作者: admin

  • A Tang spring that survived an emperor’s flight

    A Tang spring that survived an emperor’s flight

    When a visitor first steps before *The Court Lady Guoguo’s Spring Outing*, they do not encounter a static record of ancient history. What strikes the eye first is quiet movement. There are no sweeping palace grounds, no blooming riverbank, no leafy flowering trees, no detailed spring landscape to anchor the viewer’s gaze. Across the silk handscroll, only a small procession winds through empty space: nine figures, eight horses, robes dyed soft pale red, muted green and creamy white, moving with the understated rhythm of slow hoofbeats across open ground. This deliberate absence of scenery is not an oversight—it is the core of the work’s genius. The painter does not describe spring; they let it breathe through the riders themselves.

    The work, known in Chinese as *Guoguo Furen Youchun Tu*, has long been linked to Zhang Xuan, a master painter of China’s Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE). The original Tang work has been lost to history, and the piece that survives today is a meticulous copy created during the Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE). Now housed as a crown jewel of the Liaoning Provincial Museum, it stands as one of the most valuable surviving visual documents of Tang Dynasty court life. In China’s framework of cultural heritage, it is far more than an ancient painting: it is a national cultural relic, a rare tangible window into the elegance, confidence, and quiet fragility of the High Tang era, when the Chinese empire reached the peak of its early medieval power.

    For Western audiences, its place in art history can be framed through comparison to iconic European masterpieces: it sits somewhere between Botticelli’s *Primavera*, Velázquez’s *Las Meninas*, and the shimmering late depictions of European aristocracy drawn on the eve of political collapse. Like *Primavera*, it reframes the spring season as a world defined by human form, rhythmic movement, and effortless grace. Like *Las Meninas*, it is not merely a portrait of its subjects—it is a meditation on social hierarchy, visibility, and proximity to sovereign power. Like Watteau’s fêtes galantes, it captures the quiet luxury of aristocratic leisure with the unspoken awareness that such golden worlds are rarely eternal. Yet this is not Florence, Madrid, or Versailles—this is Tang Dynasty China, a civilization with a distinct cultural identity all its own.

    The Tang Dynasty, particularly during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong in the early 8th century, stands as one of the most cosmopolitan eras in Chinese history. Its imperial capital, Chang’an (modern-day Xi’an), was no isolated regional city—it was one of the greatest metropolises of the medieval world, comparable in cultural influence and global reach to Constantinople, Abbasid Baghdad, or Renaissance Florence. Merchants, Buddhist monks, traveling musicians, diplomatic envoys, and skilled craftspeople from across Eurasia walked its streets. The Tang court absorbed Central Asian musical traditions, imported foreign textiles, adopted Buddhist visual imagery, and embraced equestrian culture from the Eurasian steppe. Aristocratic women regularly rode horses, appeared in public spaces, and even wore garments traditionally associated with men. It was this era of unrivaled imperial confidence that gave birth to the world captured in *The Court Lady Guoguo’s Spring Outing*.

    At the heart of this historical moment stands Yang Guifei, Emperor Xuanzong’s beloved imperial consort, whose legacy has long been tangled with the fate of the Tang empire. Popular historical memory has often compared her, imperfectly, to Helen of Troy or Marie Antoinette: a woman whose beauty was blamed for the collapse of an era. Yet these comparisons are only a starting point. Yang Guifei was neither a ruling queen like Marie Antoinette nor a mythic figure like Helen. She was a woman of the Tang court whose beauty, family connections, and tragic fate became inextricably linked to the memory of an empire at its most radiant and its most vulnerable.

    As Yang Guifei rose in influence, her entire family shared her elevation. Her three sisters were granted noble titles: the Ladies of Han, Guo, and Qin. Among them, Lady Guoguo emerged as one of the most visible and prominent women in the imperial court. She was far more than just a noble beauty. Her family’s sudden proximity to the throne turned private kinship into public political power, much like the court ladies of Versailles who functioned as public symbols of power even as they did not rule directly.

    The handscroll depicts this courtly performance without overt drama. The procession is grouped in subtle layers, and the figures do not shout their status through exaggerated gestures—they carry it quietly in their posture. The horses move at varying paces: some stride forward, some turn aside, some seem to pause mid-journey, held in the rhythm of the ride. The robes of the riders fall in controlled, graceful lines, and their faces are calm, almost unreadable. Nothing feels hurried, nothing is accidental.

    One of the most compelling scholarly debates around the work centers on the rider leading the procession at the very front of the scroll. Many Chinese art historians argue that this figure, dressed in male attire and guiding the group, is Lady Guoguo herself. This interpretation is not universally accepted, as the painting bears no inscriptions labeling individual figures, and other scholars place Lady Guoguo among the female riders in the central group. Following this reading of the leading figure, however, reveals the most nuanced understanding of the work’s meaning—not because it is the most dramatic interpretation, but because it is the most revealing.

    History remembers Lady Guoguo as a woman who did not shrink from public view. She was part of the Yang family at the height of imperial favor, a clan whose female members did not merely inhabit privilege—they made it visible. The horse she rides reinforces this reading: its distinctive three-flower mane, trimmed into three raised tufts along its neck, and the round red tassel ornament (called tixiong) on its chest are clear markers of high rank, ceremonial status, and aristocratic display. If this leading figure is indeed Lady Guoguo, placed at the front of the procession, dressed as a young nobleman, and mounted on such a distinguished animal, she is not merely joining a spring ride—she is announcing her presence. She is the first figure viewers see because she is the figure meant to be seen.

    If this interpretation holds, the painting becomes quietly radical for its time. In Tang court tradition, a high-ranking noblewoman would typically be shielded in the middle of a retinue, surrounded by attendants, protected by hierarchy and social distance. Rank in courtly society was expressed not just through luxury goods, but through spatial placement. Being positioned in the center meant protection; riding at the front meant being seen first and claiming public space.

    The front rider’s clothing, posture, and mount therefore carry profound meaning. Male attire for elite women was not unheard of in Tang China, but on a figure of Lady Guoguo’s standing, it becomes more than a fashion statement—it is a deliberate declaration of presence and power. The horse, too, is far more than a decorative prop. In Tang court culture, a rider’s mount, its trappings, and its position in the procession all communicated clear signals of social status. A noblewoman on horseback was fundamentally different from a woman hidden away in a closed carriage: she occupied public space, she stepped out into the world.

    The details of the horse deepen this meaning. In Tang equestrian culture, manes were clipped into decorative styles known as one-flower, two-flower, and three-flower. The three-flower mane, the most distinctive of these styles, was an immediate visual sign of rank, refinement, and aristocratic privilege. The round red tassel on the horse’s chest also carried ceremonial meaning. In *The Court Lady Guoguo’s Spring Outing*, these details are not incidental decoration: they turn the horse into a visible marker of identity, hierarchy, and courtly display. This is why the painting still feels vivid and alive more than a millennium after it was copied—it is not a portrait of passive feminine beauty, but a record of intentional female visibility.

    The scene also carries a famous echo in Tang poetry. Du Fu, one of China’s greatest poets, wrote of the third day of the third lunar month, a traditional spring outing day: “The air is clean and mild; by the waters of Chang’an gather many fair women.” His poem *Liren Xing* (The Beautiful Women), which is often studied alongside this painting, gives verbal form to the same world of aristocratic spring outings, courtly women, and uneasy luxury. Du Fu painted the riverbank in words; Zhang Xuan (or the Song copyist following his tradition) painted the procession on silk. Together, poem and image preserve the atmosphere of a civilization confident enough to turn leisure into a monument.

    Yet even as the painting captures this moment of golden calm, history was already turning toward catastrophe. Just years after the spring outing it depicts, the An Lushan Rebellion tore across the Tang empire, ending the era of High Tang prosperity. During the imperial court’s flight from Chang’an, Yang Guifei was forced to die at Mawei, and the entire Yang family, once so close to the throne, became the target of a moral and political reckoning. The painting does not show this coming disaster—and that is precisely its power. It gives audiences the still, calm moment just before the world breaks apart.

    The painting’s own journey through history is no less dramatic than the fall of the Tang court. The original Tang work disappeared centuries ago, and only the Song copy survived. It passed through multiple imperial collections and was recorded in the *Shiqu Baoji*, the Qing Dynasty court’s comprehensive catalogue of imperial art holdings. In the 20th century, after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, the last emperor Puyi moved hundreds of palace paintings and calligraphies out of the Forbidden City under the pretext of awarding them as imperial gifts. The handscroll eventually traveled with Puyi from Beijing to Tianjin, then to Changchun in Manchukuo, the Japanese-backed puppet state in northeast China, where it was stored in the former imperial palace.

    In August 1945, as Japan surrendered and Manchukuo collapsed, Puyi fled the city. He selected more than one hundred of the most precious works from the palace collection to carry with him, and *The Court Lady Guoguo’s Spring Outing* was among them. At Shenyang’s Dongta Airport, Soviet forces detained Puyi, and the collection of paintings was seized. They were later transferred to Chinese custody, and eventually entered the collection of the Northeast Museum, which is today’s Liaoning Provincial Museum. The irony of the painting’s survival is striking: a depiction of serene aristocratic leisure outlived centuries of upheaval because a fleeing emperor failed to escape with it.

    The modern history of the painting also includes a quiet, uncelebrated figure: Feng Zhonglian, a 20th-century Chinese artist. As art scholar Jeffrey Sze recounts, a friend once shared Feng’s story with a personal intimacy that never appears on museum labels: Feng was his maternal grandmother. A pioneering modern artist and one of the leading experts in copying ancient Chinese masterworks, Feng was entrusted in 1954 to create a careful copy of the Song Dynasty version of *The Court Lady Guoguo’s Spring Outing*. Her task was not to reinterpret the work through a modern lens, but to set aside her own artistic identity to preserve the original. She had to study the original silk, brush lines, mineral pigments, the aging of the surface, and the subtle rhythm of the original work to replicate it faithfully.

    Feng was no mechanical copyist. She was a trained artist with the skill to suppress her own individual style—a mark of the highest discipline in the tradition of copying ancient Chinese painting. In Western art practice, restoration most often focuses on conservation; in China, the tradition of copying ancient masterworks is also a form of cultural transmission. Feng did not insert herself into the painting; she helped the original work remain visible for future generations.

    This is what makes *The Court Lady Guoguo’s Spring Outing* far more than a portrait of Tang Dynasty beauty. It is a chain of survival across centuries: Zhang Xuan’s lost Tang original, the Song copy that preserved its composition, the Qing imperial collection that safeguarded it, Puyi’s removal from the Forbidden City, its wartime seizure in Shenyang, its placement in public museum custody, and Feng Zhonglian’s disciplined act of modern transmission. The handscroll depicts a spring day, but its own history is a story of endurance.

    On the scroll, Lady Guoguo and her companions continue to ride through an unpainted landscape. All around them is empty silk. Across that empty space, dynasties have fallen, emperors have fled, wars have ended, museums have been built, and artists have worked in quiet discipline to ensure that this ancient spring can still be seen by modern audiences. That may be the work’s true meaning: it is not just a snapshot of a Tang Dynasty spring, it is a testament to a Chinese cultural legacy that has survived the ravages of time.

  • US to shut centre intended to monitor Gaza ceasefire as peace plans stall: Report

    US to shut centre intended to monitor Gaza ceasefire as peace plans stall: Report

    In a clear indication that the Trump administration’s attention on the war-ravaged Gaza Strip is fading as it prioritizes its military campaign against Iran, the United States is moving forward with plans to close down the joint civil-military monitoring hub it set up in Israel to oversee the 2025 Gaza ceasefire agreement, according to recent regional reporting.

    Reuters first confirmed the shutdown of the Civil-Military Coordination Centre (CMCC) in a Friday report, noting that the body’s core functions – which include monitoring ceasefire compliance and coordinating humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza – will be transferred to a US-led international stabilization task force that has been mandated to deploy to the besieged Palestinian enclave. The operation will be brought under the umbrella of the International Stabilisation Force (ISF), headed by US Major General Jasper Jeffers, but the future of that broader multinational force remains far from settled.

    Per the report, the drawdown of US personnel at the former CMCC is already underway: the troop count will fall from roughly 190 service members to just 40, before those remaining military roles are ultimately taken over by civilian employees from third-party countries. To date, it remains unclear what tangible effects the closure will have on on-the-ground conditions in Gaza.

    When the CMCC was first established, its primary mandate centered on facilitating and verifying the delivery of humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians in the territory, which was heavily damaged by months of conflict. However, anonymous senior officials told Reuters that aid flows into Gaza have remained largely frozen since the center launched, even with the monitoring body in operation. While Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates took part in initial planning sessions at the hub in its first months of operation, most of these partner nations have all but stopped sending permanent representatives to the site in recent months.

    The ceasefire agreement that the CMCC was tasked to upholding has been systematically violated by Israeli forces since it took effect in October 2025, leading to a complete halt in all progress on reconstruction efforts across Gaza. Official data and UN reports confirm that more than 800 Palestinian civilians and fighters have been killed in ongoing Israeli strikes and incursions since the ceasefire was signed.

    When the truce was first announced, then-President Donald Trump celebrated the deal with high-profile fanfare, embarking on a Middle East victory tour to mark the breakthrough. Speaking at a landmark peace summit hosted in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Trump declared publicly that “The war in Gaza is over…now the rebuilding begins.” But even at that time, diplomats and independent analysts warned Middle East Eye (MEE) that the White House would quickly lose interest in the agreement, and that the US would step back from enforcing Israeli compliance with its ceasefire commitments.

    This week, Khaled Khiari, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, issued a stark warning reaffirming that the blockaded enclave continues to face “ongoing and deadly Israeli strikes” despite the US-brokered ceasefire arrangement. Critics have long noted that even when the CMCC was fully staffed and operational, there were almost no meaningful checks in place to prevent Israeli violations of the truce, and Israeli officials exercised disproportionate control over the center’s operations.

    A December 2025 report from The Guardian exposed that Israeli intelligence carried out such extensive surveillance activities within the CMCC that US and other international partners formally lodged complaints. The Israeli military was found to be recording both open and closed discussions and meetings at the hub through overt and covert means, prompting the CMCC’s US commander, Lieutenant General Patrick Frank, to privately confront his Israeli counterpart and demand that the espionage campaign end.

    The US secured a United Nations Security Council mandate to launch the ISF back in November 2025. Earlier this year, the initiative appeared to gain momentum: regional sources indicated Indonesia was preparing to deploy up to 8,000 troops to the force, while Jordan and Egypt began training security personnel aligned with the Palestinian Authority to support operations in Gaza. However, the recent US-Israeli military offensive against Iran has dramatically altered regional priorities, throwing the entire ISF deployment plan into doubt. A senior anonymous US official told MEE that key Arab and Muslim states that had previously committed to joining the force are now reassessing their participation in the project.

    Middle East Eye, which provides independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East and North Africa region, first reported on the growing uncertainty surrounding the monitoring center and the ISF deployment.

  • Trump claims other presidents flouted war powers law. It’s a mixed record

    Trump claims other presidents flouted war powers law. It’s a mixed record

    A high-stakes constitutional and political debate has erupted in Washington over President Donald Trump’s refusal to seek congressional approval to continue U.S. military operations against Iran, as the 60-day deadline mandated by the 1973 War Powers Resolution expired this Friday.

    Speaking to reporters ahead of the deadline, Trump insisted that he has no legal requirement to secure congressional authorization for the ongoing conflict, claiming that no prior U.S. president has ever sought such approval for military action. “It’s never been used. It’s never been adhered to. Nobody’s ever asked for it before,” Trump said, adding that past commanders-in-chief have long viewed Congress’s claimed authority to limit presidential war powers as “totally unconstitutional.”

    The reality of presidential compliance with the 1973 law, however, is far more nuanced than Trump’s framing. Enacted in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to curb unilateral executive war-making and restrict then-President Richard Nixon’s ability to escalate conflict without legislative backing, the War Powers Resolution requires the president to terminate any U.S. military engagement within 60 days of notifying Congress of its launch, unless lawmakers explicitly vote to extend the operation. This Friday marked exactly 60 days since the Trump administration notified Congress of the start of strikes against Tehran on February 28.

    Both Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argue that the 60-day clock was paused when the current ceasefire between U.S. and Iranian forces went into effect, triggering ongoing disagreement over whether ceasefire periods count towards the congressionally mandated deadline. Legal experts, however, reject this interpretation. “Nothing in the War Powers Act suggests a pause of hostilities changes the requirements of the law,” said David Schultz, a professor of political science and legal studies at Hamline University in Minnesota. “Just because other presidents haven’t invoked the law doesn’t mean that what Trump is doing here is correct. Here, Trump has basically committed us to combat without any support from Congress. And if we go back to the founding of this country, one of the core fears the framers had was a strong executive committing the nation to war without the support of the elected legislative branch.”

    A look at modern U.S. history reveals that multiple of Trump’s predecessors did comply with the War Powers Resolution by securing congressional approval before launching large-scale military operations. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan obtained congressional approval to deploy U.S. Marines to Lebanon within the 60-day window, bringing his campaign into full compliance with the law. President George H.W. Bush sought and received congressional authorization for the 1991 Gulf War ahead of launching Operation Desert Storm, even as he maintained that he did not legally require the approval. His son, George W. Bush, won explicit congressional backing for the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    That said, Trump is correct that several past administrations did find ways to circumvent the 1973 law. President Bill Clinton allowed the 1999 NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo to run 18 days past the 60-day deadline without seeking congressional authorization, with the entire operation lasting 78 days. President Barack Obama argued that the 2011 U.S. military intervention in Libya did not qualify as “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution, allowing the campaign to continue for more than seven months without congressional approval.

    Trump has pushed back against criticism by noting that the current conflict with Iran has been far shorter in duration than many past U.S. wars, pointing to the 19-year Vietnam War, nearly nine-year Iraq War, six-year World War II, and three-year Korean War as points of comparison. Still, a clear path to ending the conflict remains elusive: Washington and Tehran remain deadlocked over two core issues, control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program, leaving Trump’s exit strategy from the conflict unconfirmed. Echoing a line former President Barack Obama used in 2014 about the war in Afghanistan, ending the U.S. engagement in Iran appears far harder than starting it.

  • 61% of Americans see Trump’s Iran war as ‘mistake’: new poll

    61% of Americans see Trump’s Iran war as ‘mistake’: new poll

    A new joint poll conducted by The Washington Post, ABC News and Ipsos, released Friday, has revealed that more than 60 percent of U.S. adults now view President Donald Trump’s military conflict in Iran as a fundamental mistake. What makes this shift in public opinion extraordinary is how rapidly it has occurred: in just two months since the war began, the conflict has already hit levels of public disapproval that took previous, widely discredited U.S. wars years to reach.

    CNN senior political analyst Aaron Blake notes that polling data stretching back decades puts this rapid backlash in stark context. It took more than three years of the Iraq War for a 60-percent majority of Americans to label the conflict a mistake, while the Vietnam War required six years of continuous fighting and tens of thousands of American troop deaths to cross the same threshold.

    To understand how unprecedented this speed of disapproval is, it is necessary to look back at public opinion at the start of past major conflicts. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 under President George W. Bush, even amid growing grassroots protest, 81 percent of voters backed the invasion in April 2003, with just 16 percent calling it a mistake. It was only as the occupation devolved into a years-long deadly quagmire, and it became clear the Bush administration’s justifications for the war – claims of weapons of mass destruction – were deliberate falsehoods, that public support eroded steadily, finally hitting 64 percent opposition by 2007.

    Vietnam never commanded the overwhelming early backing that Iraq saw, but even so, 60 percent of Americans supported President Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 decision to deploy direct U.S. military intervention, with just 24 percent calling the move a mistake. While widespread anti-war protests became a defining cultural moment of the conflict, public opinion did not solidify against the war until 1968, and it was not until 1971 – after more than 50,000 U.S. troops had been killed in action – that a 61 percent majority called the war a mistake.

    Unlike both Iraq and Vietnam, Trump’s Iran war has never enjoyed even a fleeting period of broad public consensus. Just days after the launch of the campaign, branded “Operation Epic Fury” by the Trump administration, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found only 27 percent of Americans approved of the opening strikes that killed 555 Iranians, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and multiple senior Iranian officials. Even at that early stage, 43 percent already disapproved of the action, a gap far wider than that seen at the start of any prior major U.S. conflict, with the remaining 30 percent of respondents still undecided.

    Over the following two months, that undecided bloc has swung firmly against the conflict. Multiple damaging developments have fueled the shift: public confirmation that a U.S. double-tap airstrike on an Iranian school killed at least 155 people, 120 of them children; Iranian retaliation that blocked oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, pushing U.S. gasoline prices soaring above $4 per gallon; and increasingly aggressive rhetoric from Trump that critics have labeled an overtly genocidal posture toward Iran, which has made any peaceful negotiated resolution increasingly remote even under the current fragile ceasefire.

    Friday’s poll confirms that while the war retains a core loyal base of 36 percent of Americans who still view it as the right decision – nearly all of whom identify as Republican – this base is heavily outnumbered by the 61 percent who now call the conflict a mistake.

    Majorities of respondents across all demographic groups also linked the war to a range of serious national risks: 61 percent said it has increased the threat of terrorist attacks targeting Americans, 60 percent said it raises the risk of the U.S. economy tipping into recession, and 56 percent said it has damaged the United States’ relationships with its key global allies.

    A deeper breakdown of polling data exposes a particularly troubling trend for the Trump administration: the war has almost no support outside the president’s most dedicated base. 91 percent of self-identified Democrats now label the conflict a mistake, and 71 percent of independent voters – a large majority of whom were undecided when the war began – have also turned against it, leaving just 24 percent of independents in support.

    Even within the Republican Party, the war has created a sharp divide. 86 percent of self-identified MAGA Republicans still back the conflict, but moderate non-MAGA Republicans are deeply split: 50 percent still call the war the right decision, while 49 percent now view it as a mistake. Many of these Republican skeptics were rattled by Trump’s threatening remark last month that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran refused to accept a negotiating deal on his terms. A majority of all Republicans, 53 percent, said they viewed that incendiary threat negatively.

    It remains unclear whether even Trump’s most loyal supporters will continue backing the war if the conflict drags on, and recent public remarks from top administration officials suggest the White House remains in denial about the scale of public opposition. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared before Congress, where Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, pressed him on the administration’s failure to build broad public support for the conflict, noting that three out of five Americans now oppose it. Hegseth rejected the premise outright, claiming “I believe we do have the support of the American people.” He pushed back on critics by noting the conflict is only two months old, arguing that calls for withdrawal are premature – a curious framing, given Trump himself initially claimed the war would last only four to five weeks.

    During his testimony, Hegseth compared the Iran conflict to past long-running U.S. wars, arguing “Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? And they were nebulous missions that people went along with. This is different.” That claim of a clear mission, however, falls flat: the Trump administration has offered a constantly shifting set of justifications for the war, ranging from regime change in Tehran, defending Iranian anti-government protesters, destroying Iran’s nuclear program, eliminating its ballistic missile arsenal, seizing Iranian oil fields, defending Israel, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

  • Doctors warn nicotine pouches could spark repeat of the vaping epidemic

    Doctors warn nicotine pouches could spark repeat of the vaping epidemic

    Australia is facing the early emergence of an unregulated public health crisis linked to unapproved nicotine pouches, with top medical authorities calling on the federal government to act fast to close regulatory gaps before the problem escalates into a repeat of the nation’s devastating vaping epidemic.

    In an official submission shared with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the Australian Medical Association (AMA) is pressing the Albanese Government to immediately close existing loopholes that are allowing unapproved nicotine-containing products to flow freely into the domestic Australian market. As federal AMA vice president Associate Professor Julian Rait emphasized, regulatory inaction right now will allow these addictive products to become deeply entrenched across the country, a mistake Australia has already made with unregulated vapes in recent years.

    Currently, not a single nicotine pouch product holds formal approval on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG), yet these products are widely available to consumers, including minors, Rait says. Unlike approved therapeutic nicotine products intended to help adults quit smoking, these unregulated pouches are marketed with bright, youth-appealing branding and sold through online platforms with almost no barriers to purchase. Some products have been found to carry extremely high concentrations of the addictive substance: independent, non-industry research has recorded nicotine levels as high as 150mg per pouch – equivalent to 50 cigarettes, given a 30mg pouch matches the nicotine content of a single conventional cigarette.

    Beyond addiction, these unregulated pouches carry confirmed negative health impacts for users, Rait explained. Common adverse effects include persistent mouth and gum irritation, gastrointestinal distress, nausea, and elevated blood pressure, with long-term health risks still understudied because of the product’s unapproved status.

    The submission also highlights that the combination of fast-growing social media promotion, loose online sales rules, and the rising use of unregulated synthetic nicotine has stretched Australia’s patchwork current regulatory framework to breaking point. Rait warned that without updated, technology-neutral national regulations and consistent cross-jurisdictional enforcement, unlicensed suppliers will keep exploiting grey market gaps to reach Australian consumers.

    To address the crisis, the AMA is calling for a suite of targeted public health safeguards. These include mandatory, effective online compliance protocols to remove illicit product listings, clear and standardized health warnings on all packaging, child-resistant packaging requirements to prevent accidental child poisoning, and enhanced national monitoring of adverse health events and poisoning cases to inform ongoing regulatory adjustments.

    Right now, Australia’s response to nicotine pouches is fragmented: state and territory governments have implemented inconsistent rules, with only a handful of jurisdictions such as South Australia and Queensland acting to restrict the products under existing tobacco legislation, while others have taken no formal action. The AMA’s proposed national regulatory framework would harmonize rules across the country, simplify enforcement for local authorities, eliminate inconsistencies between regions, and create a unified, robust enforcement environment to block unapproved products from the market.

    “Without urgent federal action, we risk repeating every mistake that allowed the vaping epidemic to take hold and harm a generation of young Australians,” Rait said.

  • Brouhaha over Iran war costs to US taxpayers

    Brouhaha over Iran war costs to US taxpayers

    A fierce public debate has erupted over the full financial burden of former President Donald Trump’s Iran war, with multiple independent analysts, lawmakers, and even Iran’s top diplomat challenging the Pentagon’s official $25 billion cost estimate as a deliberate undercount that misleads U.S. taxpayers.

    The controversy ignited after Jules Hurst, the Pentagon’s acting comptroller, testified under oath before U.S. lawmakers that the Trump administration had accumulated $25 billion in expenditures on the conflict, a widely unpopular war of choice launched by the former administration. The New York Times noted that Hurst offered no additional details to contextualize the figure, which is dramatically lower than the $200 billion the Pentagon initially requested for the conflict. The low number also indicates a sharp slowdown in spending, despite early war data showing the conflict cost more than $11 billion in its first six days alone.

    Independent and institutional analysts have repeatedly pushed back against the official estimate, releasing their own assessments that place the direct cost of the conflict far higher. This month, the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress calculated that direct Pentagon spending exceeded $33 billion in just the first 39 days of fighting. A ceasefire-era assessment from the conservative American Enterprise Institute, released April 10, put the total direct cost between $25 billion and $35 billion. Independent policy analyst Stephen Semler went further, estimating the U.S. spent nearly $29 billion on the war in its opening two weeks – an average of $2.1 billion per day. Semler accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of lying to Congress in a social media post Thursday, arguing that the total opening two-week cost alone already exceeded the Pentagon’s full $25 billion official estimate.

    The debate went cross-border Friday when Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi joined the criticism, taking to social media to reject the Pentagon’s figure as a deliberate fourfold undercount. “The Pentagon is lying,” Araghchi wrote, claiming the conflict – which he framed as a gamble tied to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – has already cost U.S. taxpayers $100 billion in direct spending, four times the official claim. He added that indirect costs borne by American households are far higher, putting the current monthly burden at $500 per household and rising rapidly.

    Beyond direct military spending, experts and lawmakers have drawn attention to the massive indirect costs the conflict has imposed on U.S. consumers through soaring energy and food prices. Democratic U.S. Representative Ro Khanna of California told the House of Representatives Thursday that when accounting for these price hikes, the total cost of the war to Americans surges to more than $630 billion – an average of $5,000 per household. “We need to end this war now, and help the American people reduce costs,” Khanna said.

    Long-term projections paint an even starker picture of the conflict’s financial toll. Linda Bilmes, a public policy scholar at the Harvard Kennedy School, warned in early April that when factoring in long-term obligations like veterans’ health care and other sustained outlays, the total lifetime cost of the Iran war to U.S. taxpayers could top $1 trillion. Bilmes noted that pinning down an exact exact cumulative cost is challenging in the early stages of the conflict, but current data shows the conflict runs about $2 billion per day in short-term direct costs alone – a figure that represents just the tip of a much larger financial iceberg.

  • Interest rate hikes slash first-home buyer borrowing capacity by thousands

    Interest rate hikes slash first-home buyer borrowing capacity by thousands

    Australia’s aspiring first homeowners are facing a growing barrier to entering the property market, with consecutive interest rate increases from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) severely eroding how much they can borrow from lenders, according to new industry analysis.

  • There was one way we’d agreed to do Devil Wears Prada 2, says Meryl Streep

    There was one way we’d agreed to do Devil Wears Prada 2, says Meryl Streep

    Twenty years after the original *The Devil Wears Prada* cemented its place as a cultural touchstone – spawning viral quotes, a hit West End musical, and a permanent spot in popular fashion discourse – a long-awaited sequel from Walt Disney Studios has finally landed in cinemas worldwide, with the entire original A-list ensemble reprising their iconic roles. At the top of the call sheet, three-time Academy Award winner Meryl Streep returns as Miranda Priestly, the sharp-edged, intimidating editor-in-chief of fictional Runway Magazine, a character widely believed to be modeled on Vogue’s legendary editor Anna Wintour. Streep, alongside co-stars Stanley Tucci, Anne Hathaway, and Emily Blunt, opened up about the project in interviews with BBC News, revealing that the entire cast attached one non-negotiable condition to signing on: the sequel would only move forward if its story felt relevant to the current cultural moment.

    Unlike the original 2006 film, which centered wide-eyed new assistant Andy Sachs’ fish-out-of-water experience in the high-stakes world of high fashion publishing, the sequel leans heavily into the seismic shifts that have upended the media industry over the past two decades. Plotlines mirror real-world industry upheaval: steep newsroom staffing cuts, plummeting print circulation, and the total domination of digital and social media platforms that have stripped traditional journalists of much of their editorial control. Even emerging technology like generative artificial intelligence has a place in the story’s narrative. Tucci, who returns as fan-favorite creative director Nigel Kipling, explained that the team refused to make a hollow cash-grab follow-up to the original. “Everything has to have its own necessity for being – even the frothiest sort of fun movie,” Streep emphasized, echoing that sentiment.

    Hathaway, who reprises her role as Andy Sachs – now returning to Runway as the publication’s new features editor after years away – notes that the sequel avoids retreading the original’s story to instead reflect how much the world has changed. One of the film’s core messages, she says, is that audiences hold the future of independent journalism in their hands. “I hope people realise the fate of journalism really rests on them and if you believe in it, you believe it’s important – I personally do,” she shared. Despite the timely, serious themes woven through the script, the cast is quick to stress that the sequel retains all the lighthearted, fashion-forward fun that made the original a hit. Streep jokes that while the story addresses industry struggles, it is far from a gritty investigative drama like *Spotlight*: it remains a glamorous, witty comedy packed with iconic designer looks. Tucci echoes that, framing the film as a much-needed escape amid global chaos, while Blunt, who returns as the sharp-tongued Emily Charlton, promises audiences a “joy bomb” of nostalgia and laughs perfect for seeing with friends.

    For Blunt, the *The Devil Wears Prada* franchise holds extra personal meaning: she introduced her sister to Tucci at the original film’s 2006 premiere, and the pair have now been married for 14 years, making Tucci permanent family. In the sequel, Emily has left her assistant role at Runway to take a senior executive position at a luxury retail brand, putting her in a whole new professional landscape alongside her former colleagues. Blunt points out that beyond the snappy one-liners and A-list celebrity cameos (which include fashion icons Marc Jacobs and Naomi Campbell, shot on location in iconic fashion hubs New York and Milan), the sequel also explores deeply human themes of self-realization, forgiveness, reconciliation, and reclaiming one’s path.

    Early critical reception for the film has been largely positive. *Variety* praised the project as “a sequel made with intelligence and respect for both its predecessor and the legions who still love it”, while *The Guardian* called it “good-natured, buoyant entertainment”. *Empire* noted that the sequel succeeds because it gives core characters an entirely fresh story rather than relying on nostalgia for the first film, though it added that the high-fashion narrative could have benefited from higher narrative stakes. *The Hollywood Reporter* offered a more muted take, describing the film as “pretty polished and as featherweight as a fawning magazine puff piece”.

    A core throughline that made the original film a cultural hit remains central to the sequel: its unapologetic focus on ambitious, career-driven women, a trope that remains rare in Hollywood even two decades later. Streep pointed out that the harmful stereotype of ambition as an “unattractive” quality for women has not disappeared as many hoped it would. “We would hope that feeling would be obsolete but it isn’t, it’s alive and kicking,” she said. Hathaway agrees, noting that stories centered on women who love their work and prioritize their careers are still far too uncommon in the film industry – a gap that explains why the original resonated so deeply 20 years ago, and why the sequel is connecting with audiences now.

    At the same time, the sequel explores the nuance of balancing high-pressure careers with personal fulfillment, rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach to success. Hathaway explains that the film emphasizes that definition of a full, satisfying, meaningful life is deeply personal: for some, that centers a career, for others it centers personal life, and neither path is inherently better. Streep adds that this is a message that resonates for men as well, noting that the universal goal for most people is to find a sustainable balance between professional and personal priorities.

    Penned by returning screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna and directed by original director David Frankel, the sequel aims to give audiences both the nostalgic fun they loved from the original, and new, thought-provoking ideas to take away. For Hathaway, that balance of joy and inspiration is exactly what makes the project worth making: “Seeing a story that centres around a character you can connect to that inspires you [is] a huge reason why I’m sitting here right now.” *The Devil Wears Prada 2* is in theaters globally now.

  • Watch: May Day protests take place across major US cities

    Watch: May Day protests take place across major US cities

    On the annual international celebration of workers’ rights, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of major urban centers across the United States to stage coordinated May Day protests. The gatherings, which brought together a diverse coalition of labor organizers, immigrant advocacy groups, and grassroots activists, centered on a unified call for greater dignity, systemic justice, and expanded fundamental freedom for both working-class Americans and immigrant communities residing in the country.

    Protesters marched through busy downtown corridors, carrying hand-painted signs and chanting slogans that highlighted ongoing struggles over fair wages, workplace safety protections, immigration reform, and pathways to citizenship for undocumented residents. The coordinated actions across multiple cities underscored growing grassroots momentum around issues that impact millions of people across the United States, from low-wage workers facing stagnant incomes to immigrant families at risk of detention and deportation.

    May Day has long served as a global platform for workers and marginalized groups to amplify their demands, and this year’s mobilizations across the U.S. continued that tradition by drawing together intersecting movements to push for policy change and greater public recognition of the contributions both workers and immigrants make to American society. While the demonstrations were largely peaceful, organizers emphasized that the widespread turnout was intended to send a clear message to policymakers that demands for equity will not be silenced.

  • US court limits mail-order access to abortion pill mifepristone

    US court limits mail-order access to abortion pill mifepristone

    On a Friday ruling that has upended the ongoing national battle over abortion access in the United States, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a temporary order that sharply curtails access to mifepristone, the core medication used in most US pregnancy terminations, by banning mail distribution and telemedicine pharmacy dispensing. The decision reverses a 2023 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy that permanently eliminated the longstanding requirement that patients pick up the drug in person from a clinical provider, a rule that grew out of pandemic-era access expansions first enacted in 2021.

    The legal challenge that led to this ruling was brought by the state of Louisiana, which argues that the FDA’s relaxed distribution rules directly invalidate the state’s total ban on abortion. In its official order, the appellate court wrote that every abortion enabled by the FDA’s policy overrides Louisiana’s abortion ban and contradicts the state’s official stance that “every unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person.”

    Mifepristone is the first drug in the two-step medication abortion regimen endorsed by the FDA: it blocks progesterone, a hormone required to sustain a pregnancy, and is followed by misoprostol, which empties the uterus. The drug was first approved for use up to seven weeks of pregnancy in the U.S. in 2000, with approval extended to 10 weeks in 2016. It is also used off-label to treat incomplete miscarriages and Cushing syndrome, while misoprostol has long been prescribed for stomach ulcers and postpartum hemorrhage, a non-abortion use that has kept it out of most recent regulatory battles.

    Mainstream U.S. medical bodies including the FDA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have repeatedly confirmed mifepristone’s safety after more than two decades of use. FDA data shows more than 3.7 million American women used the drug between 2000 and 2018, and clinical data puts the effectiveness of the full two-drug regimen at roughly 95%, with less than 1% of cases requiring additional invasive medical intervention.

    This latest ruling comes against a shifting legal backdrop for abortion access in the U.S. In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade, leaving regulation up to individual states. Two years later, in 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected one high-profile effort to restrict mifepristone, but left open the possibility for future state-led challenges to the drug’s distribution rules. Friday’s ruling also overrides a recent lower court decision that paused the case to allow the FDA time to complete a regulatory review of the 2023 policy.

    Reaction to the ruling has split sharply along pro-choice and anti-abortion lines. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Julia Kaye condemned the decision in an official statement, arguing it ignores established medical science and existing legal precedent to advance an anti-abortion policy that a majority of Americans oppose. Kaye added that for vulnerable groups including rural patients, survivors of intimate partner violence, and people living with disabilities, eliminating telemedicine and mail access will cut off access to the vital medication entirely.

    Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who brought the challenge, celebrated the ruling, claiming the Biden-era FDA rule enabled the deaths of thousands of unborn children in Louisiana and millions across the country. “I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues,” she said.

    Other state officials have moved to reassure patients that abortion access will remain unchanged in jurisdictions where it remains legal. New York Attorney General Letitia James confirmed Friday that abortion care, including medication abortion, will remain legal and accessible in New York regardless of the appellate ruling. “Mifepristone is safe, effective, and essential. Restrictions on abortion care are restrictions on life-saving health care. This decision puts lives at risk,” James said.