The Case for a U.S.-Led Military Alliance in Space

Far out in geosynchronous orbit, a Russian satellite moves through deep space. Cosmos 2533, nicknamed “Sput-nuke,” is designed to carry a nuclear payload that could render most satellites unusable. Meanwhile, China is pouring billions of dollars into developing advanced space capabilities, including anti-satellite weapons. 

These weapons, known as ASATs, could change modern life on Earth as we know it—threatening GPS, weather forecasting, geospatial intelligence, and more. Also at stake is the burgeoning $1.8 trillion space economy that relies on open and free access to space.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The principles of a free, open, and peaceful space are enshrined in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which all major space powers have ratified, including the U.S., Russia, and China. The U.S. had sought to build on that landmark treaty when it launched the Artemis Accords in 2020, which 54 countries have so far signed on to. But the refusal of Russia and China to get on board—alongside the Kremlin’s veto last year of the first ever U.N. Security Council resolution on outer space, which condemned the placing of weapons of mass destruction in orbit—are a sure as sign as any that a new approach is needed.

That is why it is time for the U.S. to lead a new military alliance—an Artemis Alliance, or Allied Space Forces—to do exactly that.

China’s space ambitions are hegemonic and virtually limitless. “To explore the vast cosmos, develop the space industry, and build China into a space power is our eternal dream,” Xi Jinping said in China’s most recent space strategy. According to the Pentagon, Beijing has devoted “significant resources” to all aspects of its space program, including counter-space weapons.

Russia, which has been cannibalizing its space program for missile parts, still maintains interests in outer space. But with a test of a space weapon that endangered its own cosmonauts onboard the International Space Station in 2021 and the subsequent launch of Cosmos 2553 in 2022, as well as an attack-capable satellite in the same orbit as a U.S. government satellite in 2024, Moscow appears to have shifted toward an apocalyptic mindset: if it cannot control space, nobody should.

The Artemis Alliance should not, of course, replace the Outer Space Treaty. A defense alliance would instead be a coalition of like-minded countries whose goal is to uphold the peaceful use of space. Ultimately, an Artemis Alliance would add hard power credibility to the soft power norms and principles shaped by the 1967 accord, essentially giving it “teeth.”

The Alliance would seek to deter and defeat offensive space capabilities, condemn any attempts to render space unusable in international fora, and impose tangible violations that include sanctions—from export controls on the low end to military action on the high end.

It would consist of the U.S. and friendly spacefaring nations that Washington already has reciprocal defense treaties with, such as Australia, Canada, France, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the U.K. The long-term goal would be to expand membership to emerging spacefaring partners that do not yet have reciprocal defense treaties with the U.S., such as India, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

Such an alliance would also align with the 2020 National Space Policy that the Trump Administration issued in its first term, and which stated that the U.S. shall “strengthen deterrence and assure allies and partners of its commitment to preserving the safety, stability, security, and long-term sustainability of space activities.” An alliance is the most powerful and effective mechanism to ensure the U.S. has the ability to create and shape norms—a mechanism more powerful than treaties.

Read More: Inside Space Force: Here’s What the New Agency Does

To be sure, some countries may hesitate to align civilian space activities with a military alliance. For most, space symbolizes bold aspirations of scientific research and exploration—not warfare. There would likely be concerns that joining a military alliance would contradict the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty.

Yet the U.S. Navy justifies its efforts to ensure the free flow of trade under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Therefore, an Artemis Alliance is justified as a necessary enforcement mechanism. And unlike UNCLOS, the U.S. Senate ratified the Outer Space Treaty, which makes it legally binding in America.

The threats today are kinetic and offensive, not just ideological. According to USSPACECOM, China is rapidly developing counter-space weapons “like direct-ascent antisatellite missiles, lasers, and jammers” and unveiled in 2024 a “novel microwave weapon that could target satellites.” Meanwhile, Russia has declared military satellites as legitimate targets and already in 2025 used electronic weapons to cause “flight diversions and Global Positioning System inaccuracies.” Ignoring these threats and relying solely on existing norms for protection is not an effective countermeasure.

The U.S. and its allies need more than words at this stage. They need the ability to move up the escalation ladder to take defensive military actions on Earth before adversaries take devastating military actions in space.

Space is not a luxury—it is a necessity. The Artemis Alliance is the logical next step in securing a open, free, and safe space environment.

source https://time.com/7277034/us-allied-space-forces/

Are Smartphones and Laptops Exempt From Trump’s ‘Reciprocal’ Tariffs? Here’s What to Know

In the latest switch-up in the rollercoaster of events that have followed the April 2 announcement of President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, the Trump Administration has said that some electronics will be exempt from these tariffs.

A notice from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), posted late on Friday night, stated that certain electronic devices will be exempt—including smartphones, laptops, hard drives, flat-panel monitors, and machines used to make semiconductors and some chips. The notice said that the exemption applies to products entering the United States or removed from warehouses dating back to April 5.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

This means these products can now bypass the significantly high “reciprocal” tariffs on China, where Apple has manufactured most of its iPhones since the first model hit the market 18 years ago. However, as Stephen Miller, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, pointed out on X on Saturday, these electronics are still “subject to the tariff under the original IEEPA on China of 20 percent.”

The tariffs would likely have made a large impact on the purchase of electronics, and by extension, on tech giants such as Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and Samsung, as many of their supply chains are based in China and other countries outside of the U.S. Some experts estimated that with the tariffs, and before the exemption, the iPhone could have cost thousands more for U.S. consumers, especially if made in the U.S.

Trump has previously encouraged tech giants to move their companies and manufacturing to the U.S., and referenced Apple’s February announcement that it plans to invest $500 billion in the U.S. in the next four years.

In a Truth Social post on April 9, Trump said: “This is a GREAT time to move your COMPANY into the United States of America, like Apple, and so many others, in record numbers, are doing. ZERO TARIFFS, and almost immediate Electrical/Energy hook ups and approvals. No Environmental Delays. DON’T WAIT, DO IT NOW!”

However, as the Washington Post notes, Apple has a complex system that extends beyond the U.S. While their iPhones are designed in California, they are assembled in China and India, with parts sourced from various suppliers.

The notice about exemptions comes after Trump reportedly teased the idea while talking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday. “There could be a couple of exceptions for obvious reasons, but I would say 10% is a floor,” said Trump. He did not specify what those reasons were.

Experts have been concerned about how Trump’s tariffs would impact consumers as prices are expected to rise. It’s worth noting that China was the second-largest supplier of U.S. goods in 2024, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. (Mexico was the top source of U.S. imports.) China is especially known for supplying broadcasting equipment and computers to the U.S.

The exemption move is the latest change in Trump’s tariffs plan. U.S. and global stocks tanked, prompting fears of a recession, after Trump announced what he refers to as “reciprocal” tariffs on April 2, a day he coined “Liberation Day.” However, on April 9, Trump announced a 90-day pause for most of the “reciprocal” tariffs, with the exception of China, who were hit with much higher import taxes. The tariffs on China now total 145%—a 125% “reciprocal” tariff and a 20% tariff on most goods, as a punishment for the flow of fentanyl into the United States. China has since hit back at the U.S., raising the tariffs on American goods to 125%.

source https://time.com/7277343/electronics-smartphones-laptops-exempt-from-trump-reciprocal-tariffs/

When Is the 2025 Tax Deadline and How Can You File For an Extension?

The last day to file your taxes is fast approaching. As such, you may find yourself curious as to if you’re eligible for a tax extension and how you would go about obtaining one. A January news release from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said that “more than half of all tax returns are expected to be filed this year with the help of a tax professional.” The IRS also urged people once more to use a “trusted tax pro to avoid potential scams and schemes.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

For those who have yet to file their taxes, here is what you need to know about the 2025 tax deadline and how to apply for an extension. 

When is the 2025 tax deadline?

Per usual, the tax deadline for this year is April 15—the U.S. tax day, which falls on a Tuesday in 2025.

Though the deadline is April 15, the IRS predicted in January that more than 140 million individual tax returns for the tax year 2024 would be filed ahead of the deadline.

As of April 4, the IRS had already received 101,422,000 individual income tax returns for the 2025 tax filing season.

Read More: Here’s When You Can Expect Your IRS Tax Refund and How You Can Track It

Have any states delayed their tax deadlines for 2025? 

Natural disasters have affected U.S. citizens around the country this past year—from the wildfires in Los Angeles, to hurricanes in Florida and North Carolina, to floods in New York.

Disaster victims in twelve states have automatic extensions to file and pay their 2024 taxes. Though some of these extensions only apply to certain populations within said states.

For California wildfire victims, per the IRS, “these taxpayers now have until Oct. 15, 2025, to file various federal individual and business tax returns and make tax payments.

For victims of Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton in various states including West Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina—and parts of Tennessee and Virginia—the deadlines have been extended to May 1, 2025 to file for the 2024 fiscal year.

Other areas that qualify for a May 1 extension due to disaster relief include Juneau in Alaska and Chaves County in New Mexico, while those affected by severe weather in Kentucky now have until Nov. 3 “to file various federal individual and business tax returns and make tax payments.”

If you are unsure whether you qualify for a state’s extension, the IRS has a page specifically dedicated to news in each state, where taxpayers can toggle into the state, or states, they will be filing taxes in, to see if there is a delayed deadline.

The IRS also has a “Frequently Asked Questions” page for disaster victims, as well as a help line for general questions about individual tax filing at 1-800-829-1040 and for business tax filing at 1-800-829-4933.

What is a tax extension?

A standard federal tax return extension gives taxpayers six more months to file their taxes after the April 15 deadline.

It’s important to note, however, that according to the IRS, this extension is only for “filing” your returns. “An extension of time to file is not an extension of time to pay,” the IRS instructs.

How can you file for a tax extension?

You can file for a tax extension in three different ways.

Taxpayers can use IRS Free File to electronically request an automatic tax-filing extension.

Alternatively, when paying taxes using an online payment option—including a wire transfer or a credit card— via the IRS website, taxpayers can check the box that says they are paying as part of filing for an extension.

Lastly, those filing personal tax returns can file Form 4868, also known as the “Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.” (Businesses can apply for an extension using Form 7004.)

Form 4868 can be filed by mail, online with an IRS e-filing partner, or through a tax professional. 

Applicants will need to include the taxpayer’s name, address, Social Security number, and several payment estimations for the 2025 tax filing season. Though those who file for an extension still need to pay their taxes, filing Form 4868 itself does not incur a fee.

What is the deadline to file for a tax extension?

The deadline to file for an extension is the same as tax day itself—Tuesday, April 15.

source https://time.com/7277327/2025-tax-deadline-how-can-you-file-for-an-extension/

Why The Last of Us’ Connection to the the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Is Creating Controversy

The Last of Us debuted in 2013 and didn’t take long to become one of the most popular video games of the 21st century. A decade later, the HBO series adaptation was quickly hailed as the peak of video game adaptations and a brilliant television series in its own right, yielding eight Primetime Emmy wins for its first season. 

Like anything that dominates pop culture, the series—about surviving a post-apocalyptic America taken over by a viral infection—has attracted scrutiny and strong opinions, particularly for its alleged parallels to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Season 2 of The Last of Us approaches, we take a look at what the game’s co-creator and writer Neil Druckmann has said, what people have read into the game’s subtext, and how the discussion fits into the broader conversations about Israel and Gaza and the West Bank in pop culture. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

What Druckmann has said about the games’ inspiration

Though Druckmann has said that specific moments in the games have been influenced by conflicts in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank, he has never said that the games are based on the conflict. Druckmann himself grew up in Israel but left in 1989 when he was 11. 

The conclusion to 2013’s The Last of Us, in which Joel refuses to sacrifice Ellie (whose body would have been used to try to stop the virus), is inspired by Israeli history. On the official PlayStation podcast for the game, Druckmann referenced the 2011 exchange of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit for 1,027 prisoners. Druckmann said of the choice Joel makes, “If it was to save a strange kid, maybe Joel would have made a very different decision. But when it was his tribe, his daughter, there was no question about what he was going to do.” 

Ellie takes a dark, furious turn in the game’s sequel, The Last of Us Part II. The impetus for Ellie’s trajectory in Part II came from Druckmann seeing footage as a teenager of Israeli soldiers being lynched in the West Bank. He couldn’t shake the fact that there were cheers after such violence. “It was the cheering that was really chilling to me,” Druckmann told the Washington Post in 2020. “In my mind, I thought ‘Oh, man, if I could just push a button and kill all these people that committed this horrible act, I would make them feel the same pain that they inflicted on these people.’”

Once that anger subsided, Druckmann said he felt disgusted over his own fury. But that made him think about how humanity processes hatred. “I landed on this emotional idea of, can we, over the course of the game, make you feel this intense hate that is universal in the same way that unconditional love is universal?” 

In a 2023 interview with Haaretz, Druckmann was keen to note that being inspired by something and basing a game on something are two different things. “It was inspired by, not based on,” Druckmann said of The Last of Us Part II and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “That’s a really important nuance, because my inspiration is like my feeling towards a cycle of violence that I’ve experienced as a child growing up in Israel, growing up in the West Bank specifically, coming to the United States and observing it then from the outside, vs. being in it.”

“This game deals a lot with tribalism,” Druckmann continued. “Sometimes tribalism on a very large scale, between two groups that are fighting for land—and again, that has obvious similarities to stuff that happens in the West Bank—but sometimes it’s tribalism within its own group…a sense of a group that feels righteous. And when you’re righteous, it’s very easy to diminish another group and say, ‘They are less than me, and I’m correct and they’re wrong, and therefore that gives me permission to inflict violence upon them.” 

How does The Last of Us Part II reflect this?

In a 2020 Vice article, journalist Emmanuel Maiberg wrote that the game “marginalizes Palestinian experience in a manner that perpetuates a horrific status quo.” Maiberg writes, among other things, that the in-game Seattle is “defined by a series of checkpoints, security walls, and barriers,” pointing out the striking similarities with the barriers built around the West Bank. 

Major Spoilers for The Last of Us Part II video game (and possibly future seasons of the TV series) ahead! Skip to the next section to avoid plot details.

The question of righteousness fuels much of Part II, set four years after the events of the first game. Abby, the daughter of the surgeon Joel killed to save Ellie’s life, is on a quest for revenge, and has finally found Joel. Abby does something unthinkable to players of the game: she brutally kills Joel with a golf club as Ellie watches. Ellie, who was already conflicted over her relationship with Joel (“My life could have meant something” she says to him in an earlier scene) is completely shattered over this unexpected loss. She, too, dedicates her life to vengeance: She will find Abby, and she will kill her. And nobody will stand in her way.

Ellie gets word that Abby is in Seattle, and she sets off to find her. Once there, she discovers a conflict between the WLF (a.k.a. Wolves) and the Seraphites (a.k.a. Scars), two rival factions battling for control of Seattle. It’s here that comparisons to violence in the Middle East are hard to ignore. The Scars traverse Seattle through “sky tunnels,” similar to the tunnel network formed by Hamas underneath Gaza. They are shown as intolerant of minorities, which could be a reference to the state of various groups’ rights under Hamas (per Amnesty International, for example, consensual same-sex sexual conduct is banned in Gaza). This is particularly evident in the storyline of Lev, a trans character who tries to escape the Scars. At one point, Ellie finds “Martyr Gate,” the location where the Scars’ leader died, suggesting that martyrdom is key to Scars culture.

While someone familiar with the conflict might be likely to clock these parallels, it’s worth noting that many gamers could play the game without making a single connection. The fight between the Wolves and the Scars is also secondary to the main quest following Ellie and Abby. 

In a twist, players eventually play as Abby for a considerable portion of the game’s 30-odd-hour story. They begin to understand her own challenges and drive to avenge her father’s death. Part II goes to great lengths to empathize with the enemy, so much so that we completely doubt whether Abby is really any different than Ellie. We see Abby caring for Yara and Lev (both running from the Seraphites). She’s loyal, caring, and kind. Both Abby and Ellie experience an unforgiving, post-apocalyptic world,overcome by grief and anger. The only thing they believe they can do is fight and continue the cycles of violence that have plagued their entire existence.

Ultimately, Ellie and Abby’s fight on a California shore is incredibly violent. It’s an explosion of rage by two people with different experiences, clashing in a fight for survival. Eventually, Ellie gains the upper hand, and has the opportunity to do what she set out to do, drowning Abby in the water. But before she kills Abby, she stops herself, deciding to spare her life. 

Throughout Part II, Ellie is driven by hatred and an unquenchable thirst for revenge. We see her do things we never could have imagined her doing in the first game, things she doesn’t seem to believe she could do either. Her relationship with her girlfriend Dina falls apart because Ellie is unable to let go of her desire to take out Abby.

Yet when she has the chance, she lets go. She chooses to forgive, forsaking her drive for vengeance, giving both herself and Abby a chance at a different kind of life, and something entirely more humane. It’s a striking break from the cycle of violence. Abby and Ellie go their separate ways, and there’s a sense of hope amid the doom that Part II creates. If The Last of Us Part II speaks to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all, it seems to suggest there can be a brighter future ahead, and humanity and empathy may be the key to long-lasting peace. Maybe the cycle of violence can finally give way to a different approach to coexistence.

Broader conversations about the conflict in pop culture

As the Israel-Hamas War has continued since Hamas’s Oct. 7th, 2023 attack (long after The Last of Us games were completed), conversations around Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank have intersected with pop culture, including around The Last of Us. 

The production of Scream VII has been under a microscope since actor Melissa Barrera was fired after sharing social media posts criticizing Israel, including one saying it is committing “genocide and ethnic cleansing.” Spyglass, the film’s production company, claimed her words were antisemitic, launching a social media firestorm. Though those events took place in November 2023, recent comments from Jenna Ortega, revealing she left the film because of Barrera’s firing, have reignited the conversation.

No Other Land, a documentary made by Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers about destruction in the West Bank, stirred up discussion when it was nominated and then won an Oscar, despite not having proper U.S. distribution. The film was recently in the news again after co-director Hamdan Ballal, was attacked and later detained by Israeli forces in the West Bank. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences apologized after receiving an open letter that criticized the Academy’s response to the attack, which failed to mention Ballal by name.

When Disney’s Snow White live-action remake flopped in recent weeks, many placed the blame on star Rachel Zegler, despite near unanimous acclaim for her performance by film critics. The primary reason, alleged in a Variety piece, is because Zegler tweeted “Free Palestine,” straining the film’s publicity efforts. Gal Gadot, who also stars in the film, has repeatedly offered support for Israel on social media, leading many to view the co-stars as being in opposition despite red-carpet appearances together. Disney also scaled back the movie’s premiere, seemingly due to this and other controversies surrounding the film.

The Last of Us Season 2 arrives during this heightened state of online discourse, as well as ongoing violence in Gaza and the West Bank. The extent to which these conversations saturate discussions of the new season remains to be seen, as HBO prepares to drop the first of seven episodes on Sunday night.

source https://time.com/7275781/the-last-of-us-controversy-israel-gaza/

What’s Keeping Us From Fixing the Homelessness Crisis

Looking back, Evelyn freely admits that she made some rash decisions.

In the late summer of 2018, this working mother left a violent, stagnating neighborhood in Southern California’s high desert region. She moved with her husband and five children to a community just outside Los Angeles that was known for its well-rated public schools. They had almost $5,000 in savings and a modest vision for how the next passage of life would unfold but no true understanding of the real estate landscape they were entering. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles was nearly double a full-time minimum wage salary. Even with her job as a server at Applebee’s, she was overwhelmed by the city’s punishing disparity. Her husband’s subsequent descent into alcoholism and domestic abuse drained her bank account and cast her and her children into the urban wilderness. Less than three months deep in that school year, Evelyn (whose name is a pseudonym to protect her privacy) found herself to be a homeless single mother.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

From Los Angeles to New York, Portland to Phoenix, Seattle to Washington, D.C., the broad arc of Evelyn’s story is a prevalent narrative in urban America: an aspirant working family pinned down by economic weights from which far more than resilience is required to rise. Homeless families in this nation—almost 260,000 total individuals and 145,000 children in 2024, according to HUD’s annual assessment—often require all manner of medical, educational, and housing support merely to survive. They also tend to possess virtually no assets to give back in return.

As a society, we carry a real aversion to this stark mathematical imbalance of poverty, including when it encompasses children, most likely because it contradicts national values of upward mobility based on work and merit. Such values are easy to oversimplify in our own personal narratives as well as in those of prominent figures ranging from Oprah Winfrey to JD Vance. We do so and risk losing the ability to imagine the obstacles for those hundreds of thousands of anonymous individuals in circumstances of pure economic helplessness. Our generational failure to meaningfully address the housing crisis is rooted in this inertness.

Read More: America’s Laws Make Us Bystanders to the Homeless Crisis

---

Evelyn’s absolute priority throughout her long and brutal homeless saga was to keep her kids stably situated in the same public school that had originally drawn her to the city. They were thriving there. A corollary to this imperative meant ensuring that the people most capable and invested in helping them—employers, teachers, even family—remained ignorant of their homelessness lest they would be obligated to initiate agency interventions with the potential to uproot the kids from their school, place them in the foster system, and shunt them to the city’s physical and educational periphery. Instead, the family slept in motels or in their 2009 Toyota Highlander. They lived this way for five years.

In Evelyn’s Los Angeles and almost all American cities, the majority of homeless services are concentrated in marginalized areas far from healthy residential districts, as they have been nationwide for centuries Both common sense and academic research show that such an approach places hardships upon hardships for families striving to land a foothold. Long and costly commutes, lack of quality schools and safe play spaces, and exploitative landlords are just a few. 

Yet leaders who promote more inclusive housing options for homeless families seem to be faced with disruption from many members of the housed, voting public. At least part of this antagonism is due to a psychology of conflation, by which a typical homeowner reflexively associates the notion of any homeless neighbor with the most dangerous depictions of the unsheltered: the addict desperate for a fix, the lunatic raging at unseen demons. This mental trickery accompanies the broader truth that most homeowners work hard for their properties and take pride in their neighborhoods and schools, all of which together represent status and asset value in the world. Homeless people—including those who are gracious and family-oriented—do not easily situate within this order.

Even in the context of vast government spending on housing and services nationwide (over $900 million per year in Los Angeles County, nearly $4 billion in New York City for the fiscal year 2025), the path of least resistance for city governments is to leave the most basic supportive provisions in poor, far-flung areas of rich cities. This is not so much a matter of managing resources so much as a passive, effective strategy to remove those who are in great need from the daily loops of those who are not.

In many cities, shelter capacity is maxed out and voucher systems are closed. The edgy status quo will worsen as continuing natural disasters, government layoffs, and tariff wars push more working families toward the precipice where stability drops into the abyss. We are living through an iteration of a very old cycle in America in which political leaders scramble for actual solutions long after the numbers have crossed the tipping point into humanitarian disaster. 

The result, as in any true health crisis, is the kind of triage with which Evelyn and her children contended daily, for years, so that they could stay in school. While bedding down in her SUV on so many nights because the vehicle felt safer than any available alternatives, the kids designated the front seat of the SUV their dining room and the middle row of seats the living room. The storage space in the way back is made for the bedroom. Evelyn herself slept in the driver’s seat in case she needed to peel away quickly from a threat. Imagine what those nights looked and felt like for that family and for many thousands of others forced into the same set of decisions.

Then, try to imagine this: in one neighborhood that is close to decent schools and jobs, a compassionate group of residents chooses generosity over fear by approving the conversion of an empty home into a transitional housing facility that serves about six families at a time. These families are thoroughly vetted as mentally sound, safe neighbors and permitted to live there for up to a year. The parents receive counseling and job training while children attend local schools. Instead of doing what most homeowners in America currently tend to do and protesting the shelter’s existence, members of the surrounding neighborhood contribute to potluck dinners, provide childcare during adult education sessions, maybe help with school tutoring and job placement. This one location provides a platform by which a dozen or so families each year graduate into stable homes. 

Imagine that another neighborhood follows the same model, and another after that, until this pathway of socioeconomic ascent becomes a part of the fabric of a city, then a region, then a state. Imagine the current and future poverty ameliorated by such a movement.

---

The details of this whole process—particularly the vetting aspect—would raise valid concerns for many. The great emotional, imaginative, and moral leap here involves understanding that although the causes of family homelessness are nuanced, the strategies for maintaining a safe residential space are simple. The intake process in such a facility begins with multiple reference points that measure a family’s desire and capability to be there. A rotation of staff ensures 24-hour onsite care of the shelter and its inhabitants while enforcing visitation rules and in-house policies. Those who can’t abide are placed elsewhere. The apparatus is ideally managed by local non-profits and faith-based organizations possessing some knowledge of the community and its rhythms rather than city or state agencies.

On a daily basis, this form of transitional housing carries per person costs comparable to emergency shelters, which are more expensive for families. Over time and taking into account the success rates for transitional housing graduates—up to 91% according to HUD’s most recent comprehensive study of regional factors—long-term costs for families who find permanent housing stability are almost certainly far lower.  These structures can also be readied much faster since a house can be converted into apartments in a few months versus the years of zoning decisions and construction delays inherent to larger facilities. Most importantly, families who have already been traumatized and marginalized will be nurtured by communities rather than pressed farther away from them, deeper into despair. 

While homeless, Evelyn’s children achieved a 98% attendance rate at their school. On weekends when she wasn’t working restaurant shifts, she took them to museums, the beach, the library—any nourishing place where they could be safe together. Through profound good luck, they eventually found transitional housing, job training, and school tutoring within a small shelter in a residential area. Most of their neighbors received them with grace. Evelyn now works at an accounting firm. Her oldest son is a freshman in college.

The proliferation of narratives like Evelyn’s could come to pass if stably housed Americans on a widespread scale begin to frame the incorporation of homeless families as an opportunity for absolutely altruistic largesse. If a movement to allot physical structures and school placements within communities were to become a new ethos, then many tens of thousands of working parents who possess neither assets nor hope would be furnished with roofs overhead as well as the gift of knowing that they are welcome here.

source https://time.com/7276394/fixing-the-homelessness-crisis-essay/

Amid Trump Tariff Uncertainty, Should Consumers Stock Up Now on What May Soon Become More Expensive?

President Donald Trump reversed course on most of his “reciprocal tariffs” Wednesday afternoon—just hours after they were officially put in place—with the exception of China.

“Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the USTR, to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade… I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The U.S. is the largest importer in the world, importing over $328 billion of goods in February, according to a Bureau of Economic Analysis report. The most imported items include cars, computers, metals, petroleum, and telephones, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity. Electronics are also heavily imported from China.

Consumers flocked to stock up on food and other items after the tariffs were announced on April 2. Economists have also largely sounded the alarm on a potential recession and the growing cost on American wallets. Even after Trump’s reversal, with China being taxed at such a high rate, a number of goods will likely see their prices increase, and there remains the potential for the higher rates on imports from other countries to resume in three months, which some shoppers may hope to get ahead of.

Experts, it should be noted, advise folks to remain calm. “Financial markets have indicated to us in the last couple of days that there are other risks, including a risk of a recession and future income loss,” says Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University. “Aggressively spending now might not be optimal for everyone.”

Read More: Is the U.S. Heading Into a Recession Amid Trump’s Tariffs? ‘Liberation Day’ Fallout Sparks Fresh Fears

Here’s what to know about what items may face the biggest price increases from Trump’s trade policies.

Automobiles 

Trade between nearby Canada and Mexico is currently being disrupted by tariffs imposed on imported cars, autoparts, aluminum, and steel. (These tariffs differ from the “reciprocal tariffs” Trump imposed on other countries, which Mexico and Canada were exempt from.)

Analysis conducted by economist Arthur Laffer shows that the tariffs could raise prices for some vehicles by more than $4,700.

“Right now, it would be best to get a new car that’s already on a dealer’s lot,” says Brian Moody, executive editor of AutoTrader.com. “If you are already in the market for that, then speed that process up just a little.”

Moody says it’s difficult to assess which brands will be most affected by tariffs. “The truth is, many cars that the average person might think of as an ‘import brand’ are built here in the U.S.,” he says, adding that “some of those vehicles that are built or assembled here in the U.S., they use parts from overseas or just across the border. So that’s why a car that’s built in the U.S. may still incur a tariff.”

Some automakers have informed customers that they will, at least temporarily, be keeping prices at the same rate. Hyundai Motor North America affirmed that they won’t be increasing car prices until at least June 2. BMW said that it will absorb the costs of the tariffs on its cars until May, according to the Wall Street Journal. Toyota shared a list of models that are manufactured in the U.S., including the Highlander and Camry, among others. And Ford launched a “From America, For America” campaign, and said that starting on April 3, it will offer buyers the same pricing discount employees receive.

“It is really incumbent on the consumer to do a bunch of research ahead of time to figure these things out,” says Moody. “People can just call their local dealer [and say,] ‘I really want an XYZ car. Do you have a bunch of those? Is there a price increase? What is the price?’”

Read More: Trump Wants to Spin His Tariff Pause as a Win. It’s Not

Food 

Food inflation continues to be a major concern for families. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), food prices rose by 23.6% from 2020 to 2024. 

The nearly 1.9 million farms in the U.S. play a major role in delivering that food to families’ tables, which some experts say means food prices will not rise exponentially. “The vast majority of calories that we consume are U.S.-based,” says Michael Swanson, Wells Fargo’s chief agricultural economist.

Livestock, feed grains, and oilseeds see low import rates, according to the USDA. And generally, the U.S. relies on imports of fruits, vegetables, or alcoholic beverages that simply cannot be produced in the U.S.—whether because of climate, seasonal availability, or other inconveniences.

Avocados, of which about 90%, per figures released in 2024, come from Mexico, are exempt from tariffs. That’s because it falls under the category of a U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) compliant good.

Imported wine, which mostly derives from France and Italy, may also be affected. “If there’s something unique, like a wine or a cheese that you love, there’s a lot of great products that you should probably experiment with to see if you can find something you like [as much] or better,” says Swanson. “California wine producers will be more than happy to have you take a look at their product again.”

Electronics 

Cellphones, computers, TV sets, and other electronics are largely imported from China—the nation facing the biggest tariff rate from the U.S. The prices of such goods are undoubtedly set to increase, though Tintelnot says that some companies may choose to rely on their assembly facilities in countries that are not China, to avoid some of the tariffs. “A tariff of 125% is massive. It’s pretty close to making it nearly prohibitive to import from that country,” he says. “Products, instead of coming from China, would come from the next best production location.”

Clothes 

The U.S. is the largest single-country apparel importer in the world, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission.

The U.S. imports nearly all of its clothes and shoes from other countries, per a 2024 report from the American Apparel & Footwear Association. More than half of the apparel imported comes from China, making the price of apparel likely to increase. However, supporters of “slow fashion,” which advocates higher quality and longer lasting materials, see the tariffs as an opportunity for Americans to take a closer look at secondhand shopping, which can be more eco and budget-friendly.

source https://time.com/7276370/amid-trump-tariffs-what-should-consumers-stock-up-on/

Trump Wants Tariffs to Bring Back U.S. Jobs. They Might Speed Up AI Automation Instead

Announcing his tariffs in the White House Rose Garden last week, President Trump said the move would help reopen shuttered car factories in Michigan and bring various other jobs back to the U.S.

“The president wants to increase manufacturing jobs here in the United States of America,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt added on Tuesday. “He wants them to come back home.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

But rather than enticing companies to create new jobs in the U.S., economists say, the new tariffs—bolstered by recent advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics—could instead increase incentives for companies to automate human labor entirely.

“There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that this is going to bring back a lot of jobs,” says Carl Benedikt Frey, an economist and professor of AI & work at Oxford University. “Costs are higher in the United States. That means there’s an even stronger economic incentive to find ways of automating even more tasks.”

In other words: when labor costs are low—like they are in Vietnam—it’s usually not worth it for companies to invest in the expensive up-front costs of automating human labor. But if companies are forced to move their labor to more expensive countries, like the U.S., that cost-benefit calculation changes drastically.

To be sure, experts note that tariffs may not immediately lead to more automation. Automating manufacturing jobs often requires companies to make significant investments in physical machinery, which tariffs are likely to make more expensive. In a time of economic turmoil, companies also usually hold off on making big capital expenditures.

Thus, in the short run, Nobel Prize-winning economist Daron Acemoglu predicts, there is likely to be so much disruption that few companies will invest in automation or much else. But if tariffs persist in the medium term, Acemoglu tells TIME, he expects companies “will have no choice but to bring some of their supply chains back home—but they will do it via AI and robots.”

The evidence from the last time Trump imposed tariffs on trading partners, in 2018, shows no major increase in automation as a result. (Those tariffs did in fact lead to job losses in affected industries anyway, a Federal Reserve study found, due to higher production costs and reduced export competitiveness.) 

But some economists think the 2025 tariffs could be different—incentivizing more automation—because AI and robotics have come a long way since 2018. 

“Our technological capabilities have improved since the last round of tariffs, particularly because of improvements in AI,” says Frey, the Oxford economist.

The rise of robotics

For years, a major limitation of robots was that they couldn’t adapt to even minor changes in their environments. An industrial robot might be able to carry out a repeatable task in a controlled environment easily—like cutting a car door from a sheet of metal—but for more deft tasks in more complex environments, humans still prevailed.

That might not be the case for much longer. Robot “brains” are getting more adaptable, thanks to progress in general AI systems like large language models. Robot bodies are becoming more deft, thanks to investment and research by companies like Boston Dynamics. And robots are getting cheaper to produce over time (although tariffs might temporarily reverse that trend). 

“It has taken some time, but people have been doing research on taking language models’ ability for common-sense understanding, and applying it to robotics,” says Lucas Hansen, co-founder of CivAI, a non-profit. “It doesn’t require much special effort to apply robots to new purposes now, especially once this technology matures a bit more. So if you’re a mid-sized manufacturing operation, previously you would have had to invest tons of money in R&D to automate everything. But now, it will require a lot less marginal effort.”

Acemoglu is more skeptical. Robots, he says, still struggle in complex environments, even if flashy corporate demo videos suggest otherwise. “I wouldn’t be optimistic that it’s a quick problem to be solved,” he says, predicting that flexible robots are at least 10 years away.

If tariffs lead to more automation, it’s still unlikely that productivity gains will offset the huge losses stemming from supply chain disruption and added import costs. “The main first-order effect of tariffs is they will make everything less efficient,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of the Digital Economy Lab at Stanford University. “When you throw sand in the gears of supply chains and global trade, we’re all just going to be a little bit poorer.”

The Trump Administration has said it wants AI to benefit American workers, rather than replace them. “We refuse to view AI as a purely disruptive technology that will inevitably automate away our labor force,” Vice President JD Vance said in February. “We believe and we will fight for policies that ensure that AI is going to make our workers more productive, and we expect that they will reap the rewards.”

But past experiences with new technologies in the workplace suggest that rosy vision is unlikely to come to pass, says Brian Merchant, a labor historian and author of Blood in the Machine. “Historically when there is a downturn, if there is an opportunity to automate, then companies will take it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll use fewer humans, but it does mean that employers have a chance to break through labor protections and gain more leverage.”

source https://time.com/7276087/trump-tariffs-ai-automation-robots/