Medical and Scientific Research Makes America Great

While the Trump Administration’s sharp increases in tariffs have received much of the political and economic attention in our public discourse, there is another subject that could have a far more profound and longer-term negative effect on America which deserves equal, if not greater, attention. This is the serious threat to America’s basic, early stage medical and scientific research.

During World War II, Dr. Vannevar Bush took a leadership role in ensuring U.S. preeminence in science and research by creating the Office of Scientific Research and Development, which led to the creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Other similar scientific research institutions followed. And our academic, government, and business innovation collaboration has over time attracted some of the best talent—among both our own citizens and top scientists worldwide.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

But now, support for basic science and medical research is in danger of flatlining. We have witnessed a decline in trust for basic research in recent years. This has been accompanied by significant cuts in government financial support leading to sharp cuts in vital personnel in critical scientific and medical research programs at universities, laboratories, and highly regarded medical and scientific centers throughout the country.

These cuts do not discriminate. They are occurring in red and blue states alike—in Middle America as well as along the East and West Coasts. And this is not just occuring in highly prestigious and heavily funded institutions, but also on a broader scale. As a second order effect, innovation and advanced research in this country is not, and should not be, a monopoly of a few schools and institutions; and we run the risk that these cuts could also be imposed on smaller universities and research institutions in a wide range of cities and regions.

Over a decade ago, as Undersecretary of State responsible for overseeing the Department’s international economic policy, I wrote about the role of innovative, basic science in sustaining America’s global economic power, enhancing domestic prosperity, producing lifesaving new medicines, modernizing the technology used by our military, and creating breakthroughs in many transformational technologies.

Advancements in these areas have been critical to the prosperity and wellbeing of our society, as they are now with accelerating advances in AI and quantum computing. The ultimate benefits of these advances—if sustained—could last for generations to come, potentially providing the basis for many successful new businesses in our country, attracting the world’s top research talent to our nation, and generating millions of high quality jobs for those creating and applying new technologies.

Sustaining this progress will be especially vital to future domestic medical advances and the prosperity of millions of Americans in future generations. It could also enable this country to maintain a strong and technologically preeminent military—an ever more critical need today given the formidable technological competition from China—and shape the future of international scientific cooperation.

Preeminence in science, advanced technology, and medicine is also a key element of America’s soft power, strengthening friendships and alliances with countries that want to develop closer collaboration with U.S. universities, companies, and research centers. It benefits not only Americans but also provides better health and faster economic progress for others around the world. 

Preeminence is also needed for continued U.S. leadership in setting rules, norms, and common international practices to ensure that the results of this research are used for the good of our citizens—as opposed to doing harm to our national or global interests.

This dynamic created institutions, and an environment, in the U.S. which supports the best and brightest scientists and researchers from within this country and attracts many thousands who come here from around the world. Today, approximately 16% of all scientists and other STEM workers in the U.S. are foreign born. This is why leaders on both sides of the aisle have strategically prioritized research, as well as the cultivation and attraction of scientific and technological talent, during much of the post-war period.

Many German scientists who could, fled here before or during World War II. After the war, one of our most important innovative initiatives was the highly clandestine “Operation Paper Clip” which brought German scientists here. And during the Cold War era, many of these scientists were critical to our successes in space, nuclear, and broader military achievements. Albert Einstein, being a prime example, taught at America’s advanced universities, but large numbers also taught in small colleges and junior colleges.

And over the past several decades, talented scientists from places such as India, Israel, Japan, China, South Korea and Eastern Europe came to the U.S. as well. Many of them became students and researchers across the country. Some, such as Andy Grove and Sergei Brim, founded, built, and ultimately ran America’s most successful tech companies.

It was in part because of our pro-science, pro-innovation environment and openness to foreign talent, that so many brilliant scholars and researchers came to the United States. They did so for freedom and the opportunity to do innovative research. One did not see such foreign-born scientists falling over one another to go to the Soviet Union, a nation characterized by a heavy-handed and oppressive environment that was not conducive to this. In the end, many of these scientists—and the investment in American science in general—played instrumental roles in winning the Cold War and the Space Race.

But now, support for vital basic early-stage research is falling sharply. Recent, large, and sudden cuts seriously endanger American scientific preeminence and thus America’s prosperity, social wellbeing, and national security. For example, as the result of NSF and NIH funding being dramatically cut, or placed on hold, we are seeing the reversal of talent out of the United States. Companies and governments in many countries are actively advertising to attract researchers being let go by our government institutions, our companies, and our universities due to funding and personnel cuts. Many are highly unlikely to return.

This it is hardly encouraging, considering how vital AI is to our future, that, as Nvidia ‘s CEO recently reminded us, roughly one half of all AI researchers in the world now are Chinese. We used to be the magnet for talent from around the world. Now China, Singapore, other countries in Asia and several European countries as well aim to be—and to create a reverse brain drain.

Those who care about America’s global research and technology leadership, should be alarmed by the deep cuts we are witnessing in research funding, the firing of personnel with enormous scientific expertise, and a sharp shift away from the attraction of foreign scientists—many of whom are critical to our healthcare system, technological innovation, and entrepreneurial success.

For example, recent budget proposals call for a 40% cut in funds for NIH, which would lead to similarly large terminations in vital medical research projects, and an over 50% cut in NSF funding, which will mean terminations in critical STEM education programs. Fortunately, business has significantly increased research and development over the last two decades, but only a small fraction of that goes to critical early stage, basic research.

I am a great believer in reducing this nation’s debt and deficits, which endanger our economy and place an enormous burden on future generations. Cutting unproductive personnel from some parts of the government also makes sense and I commend those in both parties aiming to do this. These cuts, however, must be strategic, justified, and well placed to be effective.

Large and sudden across-the-board cuts, however, inevitably end up cutting or killing essential research funding and the firing of highly talented people. They frequently come at a cost to the health outcomes and economic wellbeing of large numbers of Americans now and for generations to come. Lastly, they threaten our country’s research and technological preeminence on which our strategic and defense capabilities depend—which is especially troubling given the rapid rise of Chinese technical and military prowess.

These are not isolated events that have occurred only in the recent months of this administration or even in recent years. This broad erosion has been taking place for several decades during periods of both Democratic and Republican leadership. Large numbers of Americans have become skeptical about, and some openly hostile to, advanced science and basic research. Some groups are especially skeptical, in most cases due to a plethora of inaccurate information over social media, about immunizations and therapies produced by modern medicine. 

This sadly stands in sharp contrast with the virtually unanimous social and bipartisan support and sense of national pride in America’s scientific achievements in decades past, which have led to remarkable breakthroughs: the dramatically successful Salk polio vaccine, various lifesaving HIV/AIDs therapies, mapping the human genome, remarkable U.S. feats in the space race, military technologies that helped win the Cold War, computer and wireless communications technologies that have dramatically boosted business, and countless new medicines being developed in labs throughout our country that have cured or helped prevent, as in Operation Warp Speed, so many diseases in the last several decades.

We need to ensure renewed American leadership and dynamism in these areas. To do so we must reverse this downward course and ensure sustained U.S. leadership in basic medical and scientific research and 21st Century technology development. 

President Donald Trump has an enormous opportunity to exercise world class leadership in this area, as American leaders did after World War II. The opportunity is now and the need is urgent, especially while the budget is being debated in Washington.

Making and keeping “America great” will depend heavily on a robust, well-funded, and multifaceted basic research effort by our institutions and scientists, sustaining America’s already remarkable technological and medical advances.

By shifting their emphasis from sharply cutting back support for basic research to enthusiastically funding supporting it now, our leaders in Washington can transcend any one period, party, or administration and instead benefit large numbers of Americans now and for generations to come, who could enjoy opportunities for a longer, healthier and higher quality of life, better jobs, and more defense security.

If America is to have a new “golden age,” investing in research is an indispensably important path to achieve it.

source https://time.com/7286127/medical-scientific-research-makes-america-great/

Trump Says He Will Speak to Putin on Monday About ‘Stopping the Bloodbath’

President Donald Trump has said he will be speaking to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, amid attempts to procure a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine.

“I will be speaking, by telephone, to President Vladimir Putin of Russia on Monday, at 10:00 a.m.,” Trump announced on his Truth Social account on Saturday, May 17. He said the subjects of the call will be “stopping the ‘bloodbath’ that is killing, on average, more than 5,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, and trade.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Trump said after this call, he will then speak separately with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

“Hopefully it will be a productive day, a cease-fire will take place, and this very violent war, a war that should have never happened, will end, God bless us all,” Trump concluded.

The announcement from Trump comes after officials from Russia and Ukraine met in Istanbul, Turkey, on Friday to hold direct talks about the pursuit of peace. Notably, neither Zelensky or Putin were present at the summit. After much speculation as to whether the two leaders would engage in a face-to-face meeting—something Zelensky advocated for, on the condition that a cease-fire would be agreed to prior—the two did not meet. Putin rejected Zelensky’s offer to an in-person sit-down in Turkey, and did not accompany the Russian delegation to Turkey. Meanwhile, Zelensky travelled to the Turkish capital of Ankara, where he met with the country’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Read More: How Putin Missed His Shot at Peace

In a sign of progress, the meeting of the Russian and Ukrainian delegates did result in an agreement to carry out the largest prisoner swap of the war, with each country committing to exchange 1,000 prisoners of war.

After the meeting, Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, who led the country’s delegation, told reporters that the two countries had also discussed the possibility of a cease-fire and a meeting between their respective Presidents.

Europe and the U.S. have previously proposed a 30-day cease-fire, which Ukraine has accepted. But Putin has refused to accept the proposal unless a list of his demands are met.

A call between Trump and Putin has been on the cards. The U.S. President told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday: “Nothing is going to happen until Putin and I get together.”

On Friday, the Kremlin echoed these comments, saying that communication between Trump and Putin is “extremely important” for settling the conflict.

“Contacts between President Putin and Trump are extremely important in the context of the Ukrainian settlement,” Russian press secretary Dmitry Peskov is quoted as telling Russian press. “Of course, we agree with this thesis. This significance is difficult to overestimate.”

Though Trump had promised a new era of Russia-Ukraine relations under his second term in the White House, his first 100 days saw things get off to a rocky start, with tensions peaking between Trump and Zelensky. The two shared a heated exchange in the Oval Office in February.

“You’re gambling with World War III, and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should have,” Trump told Zelensky during the tense meeting.

The two appear to have since mended their relationship, and shared a brief, but significant, in-person sit-down—their first since the Oval Office clash—ahead of Pope Francis’ funeral at St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City on April 26.

Of the sit-down, Zelensky said it was a “very symbolic meeting that has [the] potential to become historic.”

“We discussed a lot one-on-one. Hoping for results on everything we covered. Protecting lives of our people. Full and unconditional cease-fire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out,” he said.

After the meeting, Trump called out Putin via social media, expressing doubt that the Russian leader wants to end the war in Ukraine, and hinting at sanctions against Russia.

Still, Trump maintains that he can broker a peace deal between the two countries.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio landed in Istanbul earlier this week so that U.S. officials could host their own separate talks with Ukrainian and Turkish delegates. Rubio had a phone call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Saturday, per the State Department.

“The comprehensive peace plan proposed by the United States outlines the best way forward,” the State Department said. “The Secretary emphasized President Trump’s call for an immediate cease-fire and an end to the violence.”

source https://time.com/7286253/trump-putin-zelensky-call-ceasefire-efforts/

Is the Department of Homeland Security Considering a Reality Show Where Immigrants Compete for U.S. Citizenship?

A producer behind reality shows like The Millionaire Matchmaker, Duck Dynasty, and Alpha Dogs has pitched a new reality show idea to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—one in which immigrants compete for U.S. citizenship.

“I’m putting a face to immigration. This is a great celebration of America,” Rob Worsoff told CNN in an interview that aired on Friday, May 16, noting that he himself is an immigrant from Canada.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Worsoff says that he also pitched this reality show during both previous Democrat Administrations.

In an emailed statement to TIME on Saturday, Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary who oversees the DHS’ public outreach, said: “DHS receives hundreds of television show pitches a year, ranging from documentaries surrounding ICE and CBP border operations to white collar investigations by HSI,” adding that each of these proposals goes through a vetting process.

“We need to revive patriotism and civic duty in this country, and we’re happy to review out-of-the-box pitches. This pitch has not received approval or rejection by staff,” she said.

McLaughlin also denied, as she had on Friday via social media, that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was backing the show in any way, and said that Noem is “not even aware of the pitch.”

Meanwhile, Worsoff claimed during his CNN interview that the DHS appears to be “seriously considering” the show—which he said would include a series of elimination challenges across America. Examples he gave of such challenges included a “pizza-making challenge” in New York, a “rocket-launching challenge” in Florida, and a “gold rush challenge” in California. Per his vision, each episode would culminate in a town hall-esque style vote, one he said is akin to a “presidential election.”

“The people of Tennessee, let’s say, will get to vote on which one of our future Americans they would most like to represent the state of Tennessee,” Worsoff offered as an example. Then, a winner would be granted citizenship.

The pitch comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his Administration have launched a crackdown on U.S. immigration—embroiling themselves in legal battles to end birthright citizenship, upping mass deportation goals, and overhauling asylum access.

On Friday, the Supreme Court barred the Trump Administration from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members to prisons in El Salvador. The Trump Administration had previously been utilizing the act to expedite deportations of Venezuelan nationals alleged to be in the Tren de Aragua gang, though the court argued that Trump only gave these migrants 24 hours to receive legal advice, and that they were “devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal.” The ruling extends the court’s April emergency order barring Trump from using the wartime law to deport migrants held in a detention facility in Texas.

Read More: What Is Habeas Corpus and How Is It Under Threat By the Trump Administration?

The stakes are high, Worsoff recognized in his interview, but he argued that his reality show idea is “not The Hunger Games.”

“It’s not some mean spirited thing that’s trying to deport people; it’s exactly the opposite of that,” he said. “I’m very fortunate and lucky and honored to be an American. And I want everybody to understand the process.”

source https://time.com/7286216/department-of-homeland-security-reality-show-immigrants-compete-us-citizenship-pitch/

The Best Way to Interrupt Someone

If you’re the type of person who cares about conversational etiquette, the idea of interrupting someone might make you cringe. But sometimes, cutting in is necessary.

However, you should only do it if your conversation partner is “saying something factually inaccurate,” says Jefferson Fisher, a Texas-based lawyer and author of The Next Conversation: Argue Less, Talk More. “It’s not that you’re arguing with their opinion; you’re arguing an actual issue of legitimate fact.” With the right words, you can do it in a way that (probably) won’t irritate whoever is on the receiving end.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Be upfront

The best way to interrupt someone is to acknowledge what you’re doing. Start with the words “I know I’m interrupting” or “I need to interrupt.” With this preamble, “people don’t get defensive, because it’s you acknowledging what you’re doing,” Fisher says. “If you’re talking and you said something inaccurate, I would say, ‘Angela, I need to interrupt you,’ or ‘I know I’m interrupting you.’ You won’t see it as an affront or as me just assuming that what I’m saying is more important than what you’re saying.”

Read More: How to Say ‘I Told You So’ in a More Effective Way

The same philosophy applies to social gatherings. If you want to steal someone away who is already in conversation with another guest, announce what you’re doing instead of grabbing the person’s arm and pulling them away. “If somebody comes up and says, ‘I need to take Angela for a minute,’ and then pulls you, now I understand the dynamic,” Fisher says. “It’s like giving a roadmap for what needs to happen.”

Voicing what you’re doing is almost always useful, he adds. If you’re in an argument with someone and you suddenly slam the door shut and leave the room, for example, it probably won’t go over well. If you explicitly state that you need to leave the room, however, you’re at least making your intentions clear and setting expectations. “When you claim it, you control it,” Fisher says. “When you say something out loud, it shows your confidence in what you’re doing, which is powerful in communication.”

Use the person’s name

People like to hear the sound of their own name—which makes it one of the best ways to capture their attention, even when they’re busy steamrolling a conversation. If you’re in a meeting with a grade-A dominator, and no one can manage to squeeze in, say the person’s name: “I might say ‘Angela,’ and if you keep on talking, I’ll say ‘Angela’—and maybe I have to say it again—but eventually you will stop,” Fisher says. “You’ll stop for your name, rather than me trying to fight for the mic.”

Pass the mic

Sometimes, you’ll be caught in a meeting with someone who’s been yammering on for 6 minutes and counting. Rather than trying to talk over them—which is akin to “grabbing for control, which looks desperate”—try to turn things over to someone else. Fisher’s favorite way to tactfully do this is to first acknowledge what the person is saying: “I hear you on X, Y, and Z, and I’m going to follow-up on your points. Now I’d really like to hear from Jessica on this topic.”

Read More: 8 Ways to Respond to an Apology Besides ‘It’s OK’

“It’s a gracious way of trying to pass it on to somebody else, because sometimes people start talking, and they just don’t know how to land the plane,” he says. “They don’t know how to exit the stage, so you have to metaphorically get out that hook and pull them from it.”

Wondering what to say in a tricky social situation? Email timetotalk@time.com

source https://time.com/7285373/how-to-interrupt-someone/

The Directors of Final Destination: Bloodlines Want to Ruin More Everyday Experiences for You

Warning: This post contains some spoilers for Final Destination: Bloodlines.

A log flying off the back of a truck and exploding through your windshield. Being fried alive in a tanning bed. Getting your hand stuck down the garbage disposal. Anyone who’s seen a Final Destination movie tends to be able to name at least one fatal scenario from the franchise that continued to haunt them long after the credits rolled.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

These unforgettable death traps are a big reason the horror series, which debuted in 2000 with an inaugural installment that quickly earned a cult following, have such staying power. They’re also a beloved feature of the first five films that Final Destination: Bloodlines directing duo Zach Lipovsky and Adam Stein (Freaks) wanted to ensure they kept alive, so to speak.

“One of the very first things we talked about when we started working on the movie was, what can we ruin for people?” Stein says with a laugh. “So a big part of the creative process was identifying those common, everyday experiences that will stick with people for the rest of their lives. It can be something as simple as a cup full of ice or something as specific as the song ‘Shout,’ which is going to make you think about this movie anytime you hear it at a wedding from now on.”

Although initially critically panned, the Final Destination franchise has brought in north of $666 million worldwide through five movies. Now, Bloodlines, the saga’s long-awaited sixth entry, is being praised as “elegantly sadistic entertainment” and is slated to gross at least $35-$40 million in its opening weekend. It arrives in theaters a little less than two months after the 25th anniversary of the first film that turned Death into an unseen, unheard, yet still personified villain fond of diabolically complex Rube Goldberg-style kills.

“There’s no killer in a mask running around with a knife,” Stein says. “But Death does have a personality. Death is very clever and plays a long game. That’s why people love these movies. The kills are so much fun to watch that you end up rooting for Death in a way.”

Having grown up in Vancouver, where most of the previous entries were filmed, Lipovsky says he’s long had a soft spot for Final Destination. “A lot of my friends have died in Final Destination movies or worked on Final Destination movies,” he says. “A lot of landmarks are set pieces. It’s sort of a staple in the city.”

So when a shot at landing the directing gig for Bloodlines arose, he and Stein decided to go for broke. The pair ultimately convinced the powers that be they were right for the job by faking Stein’s death at the end of a Zoom pitch meeting. Thanks to a combination of prerecorded footage and visual effects, New Line execs and producers were given front-row seats to their potential hire suddenly being decapitated by a falling ceiling fan. Thus, the deal was sealed.

As with every Final Destination that came before, Bloodlines opens with a character having a vision of a gruesome and terrifying mass casualty event in which they, and any friends and loved ones with them, are killed. This premonition allows them to escape Death, but only until it eventually catches back up to them and begins orchestrating their demises in the same order in which they were originally fated to die. However, this time around, there’s a twist. When the person experiencing the vision abruptly comes to, we see that it’s not the woman at the center of the carnage, Iris (Brec Bassinger in her younger years and Gabrielle Rose later in life), but rather a college student, Stefani (Kaitlyn Santa Juana), who is revealed to be her granddaughter.

“The biggest challenge with Bloodlines was that the formula already works really well: a bunch of people escape Death, are marked by Death, and Death comes for them. That’s why you’re going to the theater. And Final Destination 5 ended in such a great way that it felt like the perfect conclusion,” Lipovsky says of reinvigorating the franchise after a 14-year hiatus. “So we wanted to find all sorts of ways be true to the canon, but twist it to play with people’s expectations. We wanted to keep it feeling fresh.”

Turns out, because Iris was able to prevent the opening night collapse of the Skyview Tower restaurant and save everyone inside after she originally had the vision back in 1968, it took Death long enough to make its way through its intended victims that many of them ended up having children. This created bloodlines that, in Death’s mind, never should have existed and led to Death going after its victims’ descendants as well. Since Iris was the second to last person to die in the premonition, all of this happening gave her time to get wise to Death’s tricks and she ultimately hid herself away in a remote, fortified cabin for decades to avoid any fatal surprises. But, once Iris finally gives herself over to Death, the burden of trying to protect the family—and figuring out Death’s rules of cosmic justice—falls to Stefani.

This unconventional setup also allows Bloodlines to give franchise mainstay and cryptic funeral home owner William Bludworth (late horror legend and Candyman star Tony Todd in his final role) a long-awaited backstory. “He’s always been this mysterious character that has a lot of information for sort of no reason and is just this weird, creepy guy,” Lipovsky says. “So we wanted to help explain where he came from and why he is the way he is. And then, most importantly, we wanted to not only give the character a goodbye, but also give Tony the opportunity to say goodbye to the audience.”

While we won’t reveal exactly what befalls Stefani and the rest of her family, Death’s increasingly inventive, and often darkly comedic, methods of getting its job done pretty much beg to be seen in a theater with a crowd of fellow horror fans—if you’re into that sort of thing.

“There’s a death of a 12-year-old boy early in the film, and the way audiences have been reacting when that happens is cheering with joy that the child has been crushed,” Lipovsky says. “That’s an experience you will not get at home.”

source https://time.com/7285162/final-destination-bloodlines-directors-interview/

Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning Won’t Save the Movies—But It’s Still Fun to Watch Tom Cruise Try

Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning, the eighth film in the franchise and ostensibly its finale, looks, feels, and sounds like the sort of movie you need to see on the big screen. The powers that be at the Cannes Film Festival clearly thought so too: the picture premiered here on May 14. And even if, some 20 or even 10 years ago, adding a pop franchise entry like this one to the festival lineup might have seemed like a cheap, attention-grabbing stunt, it means something wholly different now. Aside from the fact that Cannes isn’t necessarily above the occasional cheap, attention-grabbing stunt, as an institution it is and always has been all about the big-screen experience, which is now so endangered that it needs all the attention it can get. In 2025, Final Reckoning is exactly the kind of splashy crowd-pleaser that the festival seeks out to both offset and complement its otherwise fairly serious-minded slate of films from all over the world. No one would begrudge Tom Cruise his turn on the Cannes red carpet, and at the Final Reckoning premiere, the crowd seemed happy to welcome him. You don’t have to love Cruise to acknowledge that he’s probably the most widely recognizable movie star in the world. Sometimes recognition counts as a kind of love.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

To his credit, Cruise believes with all his heart in the big-screen experience. Just as his Mission: Impossible character Ethan Hunt gamely takes on the burden, ad nauseam, of saving the world, Cruise genuinely thinks he can save cinema. His optimism is touching, if unrealistic. But as hard as he, and we, might wish it could be so, Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning—directed by franchise veteran Christopher McQuarrie, who also cowrote the script—isn’t the kind of movie that will save movies. It’s big, extravagant, and at times very beautiful to look at. The story is the problem: packed with expository dialogue, it feels as if it were written to be digested in 10- or 15-minute bites. Characters robotically repeat significant McGuffiny phrases. The Rabbit’s Foot! The Anti-God! The Doomsday Vault! Final Reckoning doesn’t flow; it lurches forward in a series of information-delivery packets. If you’ve seen the first half of this double whammy, 2023’s conveniently titled Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One, but forgotten what the hell it was all about, you needn’t worry. You could queue up Final Reckoning at home, go out to walk the dog, and get caught up in a snap when you return. And how cinematic is that?

The plot, picking up where Dead Reckoning Part One left off, goes something like this: Cruise’s Ethan Hunt is in hot water for—quelle surprise—failing to follow orders. (He got thrown off track by trying to avenge the death of his wife—we’re supposed to believe Ethan is a true romantic only because we’re reminded over and over again.) Now he must complete the mission with which he’s been entrusted: to vanquish the scary all-seeing, all-knowing AI being known as the Entity. To do so, he must dive deep into Arctic waters to procure a doodad known as the Podkova—a disappointing-looking little thing that looks like an eight-track cassette—which contains the Entity’s source code. Not so fast, though: the Podkova is nothing without a little plug-in known as the Poison Pill. Once Ethan has that, the Entity will be kaputsky.

Unfortunately, the Poison Pill is in the possession of wily villain Gabriel (Esai Morales), who’s fond of slinking around and bragging about how much power he’ll have once the Entity is in his grasp. He’s already got the Poison Pill, having seized it from one of Ethan’s dearest colleagues in the Impossible Mission Force, Ving Rhames’ Luther. Many of Ethan’s other helpers (the ones who haven’t been killed off—RIP Rebecca Ferguson’s magnificent Ilsa Faust) have returned, including tech-support smarty Benji (Simon Pegg), foe-turned-friend Paris (Pom Klementieff), and ace pickpocket Grace (Haley Atwell), who also slips handily into the role of Ethan’s love interest. Sadly, Grace doesn’t get to do much pickpocketing: her chief job is to gaze admiringly at her hero beau and issue solemn declarations like “The whole world’s in trouble, Ethan. You’re the only one I trust to save it.” At one point, Ethan nearly dies—it wouldn’t be a Mission: Impossible movie without at least one or two or three close calls—and in a sequence shot with the tender, dreamy vagueness of a feminine-hygiene commercial from the ‘70s, she brings him back to robust health with her womanly caresses. No one in the Cannes audience laughed; perhaps the end times really are nigh.

But no matter: cinema is still bigger than all of us, with the capacity to be many things. Mission: Impossible—Final Reckoning is just one kind of thing, a big-screen entertainment that should be better than it is. It does offer some moments of joy: the climactic stunt sequence—involving not one but two biplanes, soaring over countryside greenery—is fun precisely because it’s a pleasure, finally, to gaze at something tangible and mechanical, instead of just contemplating the threat posed by the Entity. (Represented as a talking ganglion of light, it’s a disappointingly abstract villain.)

And no matter how you feel about Cruise, you’ve got to admit he looks pretty good. As usual, his Ethan Hunt is muscular, hardy, game for anything. If any of the cartilage in his joints is wearing away, you’d never know it. A sequence in which he’s told he must train in advance for a treacherous underwater mission has him zipping away on a treadmill in manly-man fashion, electrodes stuck to his bare, gleaming chest. He’s still got that boys-adventure-book grin, though he can also be suitably solemn when he remembers, as one character after another reminds him, that the fate of the world is in his hands. As Ethan Hunt, Cruise may just be going through the motions of being Tom Cruise. But would an audience want to see him any other way? When he appeared onscreen, the audience at the massive Cannes press screening I attended—not to be confused with the glitzy premiere—cheered just a little, as if embarrassed by their spontaneous enthusiasm. This was a crowd of critics and journalists from around the world. We’re supposed to be cool, circumspect, not-too-easy to please—but also, we love our stardust. The movies aren’t just one thing, and they can’t be saved by one man. Still, we’ll believe the world can be snatched from AI doom if Tom Cruise can just plug the Poison Pill into the Podkova. For now, it’s almost enough.

source https://time.com/7285421/mission-impossible-the-final-reckoning-review-tom-cruise/

Walmart Warns It May Have to Raise Prices Starting This Month as Tariffs Are ‘Still Too High’

Walmart, America’s largest retailer, has warned that consumers might start feeling the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs later this month, as the company’s chief financial officer John David Rainey said that tariffs are “still too high.”

“We’re wired for everyday low prices, but the magnitude of these increases is more than any retailer can absorb,” Rainey told CNBC in an interview on Thursday. “It’s more than any supplier can absorb. And so I’m concerned that [consumers are] going to start seeing higher prices. You’ll begin to see that, likely towards the tail end of this month, and then certainly much more in June.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Trump’s tariffs rocked the stock market in April, and Walmart was not exempt from feeling the impact.

In a sign of easing tensions in the trade war, on Monday, Trump announced a broad trade agreement with China, lowering U.S. import taxes on goods coming from China from 145% down to 30% for an initial 90-day period.

Despite this shift, Walmart is still feeling the pinch. However, the retailer’s net sales are set to increase 3.5% to 4.5% for the second quarter of the fiscal year.

Per CNBC, Walmart “declined to provide guidance for earnings per share or operating income growth because of fluctuating U.S. tariff policy.”

The impact of Trump’s initial “Liberation Day” tariffs were felt immediately, with some American firms canceling orders from China and postponing expansions that had been planned.

While the stock market reacted positively to Trump’s deal with China over the tariffs, the continuous reversals from the White House have confused consumers and businesses, leaving them little stability.

“[T]his is a little bit unprecedented in terms of the speed and magnitude in which the price increases are coming,” Rainey said.

Meanwhile, the potential price hikes from Walmart come as U.S. consumers contend with concerns over how Trump’s tariffs could hurt their wallets across multiple sectors—from groceries, to electronics, to automobiles.

Grocery prices have specifically been a concern for U.S. shoppers, after egg prices continued to rise in March, brought about in part by a severe bird flu outbreak. Though April saw a dip in the price of eggs, the effects of the formerly record-high prices are likely still being felt, marked by a significant drop in U.S. consumer sentiment.

source https://time.com/7285637/walmart-raising-prices-us-tariffs-consumer-impact/