United States

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares185 Views

      in Elections

      Global Markets Dip as Traders Gauge Fallout From U.S. Strikes on Iran

      by

      Any disruption to traffic in the Strait of Hormuz would have significant economic effects, especially for Asian nations dependent on oil from the Middle East.Stocks edged lower and oil prices climbed in Monday trading in Asia, reflecting investor concern over potential economic fallout from the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend.Futures contracts for the S&P 500, indicating how the index might perform when markets open in New York, slipped by about 0.3 percent. The price of West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for U.S. crude, gained roughly 3 percent. Gold, a traditional safe-haven asset, also rose.Markets in Asia, the first to open after the strikes in Iran, were down. Stocks in Taipei, Taiwan, fell more than 1 percent. Benchmark indexes in Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea also dipped.Traders were waiting for clearer indications of whether there would be an escalation in conflicts in the Middle East — particularly any moves by Iran to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.The Strait of Hormuz is a critical transit point for global oil supplies. Last year, about 20 million barrels of oil were shipped through the waterway each day, representing about 20 percent of the world’s total supply. Most of that oil was bound for Asia.Places like Japan and Taiwan rely on the Middle East for almost all of their crude oil imports, meaning that any disruption to traffic through the strait could inflict a large economic blow. China is the largest purchaser of Iranian oil.Oil prices, hovering around $76 a barrel, are expected to enter the $80 range, but if the risk of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz is seen as increasing, they will rise even further, said Takahide Kiuchi, executive economist at Nomura Research Institute. In that case, “the Japanese economy could be exposed to downside risks that exceed those of the Trump tariffs,” he said.Other analysts expect fallout from the U.S. strikes to be relatively short-lived.The oil market is better equipped to respond to shocks than it has been in the past because of spare capacity held by exporters, according to Daniel Hynes, a senior commodity strategist at ANZ Research. Geopolitical events involving producers can have a big impact on oil markets, but in recent years, prices have tended to quickly retreat as risks ease, Mr. Hynes said.Daniel Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said there could be more volatility in stock movements this week. But, he said, the market may view the Iran threat as “now gone.” In that case, he said, “the worst is now in the rearview mirror.”Joe Rennison More

    • 125 Shares197 Views

      in Elections

      Roll Back Legal Same-Sex Marriage? Republicans Are Getting It Wrong.

      by

      Almost 10 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage would be legal across the country. Today, sensing a political shift toward socially conservative policy, Republican policymakers in states from Michigan to Tennessee have begun proposing bills that would roll back same-sex marriage.These lawmakers may discover to their dismay that they have the politics of the issue quite wrong. Though the cultural winds have shifted on many issues, Republican voters are not clamoring for an unraveling of same-sex marriage rights. Republican voters have objected to socially progressive policies that they believe incur a cost to themselves or others, but the experience over the past decade with legal same-sex marriage has persuaded many in the party that it is nothing to be feared.Polls of American voters generally show support for same-sex marriage rising over the past three decades, both before and after the Obergefell decision. A whopping 68 percent of Americans said they supported legal recognition of same-sex marriages, according to a Gallup poll from last month. Younger voters, a demographic courted by Donald Trump in his recent presidential campaign, are typically the most supportive of gay rights; indeed, some of those who voted for the first time in 2024 may have scarce memory of a time when same-sex marriage was not the law of the land.Among Republicans, the story is admittedly more complicated. There has been a backsliding of support for same-sex marriage among Republicans in recent years, but surveys differ on whether this is a blip or a full-fledged reversal. While Gallup shows a 14-point decline in support among Republicans for same-sex marriage since 2022, my surveys have shown Republican support for legal same-sex marriage bouncing back above its pre-2022 levels, from 40 percent in 2022 to 43 percent in 2023 to 48 percent in 2024. (Notably, even in Gallup’s grimmer data, Republican support for gay marriage remains significantly higher today than it was on the day the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Obergefell.)There are two main lines of argument that seem to resonate most strongly with Republicans on preserving same-sex marriage: Live and let live, and leave well enough alone.Republicans remain very open to the idea that the government should not be in the business of meddling with or punishing people because they are gay or lesbian. In polling I conducted with a coalition of Republican pollsters on behalf of Centerline Liberties and Project Right Side, published Friday morning, roughly 78 percent of Republicans surveyed said that “what two consenting adults do in their personal lives is none of my business — and it shouldn’t be the government’s either.” Government is already “too big and intrusive” was a convincing argument in support of legal same-sex marriage, according to the survey. (My polling firm Echelon Insights was compensated for our work on the poll.)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

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Real Risk to Youth Mental Health Is ‘Addictive Use,’ Not Screen Time Alone, Study Finds

      by

      Researchers found children with highly addictive use of phones, video games or social media were two to three times as likely to have thoughts of suicide or to harm themselves.As Americans scramble to respond to rising rates of suicidal behavior among youth, many policymakers have locked in on an alarming metric: the number of hours a day that American children spend glued to a glowing screen.But a study published on Wednesday in the medical journal JAMA, which followed more than 4,000 children across the country, arrived at a surprising conclusion: Longer screen time at age 10 was not associated with higher rates of suicidal behavior four years later.Instead, the authors found, the children at higher risk for suicidal behaviors were those who told researchers their use of technology had become “addictive” — that they had trouble putting it down, or felt the need to use it more and more. Some children exhibited addictive behavior even if their screen time was relatively low, they said.The researchers found addictive behavior to be very common among children — especially in their use of mobile phones, where nearly half had high addictive use. By age 14, children with high or increasing addictive behavior were two to three times as likely as other children to have thoughts of suicide or to harm themselves, the study found.“This is the first study to identify that addictive use is important, and is actually the root cause, instead of time,” said Yunyu Xiao, an assistant professor of psychiatry and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medical College and the study’s lead author.Addictive behavior may be more difficult to control during childhood, before the prefrontal cortex, which acts as a brake on impulsivity, is fully developed.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

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      At G7, Trump Renews Embrace of Putin Amid Rift With Allies

      by

      President Trump opened his remarks at the Group of 7 gathering of industrialized nations by criticizing the decision to expel Russia from the bloc after Moscow’s 2014 “annexation” of Crimea.President Trump could have opened by talking about trade. He could have discussed the wars in the Middle East or the long-running, brutal war in Ukraine.But there was something else that appeared to be top of mind for Mr. Trump during Monday’s meeting in Canada of the leaders of the Group of 7 industrialized nations: President Vladimir Putin of Russia.“The G7 used to be the G8,” Mr. Trump told reporters, referring to the group’s decision to eject Russia in 2014, after it attacked Ukraine and “annexed” Crimea, a prelude to its full-scale invasion.He went on to blame former President Barack Obama and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada for kicking Russia out, and argued that its inclusion in the group would have averted the war in Ukraine. (Mr. Trump was wrong — it was not Mr. Trudeau, but rather Stephen Harper, who was the Canadian prime minister at the time of Russia’s expulsion.)“I would say that was a mistake,” Mr. Trump said, “because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now.”And with that, Mr. Trump’s troubled history with the alliance repeated itself. When he attended the summit the last time it was held in Canada, in 2018, he called for Russia to be readmitted to alliance. The suggestion angered and appalled allies, setting of a rift that before Mr. Trump left the summit early, telling reporters on his way out: “They should let Russia come back in. Because we should have Russia at the negotiating table.”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

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Flattery or Discipline? The Difficult Task of Managing Trump.

      by

      Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney deployed both methods on the first day of the Group of 7 summit in Alberta to keep Mr. Trump focused and avoid drama.Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada began by wishing President Trump a happy birthday. He emphasized the importance of U.S. leadership in the Group of 7 alliance, which is meeting in Alberta, Canada.But after seven minutes of questioning by journalists during which Mr. Trump complained about Russia’s absence at the summit and attacked Democrats over immigration policies, the host of the summit had heard enough.He took a step forward and into the center of the frame and effectively stopped the questioning, preventing the American president from saying more.With war raging in the Middle East and U.S. tariffs hammering his own country’s economy as well as global trade, Mr. Carney was intent on limiting the chances of a Trump-related derailment of the gathering.“If you don’t mind, I’m going to exercise my role, if you will, as G7 chair, since we have a few more minutes with the president and his team and then we actually have to start the meeting to address some of these big issues,” Mr. Carney said. “So, merci beaucoup.”With that, the press was rapidly escorted out of the room.The brief moment at the start of the gathering provided a window into a daunting challenge for world leaders entering the summit: Just what is the best way to manage Mr. Trump on the global stage?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

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Marines, in a Rare Move, Briefly Detain Man in Los Angeles

      by

      The man, who said he was a veteran, was soon released. But the incident calls attention to the operation of troops in a police-like domestic function.A man running an errand and trying to enter a Veterans Affairs office at a federal building in Los Angeles was briefly detained on Friday by U.S. Marines who have been sent to the city by the Trump administration to quell unrest.The man was quickly released and the incident appeared to be a minor one. But it was noteworthy in one major way: Federal troops are rarely deployed on American soil and are rarely seen detaining U.S. civilians, even temporarily.The man, Marcos Leao, 27, was detained by Marines who were protecting the Wilshire Federal Building, about 15 miles west of where the protests have been taking place in downtown Los Angeles. In an interview, he said he was an Army veteran.Mr. Leao said he tried to duck under yellow caution tape cordoning off a plaza area outside the building. He said he was undisturbed by his brief detention.“They treated me very fairly,” he said.Los Angeles has been on edge for a week, with nightly protests downtown in response to the Trump administration’s immigration raids in the region. Other protests have surfaced in surrounding neighborhoods and cities.The Trump administration’s deployment of Marines, along with National Guard troops, has stoked outrage among protesters and California officials. A federal judge late Thursday temporarily prevented the federal government’s mobilization of the California National Guard. But an appeals court has blocked that ruling for the time being, freeing up National Guard troops to be in the city during a mass demonstration planned for Saturday.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

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Was Not Involved in Israeli Strikes on Iran, Rubio Says

      by

      President Trump has said he would like to negotiate a deal with Tehran over its nuclear program but had also acknowledged that Israel might attack Iran first.Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday that the United States had no involvement in Israel’s unilateral strikes on Iran but had been told that Israel considered the attack necessary for its self-defense.President Trump, who has been pushing for a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, was hosting the annual White House picnic on Thursday evening when reports of the strikes emerged from Tehran.Despite his expressed hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough, Mr. Trump had also acknowledged on Thursday that Israel might attack first.In a statement, Mr. Rubio said: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.” It was not immediately clear how much detail about the strike Israel had provided the United States, its main ally, and how far in advance.Despite the Trump administration distancing itself from the attacks, its statements and precautionary measures this week have indicated the concern that Iran’s retaliation, which is expected to be swift, could also include American targets in the Middle East.“Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,” Mr Rubio said.On Wednesday, the United States withdrew diplomats from Iraq, Iran’s neighbor to the west, and authorized the voluntary departure of the family members of U.S. military personnel from the Middle East. The U.S. military has a large fleet of warplanes, naval vessels and thousands of troops stationed at its bases in the region, including in Qatar and Bahrain, just around 150 miles across the gulf from Iran.Iran’s defense minister said this week that if nuclear talks failed and a conflict arose with the United States, his country’s military would target all American bases in the region.It was unclear what impact Israel’s strikes would have on the ongoing negotiations between the Trump administration and Iran, or on Mr. Trump’s relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. The president had spoken with the Israeli leader on Monday but did not give any details about the conversation.In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has said he has urged Israel to hold off on military strikes while the negotiations were taking place. Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, was expected to meet Iran’s foreign minister in Oman on Sunday for the next round of talks.Around the time Israel began to strike Iran, Mr. Trump said he remained committed to a diplomatic resolution.“My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran,” he posted on social media around 5 p.m. Eastern time. “They could be a Great Country, but they first must completely give up hopes of obtaining a Nuclear Weapon.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      In L.A., the Divide Between Peace and Violence Is in the Eye of the Beholder

      by

      Los Angeles, a city marked by fiery and full-throated protests, adds a new chapter to that history. Alfonso Santoyo was marching through the streets of Los Angeles with a boisterous crowd on Wednesday protesting the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. Mr. Santoyo’s presence, and his voice, were his only weapons.“It’s upsetting how they’ve portrayed the community as criminals,” said Mr. Santoyo, a 43-year-old postal worker whose parents came to the U.S. from Mexico as undocumented immigrants but eventually gained legal status. “It’s just upsetting to see that. Because we know it’s not the case.”After an 8 p.m. curfew brought a ghostly quiet to much of downtown, a man in body armor stood in front of a building full of jewelry stores, smoking a cigarette down to the filter.The man, who declined to give his name, wore a handgun on his thigh and carried a rifle that fires plastic projectiles. He pointed to nearby stores and buildings in L.A.’s jewelry district that had been broken into days earlier. Much like the 2020 demonstrations against police violence, he said, there always seemed to be bad actors among the peaceful ones.Separating them out, he said, was pointless. He cited an Armenian proverb: “Wet wood and dry wood burn together.”In Los Angeles this week, many protesters have marched peacefully. Others have thrown objects at the police, set cars ablaze and looted stores and restaurants. Police have responded aggressively, intimidating protesters with earsplitting explosives and mounted patrols, hitting them with batons, deploying tear gas and firing foam projectiles and rubber bullets into crowds.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