More stories

  • in

    To Obey Trump or Not to Obey

    In 1978, my parents went to Poland, the first foreign trip in each of their lives. When they returned to our home in Moscow, my mother couldn’t stop talking about what they’d seen — not a place but a movie, Bob Fosse’s “Cabaret.” One scene in particular stayed with her. Three friends are returning from a weekend trip. Sleep-deprived, hung over and preoccupied with their sexual and romantic entanglements, they pull over at a roadside cafe. There, a teenager wearing a Hitler Youth uniform starts singing. He is both earnest and, in his brown pants tucked into white knee-high socks, puerile. But after a minute, other young people in uniform join in, and soon all but one customer are standing and singing. The protagonists duck out. They have been pushing Nazism out of their minds, but at this moment they realize that they are in the minority, that life as they’ve been living it is over. The song everyone around them is singing is “Tomorrow Belongs to Me.”I was 11 when my mother couldn’t stop talking about “Cabaret,” and I was confused. I thought my parents had gone to an actual cabaret and somehow gained an insight into the nature of the Soviet regime. A few years later, after I’d seen the movie myself, I realized my mother was right: That scene is the single most vivid portrayal of what it feels like to live in a society that is falling in line before a totalitarian leader. I experienced this in real life as an adult, when Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia and my world suddenly felt like a chessboard from which an invisible hand was picking off pieces faster than I had thought was possible.Now, in Donald Trump’s America, I am living through something similar, and it is moving at a faster rate still. For me, it began before the election, when the owners of The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post decided to pull their papers’ endorsements of Kamala Harris for president. It continued with Mark Zuckerberg remaking Meta to reflect what he called the “cultural tipping point” that was the presidential election; with ABC News handing over millions of dollars in response to one of Trump’s frivolous lawsuits and CBS considering doing the same; and most recently, with the great erasure: of records of trans care for minors provided by hospitals and of diversity-and-inclusion policies at many universities and corporations. Now some universities are quietly retooling their programming in hopes of conforming with expectations that have not yet been clearly laid out.I am talking not about deletions of pages from government websites, such as those of the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presumably mandated by newly installed officials; I am talking about actions that individual people or private institutions took pre-emptively, with some measure of free will.The Yale historian Timothy Snyder has called this “anticipatory obedience.” In his 2017 book “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century,” lesson No. 1 was “Do not obey in advance.” Those who anticipate the demands of a repressive government and submit to these demands before they are made, Snyder wrote, are “teaching power what it can do.”Snyder is right, of course, but his admonition makes obeying in advance sound irrational. It is not. In my experience, most of the time, when people or institutions cede power voluntarily, they are acting not so much out of fear but rather on a set of apparently reasonable arguments. These arguments tend to fall into one or more of five categories.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Sports Betting Reveals the Addiction in All of Us

    When we think about any addiction, we tend to focus on people who are utterly consumed by it — those whose lives are visibly falling apart. Yet gambling challenges our usual assumptions about addiction and risk, as its harms extend far beyond the most severe cases.Consider a young man from my therapy practice, a former college athlete, who isn’t bankrupt or in crisis but feels stuck in a cycle of unhealthy online sports betting. He repeatedly deletes the betting app from his phone, only to reinstall it days later at the prompting of a well-timed email, a group bet with friends or simply the ads plastered across every sports arena. He does fine at work and mostly keeps to the dollar limits he sets, but his internal preoccupation, restlessness and chasing of losses just feel bad. He wouldn’t call himself addicted, but he doesn’t feel healthy, either. At the very least, he has the creeping sense that he’d feel better if he put his attention and energy toward something more meaningful.Serious gambling addiction is devastating. Beyond financial ruin, it increases the risk of physical health problems, domestic violence and family rupture. Every year, 2.5 million American adults suffer from severe gambling problems. Many suffer invisibly, silently wagering away their lives on cellphones, perhaps in the very same room as their family and friends.These severe cases demand attention, but focusing only on them obscures something important. As a physician and someone in recovery from alcohol and stimulant addiction myself, I’m concerned by how we have been conditioned to see addiction in all-or-nothing terms. Beyond the millions of Americans who meet the criteria for gambling disorder, five million to eight million more have a mild to moderate gambling problem that still affects their lives — like my patient. Since the federal ban on sports betting was struck down in 2018, sports gambling in the United States has exploded, with annual wagers now approaching $150 billion.Today’s surge of sports betting — supercharged by technology and unfettered industry practices — shows how everyone can struggle with self-control to varying degrees. No longer a simple matter of putting money down on which competitor will win, modern technology has transformed sports betting into a high-speed, continuous stream of wagers throughout the game. For Sunday’s Super Bowl, people can place bets on things from the result of the coin toss to the yardage of the next drive, from Kendrick Lamar’s halftime guests to how many times Taylor Swift is mentioned.Online gambling companies collect troves of personalized data to guide betting variables and marketing to match each user’s patterns and preferences. (The Athletic, which is owned by The New York Times, has a partnership with BetMGM, online sports betting and gaming company.) Subscription plans and automated deposits further erode the friction between impulse and action.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Critics Choice Awards 2025’s Unforgettable Looks: Ariana Grande, Demi Moore, and More

    The question of what celebrities will wear to an awards show always looms large before any ceremony. But it took on new significance ahead of the 30th Critics Choice Awards in Santa Monica, Calif., on Friday: After postponing the event twice because of the Los Angeles wildfires, organizers announced that a red-carpet preshow would not be part of the televised broadcast.How might that decision influence the fashion choices of the television and movie stars in attendance? Would they be riskier? More relaxed?As people started arriving, it soon became clear that absence of TV cameras on the carpet hadn’t stopped most from taking big style swings. For myriad reasons — most of them good — these 14 looks were among the most memorable from the Critics Choice Awards.Nicole Kidman: Most Humphrey Bogart!Daniel Cole/ReutersInstead of a gown, the “Lioness” and “Babygirl” actress went with a broad-shouldered Saint Laurent suit jacket, high-waist pants and a polka-dot tie, an ensemble that evoked the men’s wear of Old Hollywood.Ariana Grande: Most Jellyfish!Allison Dinner/EPA, via ShutterstockWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Critics Choice Awards Winners 2025: See the Full List

    Here’s who went home a winner from the 30th annual Critics Choice Awards.See all the arrival photos from the 2025 Critics Choice Awards red carpet.The 30th annual Critics Choice Awards were held in Santa Monica, Calif., on Friday. Here’s who walked away with hardware from one of the last major bellwethers before the Oscars.FilmBest Picture“Anora”Best ActorAdrien Brody, “The Brutalist”Best ActressDemi Moore, “The Substance”Best Supporting ActorKieran Culkin, “A Real Pain”Best Supporting ActressZoe Saldaña, “Emilia Pérez”Best Young Actor or ActressMaisy Stella, “My Old Ass”Best Acting Ensemble“Conclave”Best DirectorJon M. Chu, “Wicked”Best Original ScreenplayCoralie Fargeat, “The Substance”Best Adapted ScreenplayPeter Straughan, “Conclave”Best CinematographyJarin Blaschke, “Nosferatu”Best Production DesignNathan Crowley and Lee Sandales, “Wicked”Best EditingMarco Costa, “Challengers”Best Costume DesignPaul Tazewell, “Wicked”Best Hair and MakeupStéphanie Guillon, Frédérique Arguello and Pierre-Olivier Persin; “The Substance”Best Visual EffectsPaul Lambert, Stephen James, Rhys Salcombe and Gerd Nefzer; “Dune: Part Two”Best Animated Feature“The Wild Robot”Best Comedy“A Real Pain”“Deadpool & Wolverine”Best Foreign Language Film“Emilia Pérez”Best Song“El Mal,” from “Emilia Pérez”Best ScoreTrent Reznor and Atticus Ross, “Challengers”TelevisionBest Drama Series“Shogun”Best Actor, Drama SeriesHiroyuki Sanada, “Shogun”Best Actress, Drama SeriesKathy Bates, “Matlock”Best Supporting Actor, Drama SeriesTadanobu Asano, “Shogun”Best Supporting Actress, Drama SeriesMoeka Hoshi, “Shogun”Best Comedy Series“Hacks”Best Actor, Comedy SeriesAdam Brody, “Nobody Wants This”Best Actress, Comedy SeriesJean Smart, “Hacks”Best Supporting Actor, Comedy SeriesMichael Urie, “Shrinking”Best Supporting Actress, Comedy SeriesHannah Einbinder, “Hacks”Best Limited Series“Baby Reindeer”Best TV Movie“Rebel Ridge”Best Actor, Limited Series or TV MovieColin Farrell, “The Penguin”Best Actress, Limited Series or TV MovieCristin Milioti, “The Penguin”Best Supporting Actor, Limited Series or TV MovieLiev Schreiber, “The Perfect Couple”Best Supporting Actress, Limited Series or TV MovieJessica Gunning, “Baby Reindeer”Best Foreign Language Series“Squid Game”Best Animated Series“X-Men ’97”Best Talk Show“John Mulaney Presents: Everybody’s in L.A.”Best Comedy Special“Ali Wong: Single Lady” More

  • in

    Sept. 11 Plea Deal Includes Lifetime Gag Order on C.I.A. Torture Secrets

    The clause is included in a disputed plea agreement between a Pentagon official and the man accused of planning the attacks that killed 3,000 people.Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the prisoner at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who is accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks, has agreed to never disclose secret aspects of his torture by the C.I.A. if he is allowed to plead guilty rather than face a death-penalty trial.The clause was included in the latest portions of his deal to be unsealed at a federal appeals court in Washington. A three-judge panel is considering whether former Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III lawfully withdrew from a plea agreement with Mr. Mohammed in the capital case against five men who are accused of conspiring in the attacks that killed nearly 3,000.The C.I.A. has never taken a public position on whether it supports the deal, and the agency declined to comment on Friday. But the latest disclosure makes clear that Mr. Mohammed would not be allowed to publicly identify people, places and other details from his time in the agency’s secret prisons overseas from 2003 to 2006.It has been publicly known for years that Mr. Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times by the C.I.A. It has also been revealed that waterboarding was done by a three-person interrogation team led by Bruce Jessen and James E. Mitchell, two former contract psychologists for the agency. Details of Mr. Mohammed’s violent treatment, including rectal abuse, have emerged in court filings and leaks.But the agency has protected the names of other people who worked in the “black site” prisons, notably medical staff, guards and other intelligence agency employees. That includes the people who questioned Mr. Mohammed hundreds of times as he was shuttled between prisons in Afghanistan, Poland and other locations, which the C.I.A. has not acknowledged as former black sites.Now, a recently unredacted paragraph in Mr. Mohammed’s 20-page settlement says he agreed not to disclose “any form, in any manner, or by any means” information about his “capture, detention, confinement of himself or others” while in U.S. custody.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Orders Halt to Aid to South Africa, Claiming Mistreatment of White Landowners

    President Trump on Friday ordered that all foreign assistance to South Africa be halted and said his administration would prioritize the resettling of white, “Afrikaner refugees” into the United States because of what he called actions by the country’s government that “racially disfavored landowners.”In the order, Mr. Trump said that “the United States shall not provide aid or assistance to South Africa” and that American officials should do everything possible to help “Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.”It follows Mr. Trump’s accusation on his social media site on Sunday that the South African government was engaged in a “massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum.” He vowed a full investigation and promised to cut off aid.“South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY,” the president wrote in the post. “It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn’t want to so much as mention.”The order was stunning in providing official American backing to long-held conspiracy theories about the mistreatment of white South Africans in the post-apartheid era.Mr. Trump has made repeated claims without evidence that echoed those conspiracy theories. In 2018, he ordered his secretary of state to look into “the large scale killing of farmers” — a claim disputed by official figures and the country’s biggest farmers’ group.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Will a Time Magazine Cover Drive a Wedge Between Trump and Musk?

    The president did not look amused. He was meeting the Japanese prime minister for the first time on Friday when a reporter shouted out to ask if he had a “reaction” to the new cover of Time magazine. The cover, the reporter told Mr. Trump, depicts “Elon Musk sitting behind your Resolute Desk.”“No,” Mr. Trump answered pointedly. He looked down at the floor. The next few seconds stretched like an eternity as a translator related the exchange to the prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, in Japanese.Just in case any of the sauciness of the moment had been lost in translation, Mr. Trump waited until the interpreter had finished and then cracked: “Is Time magazine still in business? I didn’t even know that.” Everyone around him laughed gamely, if a bit nervously.It is unlikely that Mr. Trump didn’t know whether Time magazine was still in business. His own face had, after all, stared out from its cover only two months ago, when the magazine anointed him its “Person of the Year.” As part of the rollout of that issue, Mr. Trump rang the bell at the New York Stock Exchange in front of a blown-up version of the cover.It is pretty much Trumpology 101 that the president has a long-held fixation with the cover of Time, a durable totem of the 1980s, from which most of his cultural touchstones derive even today. He has always held up its cover as an indication of status, going as far as to mock up fake versions featuring himself.The last time he was president, a Time cover in 2017 featuring his adviser Stephen K. Bannon at the height of his powers — “The Great Manipulator,” it read — was believed to have annoyed Mr. Trump. Mr. Bannon left the White House later that year.No one can say if the magazine still holds as much sway over Mr. Trump as it did then. One thing seems certain, though, and that is that Mr. Musk appeared eager to stay on Mr. Trump’s good side. On Friday morning, a few hours after the new Time cover dropped, Mr. Musk posted on the social media platform he owns to flatter the president, writing, “I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.” More

  • in

    Newsom Signs Bills to Fight Trump, Including Legal Aid for Immigrants

    Two days after meeting with President Trump at the White House to seek disaster aid, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California signed legislation on Friday that authorized $50 million in state funds intended to counter the president’s agenda.Half of the money was dedicated to legal aid, including for undocumented immigrants who have faced deportation threats from the Trump administration, and the other half was intended to cover additional state litigation costs as California spars with the federal government in court.Mr. Newsom signed a pair of bills with no news cameras, bringing to a quiet end an effort he launched with vigor two days after the election. Three months ago, he asked state lawmakers to move quickly to defend the state from presumed incursions by Mr. Trump and called for a special legislative session.The governor seemed to be positioning himself as a national leader of the Democratic resistance in the days following the election. But he has treaded more cautiously in recent weeks after the president threatened to withhold disaster aid from California. On Wednesday, he met with Mr. Trump for more than an hour in the Oval Office.The bills signed by Mr. Newsom passed on a party-line vote, but proved trickier than first thought in the state’s Democratic-led Legislature as Mr. Trump and Republican state lawmakers have tried to distinguish between the deportation of criminal undocumented immigrants and others they say they are not targeting for now.Democratic lawmakers, in an attempt to inoculate themselves from arguments that they were using state dollars to help violent offenders, added a message to clarify that the state legal aid was not meant to help immigrants with criminal backgrounds — a clear acknowledgment of Republican criticisms and the mood of the electorate.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More