Trump Explains Reasoning Behind Doubling Steel, Aluminum Tariffs—But Critics Issue Warnings Over ‘Reckless’ Move

President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he plans to double the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports—increasing the charge from 25% to 50%.

The tariff escalation comes at a precarious time, as Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs are immersed in legal trouble at the court level and many U.S. businesses are struggling to contend with the back-and-forth nature of the levies.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Trump’s announcement also coincides with the “blockbuster” agreement between U.S. Steel and Japanese steel company Nippon, a deal which he promised will include no layoffs and the steelmaker will be “controlled by the USA.”

The steepened tariffs could potentially further escalate tensions between the U.S. and its top steel partners, which include Canada, Brazil, and Mexico. As the U.S.’ number one steel importer, Canada—with whom the U.S. has already escalated tensions due to Trump’s other tariffs—stands to feel the pressure of this latest move.

Here’s what to know about Trump’s doubled tariffs and what experts have to say about it.

What has Trump said about doubling the steel and aluminum tariffs?

Trump announced his decision during a rally at U.S. Steel’s Mon Valley Works–Irvin Plant near Pittsburgh in West Mifflin, Penn., surrounded by hardhat-donned steel workers.

“We’re going to bring it from 25% percent to 50%—the tariffs on steel into the United States of America—which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States,” Trump told the crowd, offering his reasoning that the increased charges will ultimately help the domestic industry. “Nobody’s going to get around that.”

He later posted about his decision on social media, revealing that the tariffs would also be raised for aluminum.“Our steel and aluminum industries are coming back like never before,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “This will be yet another BIG jolt of great news for our wonderful steel and aluminum workers.”

But Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, argues that the Trump Administration has yet to fully explain the exact math behind the number for the steel and aluminum tariffs.

“They’ve never given any justification why 25% is the right number, let alone why 50% is,” Winegarden says. “It was just doubled.”

Read More: Meet the Five Small Businesses That Helped Knock Down Trump’s Tariffs

When are the doubled tariffs due to come into effect?

In Trump’s announcement post on Truth Social, he said that the doubled tariffs would come into effect on Wednesday, June 4. Although it’s worth noting that other tariff threats—such as the proposed 50% charge on the E.U. and the majority of Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs that he announced on April 2—have been temporarily paused to allow time for negotiations. It remains to be seen if an extension will be granted for this new June 4 date.

The back-and-forth on tariff dates and rates has left many businesses in limbo, though Felix Tintelnot, professor of economics at Duke University, says that with steel and aluminum, the Administration has generally followed through on the timings they’ve announced.

The question, he says, is how long the 50% will stand, as he’s seen the rates “flip-flopping all the time.” Tintelnot argues that the resulting uncertainty is causing real harm to U.S. businesses and thus, in turn, impacting workers, despite Trump’s claims that the tariffs will bring large amounts of money to the U.S. steel industry.

“We’re talking about expansion of capacity of heavy industry that comes with significant upfront investments, and no business leader should take heavy upfront investments if they don’t believe that the same policy [will be] there two, three, or four years from now,” Tintelnot says. “Regardless of whether you’re in favor [of] or against these tariffs, you don’t want the President to just set tax rates arbitrarily, sort of by Executive Order all the time.”

Read More: Trump Agrees to Extend Deadline After Threatening E.U. With 50% Tariff

How have lawmakers, industry people, and experts reacted?

Though Tintelnot says that the escalated tariffs should help the domestic steel industry, he argues it will be coinciding with struggles in other U.S. industries as a result of the increase.

“So, this is expected to raise the price of aluminum, which is important in inputs for downstream industries like the automotive industry, as well as construction, so there’s sort of a distributional conflict here,” Tintelnot warns. “Yes, it does help the domestic steel sector, but [it’s] hurting these other sectors of the economy, and they are already hard hit by other tariffs.”

Winegarden agrees, arguing that the tariffs are “working against themselves” and that consumers can expect prices to increase.

“[Trump is] making it more expensive for domestic auto manufacturers to produce here,” he says. “It’s an economically inconsistent, illiterate policy that seems to be hiding under the national security justifications.”

The USW (Unity and Strength for Workers, most commonly referred to as United Steelworkers)—a trade union of steelworkers across North America— said in a statement that the increase will have a negative impact on Canada’s industries and jobs.

“This isn’t trade policy—it’s a direct attack on Canadian industries and workers,” said Marty Warren, United Steelworkers national director for Canada. “Thousands of Canadian jobs are on the line and communities that rely on steel and aluminum are being put at risk. Canada needs to respond immediately and decisively to defend workers.”

Meanwhile, Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that the plan to double tariffs is a “direct attack on Canadian workers and a reckless move” and warned that it “could shut Canadian steel and aluminum out of the U.S. market entirely and put thousands of good union jobs at risk.”

Speaking about the tariffs overall, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Friday that he intends to jumpstart and fast track national building projects throughout the country to respond to Trump’s trade war, “ensuring that the Canadian government becomes a catalyst for, not an impediment to, nation-building projects that will supercharge growth in communities, both large and small.”

Other international lawmakers, meanwhile, have voiced their disapproval of Trump’s tariffs escalations.

Australia’s Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, said that Trump’s doubled charges were “unjustified and not the act of a friend.”

source https://time.com/7290211/trump-doubles-tariffs-steel-aluminum-backlash-experts-canada/

Scientists Are Stumped by Mysterious Pulsing ‘Star’

Something strange is going on 15,000 light years from Earth. Out at that distant remove, somewhere in the constellation Scutum, an unexplained body is semaphoring into space, blinking in both X-ray and radio frequencies once every 44 minutes in a way never seen by astronomers before. The object could be a white dwarf—an Earth-sized husk that remains after a star has exhausted its nuclear fuel. Or not. It could also be a magnetar—a neutron star with an exceedingly powerful magnetic field. Unless it’s not that either.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“Astronomers have looked at countless stars with all kinds of telescopes and we’ve never seen one that acts this way,” said astronomer Ziteng Wang of Curtin University in Australia, in a statement that accompanied the May 28 release of a paper in Nature describing the object, for which he was lead author. “It’s thrilling to see a new type of behavior for stars.”

So what exactly is the mysterious body—which goes by the technical handle ASKAP J1832—and how common is this species of object?

ASKAP J1832 is by no means unique in the universe in sending out energy in steady flashes. Pulsars—rapidly spinning neutron stars—do too. But pulsars flash much faster than ASKAP J1832 does, on the order of milliseconds to seconds. In 2022, astronomers discovered a type of object known as a long-period transient, which, like ASKAP J1832, sends out flashes of radio waves on the order of tens of minutes. So far 10 such bodies have been found, but none identical to ASKAP J1832, which is the first to emit X-rays too.

What’s more, ASKAP J1832’s emissions have changed over time. During one observation with NASA’s orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory in February 2024, the object was prodigiously producing both X-rays and radio waves. During a follow-up observation six months later, the radio waves were 1,000 times fainter and no X-rays were detected. That was a puzzle. 

“We looked at several different possibilities involving neutron stars and white dwarfs, either in isolation or with companion stars,” said co-author Nanda Rea of the Institute of Space Sciences in Barcelona, Spain, in a statement. “So far nothing exactly matches up, but some ideas work better than others.”

One of those ideas is the magnetar, but that doesn’t fit precisely, due to ASKAP J1832’s bright and variable radio emissions. The white dwarf remains a possibility, however in order to produce the amount of energy it does, ASKAP J1832 would have to be orbiting another body in a formation known as a binary system, and so far that second body hasn’t been detected. Viewed from Earth, ASKAP J1832 appears to be located in a supernova remnant, a cloud of hot gas and high energy particles that remains after an aging star meets its explosive end. But the authors of the paper concluded that the remnant merely lies in the foreground of the observational field with ASKAP J1832 in the background, the way an earthly cloud can drift in the path of the sun.

So for now, the object remains a riddle—one that will be investigated further. “Finding a mystery like this isn’t frustrating,” said co-author Tong Bao of the Italian National Institute for Astrophysics, in a statement. “It’s what makes science exciting.”

source https://time.com/7290073/scientists-stumped-by-mysterious-pulsing-star/

Trump Accuses China of ‘Violating’ Its Trade Agreement With the U.S., Laments Being ‘Mr. Nice Guy’

President Donald Trump has accused China of “totally violating” its trade agreement with the U.S.

After the U.S. and China continued to raise levies against one another, and amid rising fears of a full-scale trade war, on May 12 both nations agreed to significantly lower their tariffs for a 90-day period. The U.S. vowed to lower import taxes on goods coming from China from an astronomical 145% down to 30%. While China agreed to lower its tariffs from 125% to 10%. It was stated that the actions would be put into effect by May 14, but Trump’s latest social media post has called that into question.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“Two weeks ago China was in grave economic danger! The very high tariffs I set made it virtually impossible for China to trade into the United States marketplace,” said Trump via Truth Social on Friday morning, claiming that there was “civil unrest” as a result of the high levies.

“I made a fast deal with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn’t want to see that happen. Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy! That is the good news,” Trump continued. “The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!”

Following Trump’s claims of a violated agreement, stock futures slipped.

Read More: Trump Needs to Get Real on Trade

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer echoed Trump’s sentiment during an interview with CNBC on Friday morning, saying that Trump and his advisers are “very concerned” and have been since the marathon trade negotiations in Geneva in early May.

“No one can deny that the United States did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the Chinese are slow rolling their compliance, which is completely unacceptable and has to be addressed,” said Greer.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted that negotiations and relations were strained, telling FOX News that talks with China were “a bit stalled.”

“I believe we will be having more talks with them in the next few weeks, and I believe we may—at some point—have a call between the President and Party Chair Xi [Jinping],” Bessent said.

A federal appeals court on Thursday evening agreed to temporarily preserve many of Trump’s tariffs on China and other countries—allowing the Administration some reprieve after a three-judge panel on Wednesday ruled to block the tariffs.

Read More: What’s Next for Trump’s Tariff Agenda After Back-and-Forth Court Rulings

But is not the end of the road for Trump’s tariffs in the courts, as the future of their legality is still in limbo amid ongoing appeals.

Something else that could potentially cast a shadow over the U.S. and China’s trade negotiations is Trump’s recent targeting of international students studying in the U.S., which impacts Chinese nationals.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a press statement that the State Department and Homeland Security will work to “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.” The move stands to further erode trust between the U.S. and China.

source https://time.com/7290011/trump-says-china-violating-trade-agreement-tariffs-row/

The History Behind Pope Leo XIV’s Name

Since the College of Cardinals selected Robert Prevost to become Pope Leo XIV on May 8, the first American Pope has generated much attention, with numerous publications attempting to peel back the curtain on the true identity of the new pontiff.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Yet, the Pope himself may have told the world something significant about his vision and philosophy for the papacy through the simple act of choosing a name. The choice of Leo XIV makes Prevost the first pope to take this name since Leo XIII, who led the Church from 1878 to 1903, a critical time at the turn of the 20th century when the world was heading into an industrial and increasingly globalizing era that would soon lead to the First World War.

Based on the tenure of Leo XIII, this choice may indicate that Prevost places substantial emphasis on the Church’s responsibility to care for the poor, as well as the protection of workers’ rights in an era of growing economic inequality. Yet, it also may signal that the new pope aims to chart a middle course in an era of extremes and won’t look kindly on those challenging doctrine or the Church’s hierarchy. If so, such a vision will be deeply rooted in a specific tradition of American Catholicism that emerged thanks to Leo XIII’s teachings.

Pope Leo XIII, born Gioacchino Pecci, ascended to the papacy in an era characterized by the spread of factories and wage labor, the rise of massive fortunes and the growth of worker discontent and organizing, and existential battles between the forces of capitalism and socialism. He responded by launching a transformative intellectual tradition known as Catholic social teaching.

Read More: Pope Leo’s Style of American Leadership Is a Hopeful Opportunity

This body of thought, which had its most notable appearance in his 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, introduced the world to a new approach to the social, economic, and political challenges of the day. Rerum upheld labor unions as a proper exercise of workers’ natural rights to dignity and authentic freedom—and emphasized the obligation of the state to protect their rights and interests. Leo XIII also called for a “remedy…for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class.” He underscored the Catholic Church’s care for the poor and its concern for the common good as well.

Yet, Catholic social teaching wasn’t a one-sided doctrine. In Rerum, Pope Leo XIII reflected on “the spirit of revolutionary change” that had “long been disturbing the nations of the world.” Instead of a revolution, this new approach contemplated a middle way between capitalism and socialism, one premised on a cooperative relationship between workers and management.

Another key document written by Leo XIII further emphasized that the Pope was not quite a radical. In 1899, he wrote a papal letter, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, which was directed at American Catholics and condemned what he termed the heresy of “Americanism.” The decision to write the letter may have stemmed from confusion and misperceptions about what liberal prelates and theologians in the U.S, were preaching.

Liberal priests, most prominently Isaac Hecker, extolled the virtues of freedom and liberty as it related to the Church in the U.S. In his 1876 book, The Faith of Our Fathers, for example, Baltimore’s James Cardinal Gibbons wrote of his country, “[T]here is no nation on the face of the earth where the Church is less trammeled, and where she has more liberty to carry out her sublime destiny, than in these Untied States.” Twelve years later, St. Paul’s Archbishop John Ireland, proclaimed, “In America, the Church is free—as the bird is free in the air to spread out its pinions and fly whithersoever it wills.”

Conservative critics, both in the U.S., and in the Vatican, viewed these liberal prelates with suspicion because of their openness to engage in inter-religious encounters. Testum indicates that Leo XIII wanted to make clear that the Catholic Church in the U.S. wasn’t spiritually distinct from the global church, and couldn’t go its own way. It showed that, while sympathetic to workers and inequality, he wasn’t prepared to see Church doctrine or the power of the Vatican challenged. 

Leo XIII’s legacy, then, was one characterized by deep concern for the plight of workers and the poor, but also one that reflected concern over maintaining hierarchical discipline within the Church. He also wanted to moderate any spiritual experimentation, however illusory in the case of Americanism, that may have suggested the potential for Catholics to stray too far from Church teachings.

Read More: What the History of Saint Augustine Can Teach us About Pope Leo XIV

Despite setting limits on the autonomy of the American Church, the social teachings of Leo XIII had enormous influence on Catholicism in the U.S., especially after the horrors of World War I. The National Catholic Welfare Council (now the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the USCCB) gave its full support to the philosophy laid down by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum. In 1919, the Council adopted a Program of Social Reconstruction, which supported the institution of living wages, public pensions, and a variety of other government-provided aids for working men and women.

In the following decades, numerous labor priests, such as John A. Ryan, George G. Higgins, Philip A. Carey, Joseph F. Donnelly, and Charles Owen Rice, led the way in advocating for workers. They instructed workers about Catholic social teaching, and operated labor schools to educate them on their rights and on the Catholic Church’s positions on the important economic and social issues presented by the Great Depression and World War II. The Catholic Worker movement, led by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, was but one prominent example of the impact and the implementation of Catholic social teaching outside of theology courses and on American city streets. It provided charitable relief and practiced communal labor through its houses of hospitality, which Day envisioned would bring “workers and scholars together” in a place where they could “discuss Christian principles of organization as set forth in the encyclicals.”

Over time, American Catholicism has become fractured between theological conservatives and liberals. Today, the divides increasingly intersect with broader partisan battles outside the Church. In this landscape, Catholic social teaching and debates over the compatibility of Catholicism and Americanism are not mere historical relics of a previous century. They are vital issues that played formative roles in shaping the contemporary Catholic Church that Leo XIV now leads.

Whether the new Pope chose the name Leo XIV to signal his affinity for Leo XIII is probably something only he knows. Yet, in so much as it does, it may indicate both that the new Pontiff is interested in economic matters, especially the struggles of working men and women to scrape by, and the ever-present debates over freedom versus order and the meaning of liberty in a hierarchical institution like the Church. The choice of his name may suggest that while Leo XIV will thrill liberal Catholics on social justice issues, he may lean more toward the Church’s conservative wing when it comes to maintaining doctrinal boundaries.

William S. Cossen is a historian of American religion and nationalism, and the author of Making Catholic America: Religious Nationalism in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era .

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

source https://time.com/7288305/history-pope-leo-xiv-name/

Revisiting Elon Musk’s Most Controversial Moments in the White House

Elon Musk has announced that his time as the leader of President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is reaching its end.

“As my scheduled time as a special government employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President [Trump] for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk said on X. “The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Tesla CEO Musk has implemented a slew of far-reaching changes in his bid to eliminate waste within the government. His cuts at federal agencies and the termination of billions of dollars of government contracts—many of which have reportedly since been revived—prompted much criticism.

And Musk has personally taken a hit, too. His Tesla showrooms have been the subject of arson attacks and people have boycotted both him and his businesses in protest.

Read More: Inside Elon Musk’s War on Washington 

Here’s a look back at Musk’s most controversial moments during his time as a “special government employee.”

“Cruel” email to federal employees sparks mass criticism

In February, Musk’s leadership was questioned over an email sent to various government departments, requesting that employees respond within a certain time frame and summarize their work for the week.

The email—which boasted the subject line “What did you do last week?”—was sent from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to workers in several government departments. Musk added via social media that “failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.” However, there was no mention of resignation in the email sent to employees.

The email—and Musk’s accompanying social media warning—garnered ire from several unions and prominent voices.

Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), referred to the directive as “cruel and disrespectful,” and called Musk an “out-of-touch, privileged, unelected billionaire.”

Some department heads initially instructed their employees to focus on their own internal performance review process, as opposed to responding to the email. FBI Director Kash Patel told employees in an email that they should “pause any responses.”

Earlier this week, it was reported that the Pentagon had ended the initiative with its civilian employees, who will no longer be required to send an email specifying what they did the previous week.

Overhauling multiple agencies through DOGE

Musk has garnered much controversy during his time leading DOGE, specifically for his massive cuts at the federal level which, alongside actions from the Trump Administration, contributed to mass layoffs, the termination of government contracts, and efforts to close entire agencies. DOGE claims to have saved an estimated $175 billion for the federal government, a number which has been brought into question during various verification attempts.

Musk’s goal to cut $2 trillion dollars has resulted in a multi-state lawsuit against Musk and DOGE, amid allegations that they violated the Constitution by accessing government data systems, canceling contracts of federal agencies, and terminating federal employees.

Musk’s straight-arm salute at a Trump rally

At a celebratory rally after Trump’s inauguration, Musk’s White House career got off to a contentious start when he seemingly offered a straight-arm salute at the Capitol One Arena in Washington, D.C., as he excitedly told the crowd: “My heart goes out to you.”

The motion immediately garnered controversy, with some people, including history professors who study fascism and U.S. Representatives, expressing concern that the action was similar to a Nazi salute.

Some, including the Anti-Defamation League, came to Musk’s defense, arguing that he was seemingly making an “awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm.”

Musk addressed the controversy himself, saying: “The radical leftists are really upset that they had to take time out of their busy day praising Hamas to call me a Nazi.”

DOGE employees resigning

Several civil service employees resigned from DOGE, citing their refusal to use their expertise to “dismantle critical public services,” according to a joint resignation letter sent to the White House chief of staff Susie Wiles on Feb. 25, that was obtained by the Associated Press.

The employees had worked for the United States Digital Service, but said their duties had been integrated into DOGE.

Musk directly responded to the AP article, calling it “fake news from Associated Propaganda.”

“These were Dem political holdovers who refused to return to the office,” Musk said of the employees. “They would have been fired had they not resigned.”

There have also been mass resignations from top-ranking government officials since Trump returned to the White House and set up DOGE.

David Lebryk, the highest-ranking Treasury Department career official, retired on Jan. 31 after clashing with Musk’s team over access to government payment systems, the Washington Post reported.

Musk criticizes Trump’s “big, beautiful bill”

Shortly before announcing that his DOGE role was coming to its scheduled end, Musk criticized Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” in a public forum. During an interview with CBS, he agreed that the spending bill—which is now heading to the Senate—undermines the spending cuts brought about by DOGE.

“I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit,” Musk said. “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both, [that’s] my personal opinion.”

It isn’t the first time that Musk has openly critiqued movements or people from the White House. He previously called out Peter Navarro—the senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, and the architect of Trump’s tariffs—calling him “dumber than a sack of bricks.”

source https://time.com/7289468/elon-musk-controversial-white-house-moments-doge-departure/

Breaking Down the Tense and Thrilling Ending of Netflix’s Dept. Q

Warning: This post contains spoilers for Dept. Q.

Dept. Q, from The Queen’s Gambit creator Scott Frank, is a thrilling, highly bingeable series about the creation of a new police unit, a cold-case division formed in hopes of generating good press for a beleaguered Edinburgh police department. Leading the new unit is Detective Chief Inspector Carl Morck (Matthew Goode), a troubled officer recently recovered from a near-fatal shooting incident that left his friend and partner, DCI Hardy (Jamie Sives), paralyzed from the waist down, and another young officer dead. Rather than a promotion, Morck’s banishment to Dept. Q in the dingy, former shower quarters of the building is a way to get a misanthropic nuisance (with likely PTSD) out of the hair of Detective Chief Superintendent Moira Jacobson (Kate Dickie).

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The first season largely follows Department Q on its first case, searching for Merritt Lingard (Chloe Pirrie), a ruthless and highly successful prosecutor who has been missing for four years, last seen on a ferry headed to the remote Mhor in the Scottish Highlands. She vanished without a trace and the investigation was abandoned, but Morck, alongside his assistant Akram (Alexej Manvelov) and Detective Constable Rose (Leah Byrne), is determined to find her, hanging onto a shred of hope that she may be alive somewhere. There’s a major break in the case in Episode 8, leading Morck and co. on a chase to save Merritt before it’s too late in the tense and thrilling Dept. Q finale. Let’s break it down.

Read more: Netflix’s Dept. Q Is One Character Short of a Great Detective Show

Who is Lyle Jennings?

The penultimate episode of Dept. Q finally reveals the two people responsible for Merritt’s kidnapping: Ailsa Jennings and her son, Lyle. Merritt has been held captive for four years inside a hyperbaric chamber in Mhor, not far from where she grew up. That’s because the duo believes Merritt is responsible for the death of Ailsa’s other son Harry, a former boyfriend of Merritt’s, and they want her to face the consequences of her actions. (In reality, Merritt being in any way responsible for Harry’s death is extremely tenuous at best). The finale opens with an interview of Lyle as a teenager at Godhaven, a correctional facility. In the interview, Lyle reveals that he was regularly abused by his mother, who would put Lyle and his brother Harry in the same hyperbaric chamber regularly as punishment. 

Chillingly, Lyle doesn’t seem fazed by this—it was so normalized in his upbringing that he thinks being put in a potentially deadly pressurized chamber is something that happens to everyone. He also reveals delusions about his brother Harry, believing him to still be alive. Speaking of Harry, it had long been thought that he was responsible for the violent attack on Merritt’s brother William, who was left for dead with permanent brain damage that has severely impacted his life with Merritt eventually becoming his guardian. But this episode reveals that while teenage Harry did break into Merritt’s childhood home, hoping to steal some valuable jewelry so he and Merritt could run away together, it was Lyle (who followed Harry into Merritt and William’s home) who assaulted William.

Read more: The 100 Best Mystery and Thriller Books of All Time

Another lingering mystery in Dept. Q is the identity of Sam Haig, a journalist with whom Merritt was romantically involved. The police investigation was at a standstill regarding Sam, as the evidence didn’t add up regarding his whereabouts. The finale reveals there were two men named Sam Haig. One was the real Sam, a reporter who covered organized crime and a passionate climber, while the other was Lyle, who stole Sam’s identity, eventually killing him and throwing him over the crag, so it would look like he died in a climbing accident. The two had gone to Godhaven together as teens, where Sam attacked Lyle, leaving his eye permanently damaged, resulting in two different colored eyes. Sam wanted to make amends to Lyle, who wasn’t interested, and exacted revenge by killing him instead. Merritt was sleeping with Lyle, who was posing as Sam. She told Lyle (thinking he was Sam) what ferry she was leaving on, which enabled Lyle to enact the kidnapping.

The final episodes also tie up the mystery around Merritt’s boss Stephen Burns (Mark Bonnar), whom Morck had believed to be corrupt and potentially involved in Merritt’s disappearance following a case involving a husband acquitted for killing his wife. It turned out Burns was corrupt, in a sense, though his hand was forced after the defendant’s goons threatened the life of his daughter. Morck uses his leverage over Burns to negotiate (slash blackmail) for more resources for Dept. Q.

Does Merritt survive?

Merritt was kidnapped and held within a hyperbaric chamber in remote Scotland for four years, and was long presumed dead before DCI Morck reopened the case. The discovery of Lyle Jennings blows the case open, and sends Morck and his assistant Akram back to Mhor to speak to Ailsa on the whereabouts of her son. While Morck and Akram head to Mhor, Rose and Hardy—who’s been pitching in on the case as he tries to regain mobility in his lower body—remain in Edinburgh to continue investigating Lyle. Rose makes a startling discovery: when Lyle was 15, he coerced a friend of his into the hyperbaric chamber, which they owned through his father’s company, and kept him there for three days. That allows Rose to tip off Morck in the nick of time—he was trying to get into Ailsa’s home, and she was waiting with a shotgun in hand, ready to shoot whoever came in.

Morck and Akram begin their search for the chamber, stumbling upon an old warehouse belonging to the Jennings family company, called Shorebird Ocean Systems (or SOS). The company logo is the cormorant—the bird from the hat and William’s drawings that served as an early mystery; it was believed that someone wearing a hat with the same logo was responsible for kidnapping Merritt. Interestingly, the building was sectioned off four years ago, at around the same time Merritt went missing. They enter the warehouse, discovering local Detective Cunningham, the first person to discover Merritt, murdered and stashed away in the trunk of his police car. He was bludgeoned to death by Lyle earlier in the episode after finding Merritt.

Read more: Here’s What’s New on Netflix in May 2025

The pair then finds Merritt inside the hyperbaric chamber, but getting her out is no small feat. A sudden release would trigger a massive discrepancy in air pressure, which would kill her. As they try to find a way to turn down the pressure, they’re interrupted by Lyle, wielding a shotgun. Heroically, Morck stands in front of Akram, taking a shot in the arm (which he’ll survive). The scene echoes the show’s opening, when a bullet passes through Morck on its way toward Hardy. Morck’s instinct to sacrifice himself for Akram has great meaning after a season of directing sarcastic and dismissive remarks toward him. Lyle approaches to finish them both, but Merritt screams from below, distracting Lyle just long enough for Akram to spring to action. Akram throws a knife into Lyle’s neck, and in one swift motion, he takes the shotgun from Lyle and shoots him, killing Lyle. They’re then able to lower the pressure, call for back-up, and get Merritt out alive.

Meanwhile, Ailsa nearly escapes. But as she drives onto the ferry out of Mhor, she’s blockaded by police. Instead of being taken in, she grabs her pistol, shooting herself in the head before the cops can intervene.  

Who shot DCI Morck?

The other major plotline in Dept Q. follows the investigation of a shooting that took the life of DC Anderson, left DCI Morck badly wounded, and DCI Hardy paralyzed from the waist down, which serves as the series opener. While the investigation is ongoing, and several discoveries are made throughout the season, the police are not much closer to discovering the assailants behind the deadly shooting. Morck continues to believe it may have been an inside job, as DC Anderson had ties to a local crime boss and had suspiciously called in a fake wellness check to the house, leading to the shooting.

Despite this looming over Morck and Hardy, things feel considerably more optimistic in the department. Three months after freeing Merritt, Morck returns to Department Q, ready to take on a new case. He’s joined by Akram and Rose, and in a most welcome surprise, Hardy, who has begun walking again. Buoyed by solving a seemingly impossible case, the plucky department is ready to get to work on what’s next.

source https://time.com/7289263/dept-q-netflix-ending-explained/

Should You Take a Vitamin D Supplement?

Vitamin D does a lot for your body, supporting strong bones, muscle movement, your immune system, and more. Taking a vitamin D supplement may seem like a quick and easy way to boost these benefits—but doctors say there are a few things to know first.

“There’s no question that vitamin D is essential for good health,” says Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who researches vitamin D supplementation. “The question is: Do we really need to take supplements?”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Vitamin D supplements are mostly recommended when you’re deficient. In the U.S., 35% of adults are vitamin D deficient, according to the National Library of Medicine. People who are obese, over 65, or have darker skin may be more at risk for deficiency—and about 50% to 60% of nursing home residents and patients in hospitals are vitamin D deficient. 

Here’s what experts say about taking vitamin D. 

The many sources of vitamin D 

Vitamin D is a “nutrient that the body can actually make itself” from sunlight exposure, says Dr. Clemens Bergwitz, associate professor of medicine specializing in endocrinology at the Yale School of Medicine. 

“Everything in moderation,” though, especially with sun exposure, says Dr. Kseniya Kobets, director of cosmetic dermatology and assistant professor of dermatology at Montefiore Einstein. Too much ultraviolet radiation can cause skin cancer and speed up skin aging.

Read More: Should You Take Amino Acid Supplements?

Kobets recommends no more than 15 minutes daily of bare-skin exposure for vitamin D production; beyond that, sunscreen of SPF 30 or higher is essential to protect your skin. 

You can also get vitamin D through foods including fatty fish, beef liver, egg yolks, cheese, and mushrooms, Manson says. Other food sources—like milk, breakfast cereals, and plant-based dairy alternatives—are fortified with the vitamin.

The health benefits of vitamin D

Vitamin D is “essential to the function of virtually all of the organs in our body,” Manson says. Vitamin D receptors exist in your blood vessels, brain, immune system, and tissues.

The vitamin helps your body absorb calcium and maintain adequate calcium levels, which keeps your bones strong, helps them grow, prevents thinning and brittleness, and lowers your risk for osteoporosis later in life, according to the National Institutes of Health. 

Vitamin D can also help reduce inflammation in the body, improve immune function, and increase cell growth. Your immune system needs it to defend against bacteria and viruses, according to the National Library of Medicine. Muscles need vitamin D to move and function properly, and nerves rely on it to send messages between your brain and the rest of your body.  

Do supplements offer the same benefits? 

Vitamin D supplements have been touted for potentially reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease, dementia, and stroke; improving brain functioning; and minimizing the likelihood of bone fractures. However, research hasn’t shown a strong cause-and-effect link. 

“When you take a step back, and you review the literature, we find that unless you’re completely deficient, supplementation of vitamin D is not as impactful,” Bergwitz says.

For instance, in a 2023 randomized controlled trial published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, more than 21,000 older adults took vitamin D supplements or a placebo for five years. Researchers found little difference between the groups when it came to their bone-fracture risk. A 2024 study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine suggested that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the rate of developing fractures for healthy elderly people.

Read More: Are Protein Shakes Good for You?

Since 2009, Manson has been working with other researchers on the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), an ongoing randomized trial of more than 25,800 adults to examine whether taking 2,000 international units (IUs) of vitamin D or omega-3 fatty acids lowers the risk for heart disease, stroke, and cancer, compared to a placebo.

Manson says the research hasn’t shown a clear benefit of vitamin D supplements in lowering heart disease or cancer risk, reducing bone fractures, or decreasing cognitive decline.

However, she says the VITAL study has shown vitamin D supplements may have benefits in reducing the risk of developing autoimmune disease, like rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis, or advanced (metastatic) cancer.

When you should (and shouldn’t) take vitamin D supplements 

Most people get enough vitamin D from their diet or sunlight and likely don’t need supplements, Manson says. But for those who are deficient—which can be confirmed by a blood test—supplements are necessary. 

“It usually takes a profound deficiency of vitamin D to have a clear benefit from supplementation,” she says. 

People who tend to stay indoors for long periods might not get enough vitamin D from sunlight, Bergwitz says. Your risk of deficiency might go up in the winter when you’re likely to be inside or if you don’t eat vitamin D-rich foods.

Read More: The One Word That Can Destroy a Friendship

If you have osteoporosis, liver disease, celiac disease, or inflammatory bowel disease, you might have trouble absorbing vitamin D and need to take supplements, according to Harvard Medical School. Vitamin D may be recommended for women during menopause, Bergwitz says. 

Signs of vitamin D deficiency include fatigue, bone pain, muscle aches or cramps, mood changes, or depression, according to the Cleveland Clinic. 

When doctors suspect vitamin D deficiency, they also often measure your calcium levels and may recommend supplementing that mineral as well, Bergwitz says. 

How much vitamin D should you take? 

The recommended vitamin D supplementation for adults under 65 is 600 to 800 IUs daily and 800 to 1,000 IUs for those over age 65. But the right dose may also depend on your health status, so check with your doctor.  

Vitamin D supplements are safe for most people, Manson says. However, it’s possible to take too much. A prolonged intake of more than 4,000 IUs a day could be risky, potentially causing nausea, muscle weakness, vomiting, confusion, loss of appetite, kidney stones, and excessive thirst and urination. 

You can’t actually get too much vitamin D from sunlight because the body naturally limits the amount of the vitamin that it makes, Manson says. 

What to look for in a vitamin D supplement 

Supplements aren’t regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration like prescription and over-the-counter medications. Manson recommends looking for products with third-party testing for quality control, such as U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) or NSF certification. 

Check the dosage, too, Bergwitz suggests. A bottle of supplements can be expensive when you have to take multiple pills per dose. “You should always calculate the price of your vitamin D supplement based on the price per serving, not based on price per pill,” he explains. 

Also review the list of ingredients and choose supplements with the fewest listed, Kobets adds. If you’re ever in doubt about a vitamin D (or any other) supplement, she suggests bringing the product to your next doctor’s appointment and asking them to look it over. 

Though these supplements are generally safe and sometimes necessary, Manson says the best ways for most people to maintain healthy levels are from time outdoors and diet. While it may seem easier to “pop a vitamin pill,” she says, supplements are “never going to be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle.”

source https://time.com/7288858/should-i-take-vitamin-d-supplement/