derivatives unregulated. So Wall Street ginned up trillions of dollars of financial products, many backed by the income streams from home loans, and traded them over the counter. It packaged subprime loans with prime loans, obscuring a given financial instrument’s real risk. Then consumers strained under rising interest rates, crummy wage growth, and climbing unemployment. The mortgage-default rate went up. Home prices fell, first in the Sun Belt and then nationwide. Investors panicked. Nobody even knew what was in all of those credit-default swaps and mortgage-backed securities. Nobody was sure what anything was worth. Uncertainty, opacity, leverage, and mispricing spurred the global financial crisis that caused the Great Recession.The crypto market today is primed to become the derivatives market of the future. Were Congress and the Trump administration to do nothing—to leave the SEC as crypto’s primary regulator, to require crypto companies to play by the existing rules—the chaos would remain walled off. There’s no sensible justification for digital assets to be treated differently than securities, anyway. By the simple test the government has used for a century, nearly all crypto assets are securities. But Washington is creating loopholes, not laws.As the crypto boosters like to say, hold on for dear life. “A lot of bankers, they’re dancing in the street,” Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase said at a conference in Peru last year. Maybe they should be. The bankers are never the ones left holding the bag.

A Virginia dad whose newborn stayed at the Henrico Doctors' Hospital's NICU in 2023 says more than a half dozen victims of mysterious fractures have one thing in common.

A powerful 7.1 magnitude earthquake has killed at least 95 people in the remote region of Tibet. BBC News correspondent Laura Bicker joined CBS News with the latest.

The Chicago Bears appear to be speeding up the Dallas Cowboys' decision regarding head coach Mike McCarthy, as they have reportedly requested to interview him for their vacancy.

A powerful magnitude 7.1 earthquake has struck Tibet, reportedly killing at least 95 on the Chinese side of the border and damaging more than 1,000 homes.

​Jean-Marie Le Pen, the longtime figurehead of France's far-right political movement and father of its current leader, has reportedly died.

John Cena made a big announcement as his farewell tour in his final year of WWE participation began on Monday night, proclaiming he will win Royal Rumble 2025.

Former President Jimmy Carter is being remembered in six days of state funeral events that began Saturday​ with a service at his boyhood home in Plains, Georgia.

Trump's former co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira asked a judge to stop Attorney General Merrick Garland from releasing the Jack Smith report.

Facing a glut of middle infielders, the Dodgers send second baseman Gavin Lux to the Cincinnati Reds.

Huntington Beach High baseball team has one of the most talented rosters for the upcoming season.

Frosty pine trees rim the edge of an icy lake. Snow is falling; spa music plays in the background. A gray-haired man with a pleasant face stands beside the lake. He begins to undress. He is going swimming, he explains, to demonstrate his faith, and his opposition to science, to technology, to modernity. “I don’t need Facebook; I don’t need the internet; I don’t need anybody. I just need my heart,” he says. As he swims across the lake, seemingly unbothered by the cold, he continues: “I trust my immune system because I have complete trust and faith in its creator, in God. My immunity is part of the sovereignty of my being.”This is Călin Georgescu, the man who shocked his countrymen when he won the first round of the Romanian presidential election on November 24, despite hardly registering in opinion polls and conducting his campaign almost entirely on TikTok, where the platform’s rules, ostensibly designed to limit or regulate political messages, appear not to have constrained him. On the contrary, he used the tactics that many social-media influencers deploy to appeal to the TikTok algorithm. Sometimes he added soft, melancholic piano music, imploring people to “vote with your souls.” Sometimes he used pop-up subtitles, harsh lighting, fluorescent colors, and electronic music, calling for a “national renaissance” and criticizing the secret forces that have allegedly sought to harm Romanians. “The order to destroy our jobs came from the outside,” he says in one video. In another, he speaks of “subliminal messages” and thought control, his voice accompanied by images of a hand holding puppet strings. In the months leading up to the election, these videos amassed more than 1 million views.Elsewhere, this gentle-seeming New Age mystic has praised Ion Antonescu, the Romanian wartime dictator who conspired with Hitler and was sentenced to death for war crimes, including his role in the Romanian Holocaust. He has called both Antonescu and the prewar leader of the Iron Guard, a violent anti-Semitic movement, national heroes. He twice met with Alexander Dugin, the Russian fascist ideologue, who posted on X a (subsequently deleted) statement that “Romania will be part of Russia.” And at the same time, Georgescu praises the spiritual qualities of water. “We don’t know what water is,” he has said; “H₂O means nothing.” Also, “Water has a memory, and we destroy its soul through pollution,” and “Water is alive and sends us messages, but we don’t know how to listen to them.” He believes that carbonated drinks contain nanochips that “enter into you like a laptop.” His wife, Cristela, produces YouTube videos on healing, using terms such as lymphatic acidosis and calcium metabolism to make her points.Both of them also promote “peace,” a vague goal that seems to mean that Romania, which borders Ukraine and Moldova, should stop helping Ukraine defend itself against Russian invaders. “War cannot be won by war,” Cristela Georgescu wrote on Instagram a few weeks before voting began. “War destroys not only physically, it destroys HEARTS.” Neither she nor her husband mentions the security threats to Romania that would grow exponentially following a Russian victory in Ukraine, nor the economic costs, refugee crisis, and political instability that would follow. It is noteworthy that although Călin Georgescu claimed to have spent no money on this campaign, the Romanian government says someone illegally paid TikTok users hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote Georgescu and that unknown outsiders coordinated the activity of tens of thousands of fake accounts, including some impersonating state institutions, that supported him. Hackers, suspected to be Russian, carried out more than 85,000 cyberattacks on Romanian election infrastructure as well. On December 6, in response to the Romanian government’s findings about “aggressive” Russian attacks and violations of Romanian electoral law, Romania’s Constitutional Court canceled the election and annulled the results of the first round.Given this strange combination—Iron Guard nostalgia and Russian trolls plus the sort of wellness gibberish more commonly associated with Gwyneth Paltrow—who exactly are the Georgescus? How to classify them? Tempting though it is to describe them as “far right,” this old-fashioned terminology doesn’t quite capture whom or what they represent. The terms right-wing and left-wing come from the French Revolution, when the nobility, who sought to preserve the status quo, sat on the right side of the National Assembly, and the revolutionaries, who wanted democratic change, sat on the left. Those definitions began to fail us a decade ago, when a part of the right, in both Europe and North America, began advocating not caution and conservatism but the destruction of existing democratic institutions. In its new incarnation, the far right began to resemble the old far left. In some places, the two began to merge.When I first wrote about the need for new political terminology, in 2017, I struggled to come up with better terms. But now the outlines of a popular political movement are becoming clearer, and this movement has no relation at all to the right or the left as we know them. The philosophers of the Enlightenment, whose belief in the possibility of law-based democratic states gave us both the American and French Revolutions, railed against what they called obscurantism: darkness, obfuscation, irrationality. But the prophets of what we might now call the New Obscurantism offer exactly those things: magical solutions, an aura of spirituality, superstition, and the cultivation of fear. Among their number are health quacks and influencers who have developed political ambitions; fans of the quasi-religious QAnon movement and its Pizzagate-esque spin-offs; and members of various political parties, all over Europe, that are pro-Russia and anti-vaccine and, in some cases, promoters of mystical nationalism as well. Strange overlaps are everywhere. Both the left-wing German politician Sahra Wagenknecht and the right-wing Alternative for Germany party promote vaccine and climate-change skepticism, blood-and-soil nationalism, and withdrawal of German support for Ukraine. All across Central Europe, a fascination with runes and folk magic aligns with both right-wing xenophobia and left-wing paganism. Spiritual leaders are becoming political, and political actors have veered into the occult. Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host who has become an apologist for Russian aggression, has claimed that he was attacked by a demon that left “claw marks” on his body.This New Obscurantism has now affected the highest levels of U.S. politics. Foreigners and Americans alike have been hard-pressed to explain the ideology represented by some of Donald Trump’s initial Cabinet nominations, and for good reason. Although Trump won reelection as a Republican, there was nothing traditionally “Republican” about proposing Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence. Gabbard is a former progressive Democrat with lifelong ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, a Hare Krishna breakaway sect. Like Carlson, she is also an apologist for the brutal Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and for the recently deposed dictator of Syria, Bashar al‑Assad, both of whose fantastical lies she has sometimes repeated. Nor is there anything “conservative” about Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee for FBI director, who has suggested that he intends to target a long list of current and former government officials, including many who served in the first Trump administration. In keeping with the spirit of the New Obscurantists, Patel has also promoted Warrior Essentials, a business selling antidotes both to COVID and to COVID vaccines. But then, no one who took seriously the philosophy of Edmund Burke or William F. Buckley Jr. would put a conspiracy theorist like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—another Putin apologist, former Democrat (indeed, from the most famous Democratic family in America), and enemy of vaccines, as well as fluoride—in charge of American health care. No “conservative” defender of traditional family values would propose, as ambassador to France, a convicted felon who sent a prostitute to seduce his sister’s husband in order to create a compromising tape—especially if that convicted felon happened to be the father of the president’s son-in-law.[From the October 2024 issue: Kash Patel will do anything for Trump]Rather than conservatism as conventionally understood, this crowd and its international counterparts represent the fusion of several trends that have been coalescing for some time. The hawkers of vitamin supplements and unproven COVID cures now mingle—not by accident—with open admirers of Putin’s Russia, especially those who mistakenly believe that Putin leads a “white Christian nation.” (In reality, Russia is multicultural, multiracial, and generally irreligious; its trolls promote vaccine skepticism as well as lies about Ukraine.) Fans of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán—a small-time autocrat who has impoverished his country, now one of the poorest in Europe, while enriching his family and friends—make common cause with Americans who have broken the law, gone to jail, stolen from their own charities, or harassed women. And no wonder: In a world where conspiracy theories and nonsense cures are widely accepted, the evidence-based concepts of guilt and criminality vanish quickly too.Among the followers of this new political movement are some of the least wealthy Americans. Among its backers are some of the most wealthy. George O’Neill Jr., a Rockefeller heir who is a board member of The American Conservative magazine, turned up at Mar-a-Lago after the election; O’Neill, who was a close contact of Maria Butina, the Russian agent deported in 2019, has promoted Gabbard since at least 2017, donating to her presidential campaign in 2020, as well as to Kennedy’s in 2024. Elon Musk, the billionaire inventor who has used his social-media platform, X, to give an algorithmic boost to stories he surely knows are false, has managed to carve out a government role for himself. Are O’Neill, Musk, and the cryptocurrency dealers who have flocked to Trump in this for the money? Or do they actually believe the conspiratorial and sometimes anti-American ideas they’re promulgating? Maybe one, maybe the other, possibly both. Whether their motivations are cynical or sincere matters less than their impact, not just in the U.S. but around the world. For better or for worse, America sets examples that others follow. Merely by announcing his intention to nominate Kennedy to his Cabinet, Trump has ensured that skepticism of childhood vaccines will spread around the world, possibly followed by the diseases themselves. And epidemics, as we’ve recently learned, tend to make people frightened, and more willing to embrace magical solutions.Other civilizations have experienced moments like this one. As their empire began to decline in the 16th century, the Venetians began turning to magic and looking for fast ways to get rich. Mysticism and occultism spread rapidly in the dying days of the Russian empire. Peasant sects promoted exotic beliefs and practices, including anti-materialism, self-flagellation, and self-castration. Aristocrats in Moscow and St. Petersburg turned to theosophy, a mishmash of world religions whose Russian-born inventor, Helena Blavatsky, brought her Hindu-Buddhist-Christian-Neoplatonic creed to the United States. The same feverish, emotional atmosphere that produced these movements eventually propelled Rasputin, a peasant holy man who claimed that he had magical healing powers, into the imperial palace. After convincing Empress Alexandra that he could cure her son’s hemophilia, he eventually became a political adviser to the czar.Rasputin’s influence produced, in turn, a kind of broader hysteria. By the time the First World War broke out, many Russians were convinced that dark forces—tyomnye sily—were secretly in control of the country. “They could be different things to different people—Jews, Germans, Freemasons, Alexandra, Rasputin, and the court camarilla,” writes Douglas Smith, one of Rasputin’s biographers. “But it was taken on faith that they were the true masters of Russia.” As one Russian theosophist put it, “Enemies really do exist who are poisoning Russia with negative emanations.”Replace dark forces with the deep state, and how different is that story from ours? Like the Russians in 1917, we live in an era of rapid, sometimes unacknowledged, change: economic, political, demographic, educational, social, and, above all, informational. We, too, exist in a permanent cacophony, where conflicting messages, right and left, true and false, flash across our screens all the time. Traditional religions are in long-term decline. Trusted institutions seem to be failing. Techno-optimism has given way to techno-pessimism, a fear that technology now controls us in ways we can’t understand. And in the hands of the New Obscurantists—who actively promote fear of illness, fear of nuclear war, fear of death—dread and anxiety are powerful weapons.[Autocracy in America: The end of democracy has already begun]For Americans, the merging of pseudo-spirituality with politics represents a departure from some of our deepest principles: that logic and reason lead to good government; that fact-based debate leads to good policy; that governance prospers in sunlight; and that the political order inheres in rules and laws and processes, not mystical charisma. The supporters of the New Obscurantism have also broken with the ideals of America’s Founders, all of whom considered themselves to be men of the Enlightenment. Benjamin Franklin was not only a political thinker but a scientist and a brave advocate of smallpox inoculation. George Washington was fastidious about rejecting monarchy, restricting the power of the executive, and establishing the rule of law. Later American leaders—Lincoln, Roosevelt, King—quoted the Constitution and its authors to bolster their own arguments.By contrast, this rising international elite is creating something very different: a society in which superstition defeats reason and logic, transparency vanishes, and the nefarious actions of political leaders are obscured behind a cloud of nonsense and distraction. There are no checks and balances in a world where only charisma matters, no rule of law in a world where emotion defeats reason—only a void that anyone with a shocking and compelling story can fill.This article appears in the February 2025 print edition with the headline “The New Rasputins.”

Jose Melo, 52, was nabbed last week after his wife-to-be, Naket Jadix Trinidad Maldonado, 31, was found dead inside a home in Elizabeth on Dec. 30, according to the Union County Prosecutor's Office.

It was unclear how they accessed the aircraft, JetBlue said.

Investigators estimated at least 25 people were buried at Harold Baumeister's estate, based on evidence that included 10,000 bones and bone fragments.

FIRST ON FOX: Meta is ending its fact-checking program and lifting restrictions on speech to “restore free expression" across Facebook, Instagram and Meta platforms, admitting its current content moderation practices have “gone too far."

NYC Metropolitan Transportation Authority head Janno Lieber said people feel unsafe on the subway because of high-profile cases of violence, while overall crime is down.

Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.

By allowing virtually anyone to own a slice of the team, Orange County Soccer Club has found a way to increase fan involvement with the team and the community.

Washington’s biggest weakness could play right into the Buccaneers’ strength when the teams meet in the first round Sunday in Tampa.

A politically powerful opponent of birthright citizenship railed that the United States cannot “give up the right” to “expel” dangerous “trespassers” who “invade [our] borders,” “wander in gangs,” and “infest society.”Was this Donald Trump speaking in 2024? No, the quote is from an 1866 speech on the Senate floor by Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, a leading opponent of adding a provision to the U.S. Constitution granting citizenship based solely on birth on U.S. soil. Who were the “invaders” that Senator Cowan so feared? “I mean the Gypsies,” Cowan explained, despite offering no evidence that Roma migration posed a risk to the United States.Senator Cowan lost the fight. In 1868, the nation ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, the first sentence of which guarantees birthright citizenship. The amendment invalidated the Supreme Court’s infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which declared that no Black person could ever be a U.S. citizen. Equally important, the Constitution now guaranteed citizenship to the children of immigrants born on U.S. soil, “no matter from what quarter of the globe he or his ancestors may have come,” as one senator later put it in a speech to his constituents.[Martha S. Jones: Birthright citizenship was won by freed slaves]More than 150 years later, Trump has vowed to end birthright citizenship on “day one” of his new administration for children without at least one parent who is a citizen or green-card holder. He made that announcement in a three-minute video prominently posted on his campaign website, which he repeated in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press last month.In 2025, the end of birthright citizenship is more than just an applause line at the Conservative Political Action Conference. It has a genuine, if slim, chance of making its way into law. If it does, it will upend the lives of millions, and create a caste system in which a new set of people—native-born non-Americans—can never work or live in the open.This prospect ought to be taken seriously. How would President Trump implement such a plan? Is it constitutional? And would the U.S. Supreme Court back him up?The first question is easy, because Trump has told us exactly how he intends to proceed. In the video, the president-elect commits to issuing an executive order on January 20, 2025, that would deny citizenship not only to the children of undocumented immigrants but also to those born to parents who both are legally in the United States on a temporary visa for study or work. (Trump’s order as proposed would apply only to children born after it is issued.)The consequences would be immediate. Trump says he will order government officials to deny these children passports and Social Security numbers. They will be prohibited from enrolling in federal programs such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and likely state benefits as well.As adults, if all goes according to Trump’s plan, they will be barred from voting, holding elected office, and serving on juries. States could deny them a driver’s license and block them from attending state universities. They would be prohibited from working in the United States, and any U.S. citizen who employs them could be fined or even jailed under federal immigration laws. Many would be rendered stateless. Perhaps worst of all, they would live in perpetual fear of being deported from the only country in which they have ever lived.[Read: Trump’s murky plan to end birthright citizenship]Ending birthright citizenship for these children would affect everyone in America. Everyone would now have to provide proof of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status on the date of their birth to qualify for the rights and benefits of citizenship. The new law would necessitate an expanded government bureaucracy to scrutinize hospital records, birth certificates, naturalization oaths, and green-card applications.Lawsuits are sure to follow, which leads to the second question: Will Trump have the constitutional authority to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants?Per the text of the Constitution, the answer is a hard no. Some constitutional provisions are fuzzy, but the citizenship clause is not one of them. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”Even the deeply racist Supreme Court back in 1898 couldn’t find any wiggle room in that language. Just two years before, in 1896, the Court had somehow read the Constitution’s equal-protection clause to permit “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson, ushering in the Jim Crow era. But when the U.S. government argued in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the children of Chinese immigrants were not birthright citizens, the justices balked. The language granting citizenship to “all persons born” in the United States was “universal,” the Court explained, restricted “only by place and jurisdiction.” More recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that point, stating as an aside in a 1982 opinion addressing the rights of undocumented children to attend school: “No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”Despite the clear text and long-standing judicial precedent, Trump claims that undocumented immigrants and their children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and so fall within the exception to universal birthright citizenship.That is nonsense. Undocumented immigrants must follow all federal and state laws. When they violate criminal laws, they are jailed. If they park illegally, they are ticketed. They are required to pay their taxes and renew their driver’s license, just like everyone else. Trump certainly agrees that undocumented parents of native-born children can be deported for violating immigration laws at any time. So in what way are these immigrants and their children not subject to U.S. jurisdiction?The citizenship clause’s exception for those not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States applies only to children born to members of American Indian tribes and the children of diplomats, as Congress explained when drafting that language in 1866. In contrast with undocumented immigrants, both groups owe allegiance to a separate sovereign, and both are immune from certain state and federal laws. (Native Americans were granted birthright citizenship by federal statute in 1924.)As nonsensical as they are in an American context, Trump’s ideas didn’t come out of nowhere. In 1985, the law professor Peter Schuck and the political scientist Rogers Smith wrote an influential book, Citizenship Without Consent, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause did not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants. These scholars asserted that “immigration to the United States was entirely unregulated” before the 1870s, and so there was no such thing as an “illegal immigrant” and likewise no intent to grant birthright citizenship to their children. Many scholars and commentators, including some members of Congress, have repeated that same claim. In 2015, the law professor Lino Graglia testified before the House Judiciary Committee that “there were no illegal aliens in 1868 because there were no restrictions on immigration.” Then-Representative Raúl Labrador repeated the same point at that hearing, asserting as fact that there was “no illegal immigration when the Fourteenth Amendment came into being.” In an op-ed in June 2023, a former Department of Homeland Security policy adviser declared, “There were no immigrant parents living unlawfully in the United States” in the 19th century.These critics have their facts wrong. In a recent law-review article, the legal scholars Gabriel Chin and Paul Finkelman explained that for decades, Africans were illegally brought to the United States as slaves even after Congress outlawed the international slave trade in 1808, making them the “illegal aliens” of their day. The nation was well aware of that problem. Government efforts to shut down the slave trade and deport illegally imported enslaved people were widely reported throughout the years leading up to the Civil War. Yet no one credible, then or now, would argue that the children of those slaves were to be excluded from the citizenship clause—a constitutional provision intended to overrule Dred Scott v. Sandford by giving U.S. citizenship to the 4.5 million Black people then living in the United States.[Read: Birthright citizenship wasn’t born in America]Even so, these ideas have gained traction in the right-wing legal community—a group that will be empowered in Trump’s next term. The Fifth Circuit judge James C. Ho, who is regularly floated as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court, recently said in an interview that children of “invading aliens” are not citizens, because “birthright citizenship obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion”—a reversal of his previous position on this issue. (This is the judicial equivalent of shouting, “Pick me! Pick me!”) Never mind that undocumented immigrants—a majority of whom entered the United States legally and then overstayed their visa—don’t qualify as invaders under any definition of the word. And never mind that there is no support for that idea in either the Constitution’s text or its history. In 1866, Senator Cowan opposed granting citizenship to the children of the “flood” of Chinese immigrants into California, as well as to Gypsy “invaders” of his own state. His colleagues pointed out that the only invasion of Pennsylvania was by Confederate soldiers a few years before. Birthright citizenship, they explained, would ensure that the United States would never revert back to the slave society that the Confederates invaded Pennsylvania to preserve.In truth, all of these baseless arguments are window dressing for the real goal. The Fourteenth Amendment’s overarching purpose was to end a caste system in which some people had more rights under the law than others. To be sure, that ideal has always been a work in progress. But many opponents of birthright citizenship don’t even hold out that ideal as a goal; they would rather bring caste back, and enshrine it in our laws.If birthright citizenship were to end tomorrow for children without at least one parent who was a citizen or lawful permanent resident, it would bar from citizenship hundreds of thousands of people each year. These people wouldn’t be eligible to participate in our democracy, and they would be forced to live and work in the shadows, as would their children and their children’s children. The end of birthright citizenship would create a caste of millions of un-Americans, locked in perpetuity into an inferior, exploitable status. Ironically, if Trump were to succeed in ending birthright citizenship, he would preside over the most dramatic increase of undocumented immigrants in U.S. history.That brings us to the third question: Would five members of the Supreme Court uphold Trump’s proposed executive order?No sitting justice has addressed this question directly. At his confirmation hearing in 2006, Justice Samuel Alito was asked whether he thought the children of undocumented immigrants qualified for birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. He refused to answer on the grounds that a future case might come before him, but he also observed: “It may turn out to be a very simple question. It may turn out to be a complicated question. Without studying the question, I don’t know.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett declined to respond to the same question for the same reason. (These two justices also dodged questions about whether they would overturn Roe v. Wade on those grounds.) The Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, an expert on the Supreme Court, believes that, at most, “two” or “maybe … even three justices” on the current Court would vote to end birthright citizenship. But all it takes is five, and the Court’s composition may well change. Trump appointed three justices during his first term in office, and he could appoint a few more before the end of his second. It is they who will have the last word.

What’s all the fuss about? 

The state legislature could change how prosecutors share evidence with defense lawyers in criminal cases, after district attorneys griped that so-called reforms passed in 2019 are leading to more dismissals.

The Biden administration has been pushing to clear Guantánamo of detainees, of which there are now 15 remaining.

As the top recipients of H-1B skilled worker visas, Indians have been incensed by MAGA criticism over the program.

As Lopez's marriage to Ben Affleck reaches its final stages, Newsweek looks back on the star's past unions.

The couple went viral after showing how they found a building they had no idea they owned hidden in their backyard.

President Trump is right to review each January 6 case carefully, but those who were punished in violation of due process deserve pardons.

The bodies were found during a routine inspection after the plane landed.

The disgraced Duke of York, 64, used the pseudonym "Andrew Inverness" to set up four companies over two decades ago.

King Frederik appeared to send a coded warning to Donald Trump over the territory, which the incoming president wants to buy.

His resignation and refusal to go down with the ship of his own party at the polls, shows us once again that Trudeau is in fact afraid of his own citizens.

Former Vice President Mike Pence called it "particularly admirable" for Vice President Kamala Harris to preside over the certification of the presidential contest in which she was defeated

King Charles III's charity boss was found to have made "serious" failures by a regulator after an investigation.

Trudeau's resignation has shaken up Canadian politics, but experts say it will have little impact on Donald Trump's trade agenda.

The podcast host complained that "every five minutes" he was "bombarded" with pharmaceutical drug commercials while watching the movie.

Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple took a swipe at a new policy from the paper's leadership that discourages coverage of organization when it is in the news.

Our snowiest event in three years is behind us. But lots of sun, wind and cold are ahead of us.

Ukrainian troops in Kursk killed eight North Korean soldiers using drones, and five in a gunbattle, Kyiv said.

Ukrainian paratroopers ran out of ammunition "after heavy fighting," Kyiv's military said.

The early morning shootout happened during a joint patrol by police and the military in Guanajuato.

A Real Pain will make its streaming debut on Hulu on January 16.