Donald Trump’s military parade in Washington this weekend — a show of force in the capital that just happens to take place on the president’s birthday — smacks of authoritarian Dear Leader-style politics (even though Trump actually got the idea after attending the 2017 Bastille Day parade in Paris).Yet as disconcerting as the imagery of tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue will be, it’s not even close to Trump’s most insidious assault on the US military’s historic and democratically essential nonpartisan ethos.In fact, it’s not even the most worrying thing he’s done this week.On Tuesday, the president gave a speech at Fort Bragg, an Army base home to Special Operations Command. While presidential speeches to soldiers are not uncommon — rows of uniformed troops make a great backdrop for a foreign policy speech — they generally avoid overt partisan attacks and campaign-style rhetoric. The soldiers, for their part, are expected to be studiously neutral, laughing at jokes and such, but remaining fully impassive during any policy conversation.That’s not what happened at Fort Bragg. Trump’s speech was a partisan tirade that targeted “radical left” opponents ranging from Joe Biden to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. He celebrated his deployment of Marines to Los Angeles, proposed jailing people for burning the American flag, and called on soldiers to be “aggressive” toward the protesters they encountered.The soldiers, for their part, cheered Trump and booed his enemies — as they were seemingly expected to. Reporters at Military.com, a military news service, uncovered internal communications from 82nd Airborne leadership suggesting that the crowd was screened for their political opinions.“If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” one note read.To call this unusual is an understatement. I spoke with four different experts on civil-military relations, two of whom teach at the Naval War College, about the speech and its implications. To a person, they said it was a step towards politicizing the military with no real precedent in modern American history.“That is, I think, a really big red flag because it means the military’s professional ethic is breaking down internally,” says Risa Brooks, a professor at Marquette University. “Its capacity to maintain that firewall against civilian politicization may be faltering.”This may sound alarmist — like an overreading of a one-off incident — but it’s part of a bigger pattern. The totality of Trump administration policies, ranging from the parade in Washington to the LA troop deployment to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s firing of high-ranking women and officers of color, suggests a concerted effort to erode the military’s professional ethos and turn it into an institution subservient to the Trump administration’s whims. This is a signal policy aim of would-be dictators, who wish to head off the risk of a coup and ensure the armed forces’ political reliability if they are needed to repress dissent in a crisis.Steve Saideman, a professor at Carleton University, put together a list of eight different signs that a military is being politicized in this fashion. The Trump administration has exhibited six out of the eight.“The biggest theme is that we are seeing a number of checks on the executive fail at the same time — and that’s what’s making individual events seem more alarming than they might otherwise,” says Jessica Blankshain, a professor at the Naval War College (speaking not for the military but in a personal capacity).That Trump is trying to politicize the military does not mean he has succeeded. There are several signs, including Trump’s handpicked chair of the Joint Chiefs repudiating the president’s claims of a migrant invasion during congressional testimony, that the US military is resisting Trump’s politicization.But the events in Fort Bragg and Washington suggest that we are in the midst of a quiet crisis in civil-military relations in the United States — one whose implications for American democracy’s future could well be profound.The Trump crisis in civil-military relations, explainedA military is, by sheer fact of its existence, a threat to any civilian government. If you have an institution that controls the overwhelming bulk of weaponry in a society, it always has the physical capacity to seize control of the government at gunpoint. A key question for any government is how to convince the armed forces that they cannot or should not take power for themselves.Democracies typically do this through a process called “professionalization.” Soldiers are rigorously taught to think of themselves as a class of public servants, people trained to perform a specific job within defined parameters. Their ultimate loyalty is not to their generals or even individual presidents, but rather to the people and the constitutional order.Samuel Huntington, the late Harvard political scientist, is the canonical theorist of a professional military. In his book The Soldier and the State, he described optimal professionalization as a system of “objective control”: one in which the military retains autonomy in how they fight and plan for wars while deferring to politicians on whether and why to fight in the first place. In effect, they stay out of the politicians’ affairs while the politicians stay out of theirs.The idea of such a system is to emphasize to the military that they are professionals: Their responsibility isn’t deciding when to use force, but only to conduct operations as effectively as possible once ordered to engage in them. There is thus a strict firewall between military affairs, on the one hand, and policy-political affairs on the other.Typically, the chief worry is that the military breaches this bargain: that, for example, a general starts speaking out against elected officials’ policies in ways that undermine civilian control. This is not a hypothetical fear in the United States, with the most famous such example being Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination during the Korean War. Thankfully, not even MacArthur attempted the worst-case version of military overstep — a coup.But in backsliding democracies like the modern United States, where the chief executive is attempting an anti-democratic power grab, the military poses a very different kind of threat to democracy — in fact, something akin to the exact opposite of the typical scenario.In such cases, the issue isn’t the military inserting itself into politics but rather the civilians dragging them into it in ways that upset the democratic political order. The worst-case scenario is that the military acts on presidential directives to use force against domestic dissenters, destroying democracy not by ignoring civilian orders, but by following them.There are two ways to arrive at such a worst-case scenario, both of which are in evidence in the early days of Trump 2.0.First is politicization: an intentional attack on the constraints against partisan activity inside the professional ranks.Many of Pete Hegseth’s major moves as secretary of defense fit this bill, including his decisions to fire nonwhite and female generals seen as politically unreliable and his effort to undermine the independence of the military’s lawyers. The breaches in protocol at Fort Bragg are both consequences and causes of politicization: They could only happen in an environment of loosened constraint, and they might encourage more overt political action if gone unpunished.The second pathway to breakdown is the weaponization of professionalism against itself. Here, Trump exploits the military’s deference to politicians by ordering it to engage in undemocratic (and even questionably legal) activities. In practice, this looks a lot like the LA deployments, and, more specifically, the lack of any visible military pushback. While the military readily agreeing to deployments is normally a good sign — that civilian control is holding — these aren’t normal times. And this isn’t a normal deployment, but rather one that comes uncomfortably close to the military being ordered to assist in repressing overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations against executive abuses of power.“It’s really been pretty uncommon to use the military for law enforcement,” says David Burbach, another Naval War College professor (also speaking personally). “This is really bringing the military into frontline law enforcement when. … these are really not huge disturbances.”This, then, is the crisis: an incremental and slow-rolling effort by the Trump administration to erode the norms and procedures designed to prevent the military from being used as a tool of domestic repression. Is it time to panic?Among the experts I spoke with, there was consensus that the military’s professional and nonpartisan ethos was weakening. This isn’t just because of Trump, but his terms — the first to a degree, and now the second acutely — are major stressors.Yet there was no consensus on just how much military nonpartisanship has eroded — that is, how close we are to a moment when the US military might be willing to follow obviously authoritarian orders.For all its faults, the US military’s professional ethos is a really important part of its identity and self-conception. While few soldiers may actually read Sam Huntington or similar scholars, the general idea that they serve the people and the republic is a bedrock principle among the ranks. There is a reason why the United States has never, in over 250 years of governance, experienced a military coup — or even come particularly close to one.In theory, this ethos should also galvanize resistance to Trump’s efforts at politicization. Soldiers are not unthinking automatons: While they are trained to follow commands, they are explicitly obligated to refuse illegal orders, even coming from the president. The more aggressive Trump’s efforts to use the military as a tool of repression gets, the more likely there is to be resistance.Or, at least theoretically.The truth is that we don’t really know how the US military will respond to a situation like this. Like so many of Trump’s second-term policies, their efforts to bend the military to their will are unprecedented — actions with no real parallel in the modern history of the American military. Experts can only make informed guesses, based on their sense of US military culture as well as comparisons to historical and foreign cases.For this reason, there are probably only two things we can say with confidence.First, what we’ve seen so far is not yet sufficient evidence to declare that the military is in Trump’s thrall. The signs of decay are too limited to ground any conclusions that the longstanding professional norm is entirely gone.“We have seen a few things that are potentially alarming about erosion of the military’s non-partisan norm. But not in a way that’s definitive at this point,” Blankshain says.Second, the stressors on this tradition are going to keep piling on. Trump’s record makes it exceptionally clear that he wants the military to serve him personally — and that he, and Hegseth, will keep working to make it so. This means we really are in the midst of a quiet crisis, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.“The fact that he’s getting the troops to cheer for booing Democratic leaders at a time when there’s actually [a deployment to] a blue city and a blue state…he is ordering the troops to take a side,” Saideman says. “There may not be a coherent plan behind this. But there are a lot of things going on that are all in the same direction.”See More: Politics

On November 4, 2003, a doctor gave Jon Gluck some of the worst news imaginable: He had cancer — one that later tests would reveal as multiple myeloma, a severe blood and bone marrow cancer. Jon was told he might have as little as 18 months to live. He was 38, a thriving magazine editor in New York with a 7-month-old daughter whose third birthday, he suddenly realized, he might never see.“The moment after I was told I had cancer, I just said ‘no, no, no,’” Jon told me in an interview just last week. “This cannot be true.”Living in remissionThe fact that Jon is still here, talking to me in 2025, tells you that things didn’t go the way the medical data would have predicted on that November morning. He has lived with his cancer, through waves of remission and recurrence, for more than 20 years, an experience he chronicles with grace and wit in his new book An Exercise in Uncertainty. That 7-month-old daughter is now in college.RelatedWhy do so many young people suddenly have cancer?You could say Jon has beaten the odds, and he’s well aware that chance played some role in his survival. (“Did you know that ‘Glück’ is German for ‘luck’?” he writes in the book, noting his good fortune that a random spill on the ice is what sent him to the doctor in the first place, enabling them to catch his cancer early.) Cancer is still a terrible health threat, one that is responsible for 1 in 6 deaths around the world, killing nearly 10 million people a year globally and over 600,000 people a year in the US. But Jon’s story and his survival demonstrate something that is too often missed: We’ve turned the tide in the war against cancer. The age-adjusted death rate in the US for cancer has declined by about a third since 1991, meaning people of a given age have about a third lower risk of dying from cancer than people of the same age more than three decades ago. That adds up to over 4 million fewer cancer deaths over that time period. Thanks to breakthroughs in treatments like autologous stem-cell harvesting and CAR-T therapy — breakthroughs Jon himself benefited from, often just in time — cancer isn’t the death sentence it once was.Our World in DataGetting better all the timeThere’s no doubt that just as the rise of smoking in the 20th century led to a major increase in cancer deaths, the equally sharp decline of tobacco use eventually led to a delayed decrease. Smoking is one of the most potent carcinogens in the world, and at the peak in the early 1960s, around 12 cigarettes were being sold per adult per day in the US. Take away the cigarettes and — after a delay of a couple of decades — lung cancer deaths drop in turn along with other non-cancer smoking-related deaths.But as Saloni Dattani wrote in a great piece earlier this year, even before the decline of smoking, death rates from non-lung cancers in the stomach and colon had begun to fall. Just as notably, death rates for childhood cancers — which for obvious reasons are not connected to smoking and tend to be caused by genetic mutations — have fallen significantly as well, declining sixfold since 1950. In the 1960s, for example, only around 10 percent of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia survived more than five years. Today it’s more than 90 percent. And the five-year survival rate for all cancers has risen from 49 percent in the mid-1970s to 69 percent in 2019. We’ve made strikes against the toughest of cancers, like Jon’s multiple myeloma. Around when Jon was diagnosed, the five-year survival rate was just 34 percent. Today it’s as high as 62 percent, and more and more people like Jon are living for decades. “There has been a revolution in cancer survival,” Jon told me. “Some illnesses now have far more successful therapies than others, but the gains are real.”Three cancer revolutions The dramatic bend in the curve of cancer deaths didn’t happen by accident — it’s the compound interest of three revolutions.While anti-smoking policy has been the single biggest lifesaver, other interventions have helped reduce people’s cancer risk. One of the biggest successes is the HPV vaccine. A study last year found that death rates of cervical cancer — which can be caused by HPV infections — in US women ages 20–39 had dropped 62 percent from 2012 to 2021, thanks largely to the spread of the vaccine. Other cancers have been linked to infections, and there is strong research indicating that vaccination can have positive effects on reducing cancer incidence. The next revolution is better and earlier screening. It’s generally true that the earlier cancer is caught, the better the chances of survival, as Jon’s own story shows. According to one study, incidences of late-stage colorectal cancer in Americans over 50 declined by a third between 2000 and 2010 in large part because rates of colonoscopies almost tripled in that same time period. And newer screening methods, often employing AI or using blood-based tests, could make preliminary screening simpler, less invasive and therefore more readily available. If 20th-century screening was about finding physical evidence of something wrong — the lump in the breast — 21st-century screening aims to find cancer before symptoms even arise.Most exciting of all are frontier developments in treating cancer, much of which can be tracked through Jon’s own experience. From drugs like lenalidomide and bortezomib in the 2000s, which helped double median myeloma survival, to the spread of monoclonal antibodies, real breakthroughs in treatments have meaningfully extended people’s lives — not just by months, but years.Perhaps the most promising development is CAR-T therapy, a form of immunotherapy. Rather than attempting to kill the cancer directly, immunotherapies turn a patient’s own T-cells into guided missiles. In a recent study of 97 patients with multiple myeloma, many of whom were facing hospice care, a third of those who received CAR-T therapy had no detectable cancer five years later. It was the kind of result that doctors rarely see. “CAR-T is mind-blowing — very science-fiction futuristic,” Jon told me. He underwent his own course of treatment with it in mid-2023 and writes that the experience, which put his cancer into a remission he’s still in, left him feeling “physically and metaphysically new.”A welcome uncertaintyWhile there are still more battles to be won in the war on cancer, and there are certain areas — like the rising rates of gastrointestinal cancers among younger people — where the story isn’t getting better, the future of cancer treatment is improving. For cancer patients like Jon, that can mean a new challenge — enduring the essential uncertainty that comes with living under a disease that’s controllable but which could always come back. But it sure beats the alternative.“I’ve come to trust so completely in my doctors and in these new developments,” he said. “I try to remain cautiously optimistic that my future will be much like the last 20 years.” And that’s more than he or anyone else could have hoped for nearly 22 years ago. A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More: Health

Apple — and almost everybody else — has gotten a slight reprieve as a US court yesterday set aside the Trump tariff tax. But conflict and confusion continue to batter global trade, and while the news will provide a glimmer of relief, it will probably be short-lived. There’s always another dead cat to throw into the flames. Three judges from the US Court of International Trade found that the US International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which the Trump administration invoked to justify the imposition of these tariffs, does not give the president the authority to levy these taxes on trade. “The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder,” they wrote. The judgement does not impact the 25% “trafficking tariffs” imposed on Mexican and Canadian products and does not prevent the 20% trafficking tariff in place on Chinese goods. It does, however, end the “worldwide and retaliatory” 10-50% tariffs the administration threw at 57 countries. A coalition of small businesses took the case to court, arguing that only Congress has the authority to levy tariffs under the law used by the president’s office. They seem to have prevailed in the argument — at least, so far. It is interesting to note that the administration wanted all the tariff-related lawsuits moved to this particular court, as it felt it would receptive to the administration’s arguments.  This turned out to be an error. What is an emergency? Responding, a White House statement from spokesperson Kush Desai maintained the need for these tariffs, calling US trade deficits a “national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”  But can a trade in cheap consumer goods be seen as an unusual threat after it has been part of US culture for decades? Not according to the US Court of International Trade. The judges say the trade deficit does not meet the Nixon-era International Emergency Economic Powers Act requirement that an emergency can only be triggered by an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”  The journey is by no means over, of course. With the president recently threatening additional tariffs on iPhones made in India (“I have a bit of a problem with my friend, Tim Cook”), the reprieve may be brief.  Desai’s statement said “unelected judges” are not the right people to decide how to handle what he calls a national emergency. “The administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness.”  It seems likely to end at the Supreme Court, even while the administration argues that it should not be bound by the checks and balances that still remain under the US Constitution. For now, an appeal has been lodged with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington.  Where is the off-ramp? Apple, the world’s biggest consumer electronics company, which contributes a fortune to the US treasury and employs tens of thousands of Americans, will likely be relieved the tariffs have been set aside.  The reprieve implies that US consumers won’t need to pay more for their iPhones for a little longer yet and better reflects the reality that even if Apple were to shift iPhone manufacturing to the US, doing so would take years, cost billions, require engineering skills in quantities that do not yet exist in the US, would involve automation rather than large numbers of new jobs, and would be hampered by the availability of components and materials.  For the time being, at least, the judgment is a significant obstacle to the tariff taxes, albeit one that casts another spanner in the works for ongoing international trade talks. However, there is still scope for the administration to impose sector-specific taxes. All the same, “Tim Apple” will be acutely aware that the future will not look like the past, and the company’s $500 billion investment in the US will be part of the company’s future approach to manufacturing and trade. It suggests that while moving iPhone manufacturing to the US may be impractical, moving manufacture of some components and hardware may make sense. It is possible that as Apple and the US administration continue to negotiate, they may yet identify a road that enables both to declare some form of victory. You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, and Mastodon.

Air travel is such a common part of modern life that it’s easy to forget all the miraculous technology and communication infrastructure required to do it safely. But recent crashes, including near Washington, DC, and in San Diego — not to mention multiple near misses — have left many fliers wondering: Is it still safe to fly?That concern is particularly acute at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey, which has recently experienced several frightening incidents and near misses in as radio and radar systems have gone dark. This has left an under-staffed and overworked group of air traffic controllers to manage a system moving at a frenetic pace with no room for error.Andrew Tangel, an aviation reporter for the Wall Street Journal, recently spoke to Jonathan Stewart, a Newark air traffic controller. In early May, Stewart experienced a brief loss of the systems showing him the locations of the many planes was directing. When the systems came back online, he realized there’d almost been a major crash.According to Tangel, Stewart “sent off a fiery memo to his managers, complaining about how he was put in that situation, which he felt he was being set up for failure.” Stewart now is taking trauma leave because of the stresses of the job. After many delayed flights, United Airlines just announced that it will move some of its flights to nearby John F. Kennedy International Airport. To understand how we arrived at our current aviation crisis, Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram spoke with Darryl Campbell, an aviation safety writer for The Verge.Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. You recently wrote about all these issues with flying for The Verge — and your take was that this isn’t just a Newark, New Jersey, problem. It’s systemic. Why?You’ve probably seen some of the news articles about it, and it’s really only in the last couple months because everybody’s been paying attention to aviation safety that people are really saying, Oh my gosh!Newark airport is losing the ability to see airplanes. They’re losing radar for minutes at a time, and that’s not something you want to hear when you have airplanes flying towards each other at 300 miles an hour. So it is rightfully very concerning. But the thing is, what’s been happening at Newark has actually been happening for almost a decade and a half in fits and starts. It’ll get really bad, and then it’ll get better again. Now we’re seeing a combination of air traffic control problems; we’re seeing a combination of infrastructure problems, and they’ve got a runway that’s entirely shut down. And the way that I think about it is, while Newark is its own special case today, all of the problems that it’s facing, other than the runway, are problems that every single airport in the entire country is going to be facing over the next five to 10 years, and so we’re really getting a preview of what’s going to happen if we don’t see some drastic change in the way that the air traffic control system is maintained.We heard about some of these issues after the crash at DCA outside Washington. What exactly is going on with air traffic controllers?The first problem is just one of staff retention and training. On the one hand, the air traffic control system and the people who work there are a pretty dedicated bunch, but it takes a long time to get to the point where you’re actually entrusted with airplanes. It can be up to four years of training from the moment that you decide, Okay, I want to be an air traffic controller. Couple that with the fact that these are government employees and like many other agencies, they haven’t really gotten the cost-of-living increases to keep pace with the actual cost of living, especially in places like the New York and New Jersey area, where it’s just gone up way faster than in the rest of the country.This is bad at Newark, but you say it promises to get bad everywhere else too. The cost of living is still outpacing the replacement level at a lot of these air traffic control centers. And the washout rate is pretty high. We’ve seen the average staffing level at a lot of American airports get down below 85, 80 percent, which is really where the FAA wants it to be, and it’s getting worse over time. At Newark in particular, it’s down to about 58 percent as of the first quarter of this year. This is an emergency level of staffing at a baseline. And then on top of that, you have — in order to keep the airplanes going — people working mandatory overtime, mandatory six-days-a-week shifts, and that’s accelerating that burnout that naturally happens. There’s a lot of compression and a lot of bad things happening independently, but all at the same time in that kind of labor system that’s really making it difficult to both hire and retain qualified air traffic controllers.These sound like very fixable problems, Darryl. Are we trying to fix them? I know former reality TV star and Fox News correspondent — and transportation secretary, in this day and age — Sean Duffy has been out to Newark. He said this: “What we are going to do when we get the money. We have the plan. We actually have to build a brand new state-of-the-art, air traffic control system.”To his credit, they have announced some improvements on it. They’ve announced a lot of new funding for the FAA. They’ve announced an acceleration of hiring, but it’s just a short-term fix. To put it in context, the FAA’s budget usually allocates about $1.7 billion in maintenance fees every year. And so they’ve announced a couple billion more dollars, but their backlog already is $5.2 billion in maintenance. And these are things like replacing outdated systems, replacing buildings that are housing some of these radars, things that you really need to just get the system to where it should be operating today, let alone get ahead of the maintenance things that are going to happen over the next couple of years. It’s really this fight between the FAA and Congress to say, We’re going to do a lot today to fix these problems.And it works for a little while, but then three years down the road, the same problems are still occurring. You got that one-time shot of new money, but then the government cuts back again and again and again. And then you’re just putting out one fire, but not addressing the root cause of why there’s all this dry powder everywhere.People are canceling their flights into or out of Newark, but there are also all these smaller accidents we’re seeing, most recently in San Diego, where six people were killed when a Cessna crashed.How should people be feeling about that?There’s really no silver bullet and all the choices are not great to actively bad at baseline. Number one is you get the government to pay what it actually costs to run the air traffic control system. That empirically has not happened for decades, so I don’t know that we’re going to get to do it, especially under this administration, which is focused on cutting costs.The second thing is to pass on fees to fliers themselves. And it’s just like the conversation that Walmart’s having with tariffs — they don’t want to do it. When they try to pass it on to the customer, President Trump yells at them, and it’s just not a great situation. The third option is to reduce the number of flights in the sky. Part of this is that airlines are competing to have the most flights, the most convenient schedules, the most options. That’s led to this logjam at places like Newark, where you really have these constraints on it. Right before all of this stuff happens, Newark was serving about 80 airplanes an hour, so 80 landings and takeoffs. Today, the FAA’s actually started to admit restrictions on it, and now it’s closer to 56 flights an hour, and that’s probably the level that it can actually handle and not have these issues where you have planes in danger.But no airline wants to hear, Hey, you have to cut your flight schedule. We saw that with United: Their CEO was saying that the air traffic controllers who took trauma leave had “walked off the job,” which seemed to suggest that he didn’t think they should be taking trauma leave because you have to have more planes coming in. That’s a competitive disadvantage for him, but you also have to balance safety. It’s difficult to understand. It costs a lot of money to fix. This is your textbook “why governments fail” case study and it’s not really reassuring that in 24 hours I’m going to be in the middle of it again, trying to fly out of Newark.See More:

Women weren’t allowed to officially serve in combat jobs when Emelie Vanasse started her ROTC program at George Washington University. Instead, she used her biology degree to serve as a medical officer — but it still bothered Vanasse to be shut out of something just because she was a woman. “I always felt like, who really has the audacity to tell me that I can’t be in combat arms? I’m resilient, I am tough, I can make decisions in stressful environments,” Vanasse said.By 2015, the Obama administration opened all combat jobs to women, despite a plea from senior leaders in the Marine Corps to keep certain frontline units male only. Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters that, “We cannot afford to cut ourselves off from half the country’s talents and skills.”The policy change meant that women could attend Ranger school, the training ground for the Army Rangers, an elite special operations infantry unit. When Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver became the first women to graduate from the school in 2015, Vanasse taped their photos to her desk and swore she would be next, no matter what it took. She went on to become one of the first women to serve as an Army infantry officer and graduated from Ranger school in 2017. After the Pentagon integrated women into combat jobs, the services developed specific fitness standards for jobs like infantry and armor with equal standards for men and women. Special operations and other highly specialized units require additional qualification courses that are also gender-neutral. To continue past the first day of Ranger school, candidates must pass the Ranger Physical Fitness test, for which there is only one standard. Only the semi-annual fitness tests that service members take, which vary by branch, are scaled for age and gender.Despite that, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has continued to insist that the standards were lowered for combat roles. In a podcast interview in November, Hegseth said, “We’ve changed the standards in putting [women in combat], which means you’ve changed the capability of that unit.” (Despite Hegseth’s remark, many women worked alongside male infantry units in Iraq and Afghanistan, facing the same dangerous conditions.)In the same interview, Hegseth said that he didn’t believe women should serve in combat roles.In March, Hegseth ordered the military services to make the basic fitness standards for all combat jobs gender-neutral. The Army is the first service to comply: Beginning June 1, most combat specialties will require women to meet the male standard for basic physical fitness, something most women serving in active-duty combat roles are already able to do.Vanasse told Noel King on Today, Explained what it was like to attend Ranger School at a time when some men didn’t want to see a woman in the ranks. What is Ranger School?I went to Ranger School on January 1, 2017. I woke up at 3 am that day in Fort Benning, Georgia, shaved my head, a quarter-inch all the way around, just like the men. Took my last hot shower, choked down some French toast, and then I drove to Camp Rogers, and I remember being very acutely aware of the pain that the school would inflict, both physically and mentally. I was also very aware that there was kind of half of this population of objective graders that just kind of hated my guts for even showing up. They hated you for showing up because you’re a woman?Back in 2016 and 2017, it was so new to have women in Ranger School. I used to think, I don’t have to just be good, I have to be lucky. I have to get a grader who is willing to let a woman pass. I had dark times at that school. I tasted real failure. I sat under a poncho in torrential rain and I shivered so hard my whole body cramped. I put on a ruck that weighed 130 pounds and I crawled up a mountain on my hands and knees. I hallucinated a donut shop in the middle of the Appalachian Mountains and I cried one morning when someone told me I had to get out of my sleeping bag. But I think all of those experiences are quintessential Ranger School experiences. They’re what everyone goes through there. And I think the point of the school is that failure, that suffering, it’s not inherently bad, right? In a way, I like to think Ranger School was the most simplistic form of gender integration that ever could have happened because if I was contributing to the team, there was no individual out there that really had the luxury of disliking or excluding me. When you wanted to give up, what did you tell yourself? What was going through your head? I don’t think I ever considered quitting Ranger School. I just knew that it was something that I could get through and had the confidence to continue. I had a thought going in of What could be so bad that would make me quit? and the answer that I found throughout the school was, Nothing. Did you ever feel like they had lowered the standards for you compared to the men who were alongside you?No. Never. I did the same thing that the men did. I did the same Ranger physical fitness test that all the men took. I ran five miles in 40 minutes. I did 49 pushups, 59 situps, six pullups. I rucked 12 miles in three hours with a 45-pound ruck. I climbed the same mountains. I carried the same stuff. I carried the same exact packing list they did, plus 250 tampons for some reason. At no point were the standards lowered for me. Whose idea was it for you to carry 250 tampons? It was not mine! It was a misguided effort to have everyone very prepared for the first women coming through Ranger School.In Ranger School, there’s only one standard for the fitness test. Everybody has to meet it, and that allows you to get out of Ranger School and say, “Look, fellas, I took the same test as the men and I passed.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is saying that Army combat jobs should only have one standard of fitness for both men and women. And there’s part of me that thinks: Doesn’t that allow the women who meet the standards to be like, look, We met the same standards as the men. Nothing suspicious here, guys. I think gender-neutral standards for combat arms are very important. It should not be discounted how important physical fitness is for combat arms. I think there’s nuance in determining what is a standard that is useful for combat arms, right? But it’s an important thing. And there have been gender-neutral standards for combat arms. In things like Infantry Basic Officer Leader Course, which is the initial basic training for officers going into the infantry, there are gender-neutral standards that you have to meet: You have to run five miles in 40 minutes, you have to do a 12-mile ruck. All of those standards have remained the same. Pete Hegseth is specifically referring to the Army Combat Physical Fitness test, and to a certain extent I agree, it should be gender-neutral for combat arms. But I think there’s nuance in determining what exactly combat arms entails physically.Secretary Hegseth has a lot to say about women, and sometimes he says it directly and sometimes he alludes to it. What he often does is he talks about lethality as something that is critically important for the military. He says the Army in particular needs more of it, but he never really defines what he means by lethality. What is the definition as you understand it? There’s a component of lethality that is physical fitness and it should not be discounted. But lethality extends far beyond that, right? It’s tactical skills, it’s decision-making, it’s leadership, it’s grit, it’s the ability to build trust and instill purpose and a group of people. It’s how quick a fire team in my platoon can react to contact. How well my SAW [Squad Automatic Weapon] gunner can shoot, how quickly I can employ and integrate combat assets, how fast I can maneuver a squad. All of those things take physical fitness, but they certainly take more than just physical fitness. There’s more to lethality than just how fast you can run and how many pushups you can do.To an average civilian like myself, I hear lethality and I think of the dictionary definition, the ability to kill. Does this definition of lethality involve the ability, physically and emotionally and psychologically, to kill another person? Absolutely. And so when Secretary Hegseth casts doubt on the ability of women to be as lethal as men, do you think there’s some stuff baked in there that maybe gets to his idea of what women are willing and able to do?Yes, possibly. I think the [secretary’s] message is pretty clear. According to him, the women in combat arms achieved success because the standards were lowered for them. We were never accommodated and the standards were never lowered.What’s your response, then, to hearing the Secretary of Defense say women don’t belong in combat? It makes me irate, to be honest. Like, it’s just a complete discounting of all of the accomplishments of the women that came before us. Do you think that if Secretary Hegseth could take a look at what you did in Ranger School, and he could hear from you that there were no second chances, there were no excuses, there was no babying, the men didn’t treat you nicer just because you were a woman, do you think he’d change his mind about women serving in combat? I’d like to think he would, but I’ve met plenty of people whose minds couldn’t be changed by reality. I’d love it if he went to Ranger School. He has a lot of opinions about Ranger School for someone who does not have his Ranger tab.What is a Ranger tab, for civilians? A Ranger tab is what you receive upon graduating Ranger School, which means you have passed all three phases and you are now Ranger-qualified in the military.You have that. And the Secretary of Defense doesn’t. He does not, though he has a lot of opinions about Ranger School.See More:

Nature, Published online: 30 May 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01653-4Mutation in an enzyme leads to resistance to chronic and acute pain, according to research in mice.

Menu Home News Hardware Gaming Mobile Finance Deals Reviews How To Wccftech Gaming Ubisoft Seemingly Teasing More Splinter Cell Remake News Is Coming Soon David Carcasole • May 30, 2025 at 10:10am EDT We've heard next to nothing about the Splinter Cell Remake since Ubisoft confirmed the remake was coming after years of waiting for Ubisoft to even say that they are bringing the series back. Last August, a sly comment from the managing director at Ubisoft Toronto, the studio that's leading development on the Splinter Cell Remake, amounted to Ubisoft saying they had nothing to say at the time. That was the last time we heard anything directly from Ubisoft about the coming remake. Today, however, Splinter Cell was brought up again, through the company's account on X. The post is just a photo of Sam Fisher, not from the original 2002 game, but from 2005's Chaos Theory, captioned with emoticons making a face and a Splinter Cell hashtag. The image's alt-text reads "Close-up of Sam Fisher from Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, showing a stern expression with focused eyes, short dark hair, and a rugged beard, set against a blurred high-tech background. He's locked in." Summer Game Fest is around the corner, and interestingly, Ubisoft is not included in the recent image showcasing the partners for this year's show. Keighley also claimed that this year's show has 60+ partners, but the image and the website only list 57. This was likely purposeful, for Ubisoft to announce its involvement in Summer Game Fest separately with a yet-to-be-announced Ubisoft Forward event sometime during the SGF weekend. That's all just speculation, but with how vocal Splinter Cell fans have been about asking for a return of the series, the company has to be acutely aware of the impact even mentioning Splinter Cell has. It's not likely that Sam Fisher would show up a week ahead of SGF if Ubisoft didn't have something to show regarding the Splinter Cell Remake. Hopefully, we'll get an announcement soon that Ubisoft does have something Splinter Cell Remake-related to show. Subscribe to get an everyday digest of the latest technology news in your inbox Follow us on Topics Sections Company Some posts on wccftech.com may contain affiliate links. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com © 2025 WCCF TECH INC. 700 - 401 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Masterplan & Sports Complex La Paz | © Jaime Navarro In La Paz, Baja California Sur, the transformation of El Cajoncito, a neglected dry riverbed central to the city’s stormwater system, marks a strategic urban intervention led by CCA | Bernardo Quinzaños. The Masterplan La Paz addresses the fragmented nature of the city’s spatial fabric by reconceiving this infrastructural void as a connective civic spine. The project is not merely about landscape or recreation; it functions as an integrated ecological, hydrological, and social framework. Masterplan & Sports Complex La Paz Technical Information Architects1-6: CCA | Bernardo Quinzaños Location: La Paz, Baja California Sur, México Gross Area: 22,727 m2 | 245,000 Sq. Ft. Completion Year: 2025 Photographs: © Jaime Navarro We envisioned the Masterplan La Paz not just as infrastructure, but as a catalyst for social integration, where public space becomes a bridge between ecological resilience and community well-being. – Bernardo Quinzaños Masterplan & Sports Complex La Paz Photographs © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro © Jaime Navarro Reframing the Urban Void: Context and Design Intent The master plan is rooted in a clear intention: to bridge socio-spatial divides and enhance resilience in a region highly susceptible to seasonal flooding. El Cajoncito, which becomes impassable during the rainy season, historically reinforced urban disconnection. Residents of adjacent neighborhoods were required to circumvent it by traveling between four and eight kilometers despite the separation being no more than 200 meters. The master plan reconceives this gap not as a barrier but as an opportunity to integrate infrastructure and urban life. Informed by a collaborative process involving technical consultants, municipal authorities, and the local community, the project articulates infrastructure as a tool for civic repair. Public space, mobility, and water management are synthesized into a singular spatial proposal, creating a precedent for interventions in Latin American secondary cities facing similar socio-environmental challenges. Masterplan & Sports Complex La Paz Spatial Strategy At the heart of the project is a linear spatial strategy that reorients movement and redefines thresholds within the city. The Paseo Lineal, a continuous pedestrian and cycling path, forms the connective tissue of the master plan. Stretching from the city’s marina to the new sports complex, this spine is both infrastructural and ecological. It incorporates rainwater mitigation systems, shaded rest areas, and integrated bus shelters, creating a multimodal corridor that prioritizes non-motorized transport and public transit. A critical architectural gesture within this system is the bridge that spans El Cajoncito. It addresses the acute lack of connectivity by enabling direct, safe passage between neighborhoods, fundamentally altering local movement patterns. Rather than serving as an isolated object, the bridge is embedded in a network of social and ecological flows. The project avoids monofunctional zoning and instead embraces layered programming that intersperses recreational, cultural, and environmental uses. This pluralism is essential to its success as a public space. The spatial organization acknowledges the diversity of its users, from athletes and children to commuters and spectators, ensuring the infrastructure supports everyday and exceptional activities. Architectural Language and Material Intelligence The Conjunto Deportivo La Paz forms a key anchor of the master plan. Its architecture is defined by modularity, climatic responsiveness, and material economy. The baseball pavilions, arranged as four repeated units, are designed with variations in field size and complexity to accommodate a wide range of users, from young children to professional-level athletes. The modular approach streamlines construction while allowing for phased expansion. Material decisions respond directly to the site’s climatic conditions. Steel frames provide structural clarity and durability, while open facades and ridge vents enable passive cross-ventilation. Shaded seating areas and integrated benches serve spectators and athletes, offering thermal comfort in the region’s high temperatures. These elements are not ornamental but spatial devices rooted in environmental performance and user comfort. The multipurpose building further expands the programmatic scope. Two offset gabled volumes house classrooms, offices, a library, and spaces for cultural activities such as dance and music. The flexible structure supports simultaneous functions without formal separation and encourages informal overlaps and civic interaction. Its open-air double-height space is a community forum that blurs the boundary between the building and the plaza. The architectural language is intentionally restrained. The use of organic forms in certain shaded structures softens the sports complex’s visual rigidity and fosters a more approachable atmosphere without compromising programmatic clarity. Infrastructure as a Social Catalyst The project’s impact extends beyond physical infrastructure. By decentralizing public amenities, the masterplan challenges the historic concentration of civic life along La Paz’s malecón. The project redistributes access to recreation, culture, and mobility by repositioning investment in underrepresented neighborhoods. Since its opening, the sports complex has functioned as a venue and a civic platform. It accommodates various events, including tournaments and cultural festivals, activating the site throughout the day and seasons. Providing official-quality baseball fields is particularly significant in a city with a strong sporting culture but limited infrastructure. The center fosters intergenerational engagement and strengthens communal ties. The Masterplan La Paz exemplifies how architecture, when embedded in broader territorial and social strategies, can exceed form-making limits. It demonstrates that infrastructural projects, often perceived as technical or neutral, can instead serve as active instruments for equity, resilience, and civic expression. The work of CCA | Bernardo Quinzaños offers a thoughtful model for integrating architecture and landscape into the city’s life, not through spectacle but through the careful choreography of space, structure, and use. Masterplan & Sports Complex La Paz Plans Master Plan | © CCA I Bernardo Quinzaños Master Plan | © CCA I Bernardo Quinzaños Bridge Floor Plan | © CCA I Bernardo Quinzaños Master Plan | © CCA I Bernardo Quinzaños Floor Plan | © CCA I Bernardo Quinzaños Section | © CCA I Bernardo Quinzaños Elevation | © CCA I Bernardo Quinzaños Section | © CCA I Bernardo Quinzaños Masterplan & Sports Complex La Paz Image Gallery About CCA | Bernardo Quinzaños CCA | Bernardo Quinzaños is a Mexico City-based architecture studio led by architect Bernardo Quinzaños. The firm focuses on socially driven and contextually responsive design, strongly emphasizing public infrastructure, urban regeneration, and environmental resilience. Through multidisciplinary collaborations and community engagement, CCA develops projects that integrate architecture with broader cultural and ecological systems. Credits and Additional Notes Lead Architect: Bernardo Quinzaños Design Team: Santiago Vélez, Begoña Manzano, Andrés Suárez, Carlos Molina, Cristian Nieves, Miguel Izaguirre, Sara de la Cabada, André Torres, Abigaíl Zavaleta, Víctor Zúñiga, Pablo Ruiz, Scarlett Díaz Client: SEDATU (Secretaría de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano), Municipality of La Paz Builder: HABA, Alan Haro Photographer: Jaime Navarro Video Production: Jaime Navarro Estudio, Ricardo Esquivel, Fernanda Ventura

With the weather warming up, your thoughts may be turning to spending lazy summer afternoons at the beach with a good book. Tina, an online creator and co-host of the podcast Book Talk, Etc., opened her edition of the Chicago Sun-Times on Monday to find the newspaper's "Summer reading list for 2025." If Tina were me, someone who isn't in-tune with the latest in literature, this article might have seemed like a useful jumping-off point for some new book recommendations. But seeing as Tina creates content all about books, I imagine she is acutely aware of which authors are writing which books—which is why she was able to immediately spot a number of books on the list that simply do not exist.Tina took a photo of the article and posted it to her Threads account, accusing the newspaper of using AI to generate its recommendations. That image of the article is now circulating on Bluesky, as well as the Chicago subreddit. I'm not a subscriber, and the article doesn't appear to be on the Sun-Times' website, so I can't verify the list myself. But the Sun-Times has since confirmed the list is real. View on Threads Of the 15 "books" on this summer reading list, only five are real books you can actually, you know, read: Bonjour Tristesse by Françoise Sagan; Beautiful Ruins by Jess Walter; Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury; Call Me By Your Name by André Aciman; and Atonement by Ian McEwan. Coincidentally, they are the last five books on the list, and are not new. The other 10 are totally made up, including such "hey, I'd read that" entries as The Last Algorithm, a new AI thriller from The Martian author Andy Weir; and Boiling Point, a smart-sounding story of environmental ethics by critical darling Rebecca Makki. Alas. Given these fake books have real authors attached to them, fans of those authors may believe their favorite writer has a new, intriguing novel out. Even if you have no idea who any of the named authors are, you might use this piece to head to your library or book store to get a jump on your summer reading list—and if you're pulling from the first 10 recommendations, you're going to be looking for a long time. What happened here?According to a Bluesky post from the Sun-Times, the article was not editorial content, and was not approved or created by the newsroom. The post does not say one way or another whether the content is AI-generated, however 404 Media spoke with the author, who admitted to using AI for this article as well as others: "I do use AI for background at times but always check out the material first. This time, I did not and I can't believe I missed it because it's so obvious. No excuses."Even before we had this confirmation, it did seem like the newspaper used generative AI to write this piece. That's not just because the writing is stilted. AI often hallucinates, or, in other words, sometimes makes things up. It's not totally clear why the models do this—it could be an issue with the training data, or the conclusions the models draw from that training—but the problem is only getting worse even as AI models ostensibly improve. This isn't something you can avoid with better prompts, either: If you use generative AI, it's going to hallucinate sometimes, which means you need to check the outputs for inaccuracies (or straight-up lies). I follow that someone who doesn't understand this technology would see what a program like ChatGPT can do and want to use it to generate articles like this, but as many writers and artists have been arguing for years now, you can't replace a human worker with an AI chatbot and expect the same quality work. Sure, ChatGPT will happily generate you a list of 15 book recommendations in under a minute—but it's possible some (if not most) of those recommendations will be garbage.I don't believe in using generative AI to publish stories like this. But if a newspaper is going to outsource the writing to a bot, it needs a human fact-checker (or perhaps, I don't know, an editor) to review the generation and make sure everything is correct. Though at that point, I'd suggest just paying a human writer to offer the book recommendations themself. I guarantee you there are plenty of out-of-work or underemployed journalists who would jump at the chance. While it seems the Sun-Times has such a human writer behind the AI, that work needs to happen with each generation. If not, you get articles like this.Out of curiosity, I asked ChatGPT for the synopsis of The Last Algorithm by Andy Weir. The bot searched the web for an answer, and, to its credit, accurately reported that the book doesn't actually exist. It made some assumptions, saying the Sun-Times definitely used AI to generate the article (though I suppose a very lazy intern who was hoping to be fired could have made up the books as well), likely because the social media posts it was pulling from suggested as much. But I also found its final thought to be particularly on-point (and accidentally self-aware): "This incident underscores the importance of verifying information, especially when AI-generated content is involved," ChatGPT wrote.