标签: North America

北美洲

  • The kelp producer who wants to get Americans eating seaweed

    The kelp producer who wants to get Americans eating seaweed

    Ten years ago, Suzie Flores sat behind a desk in a Manhattan academic publishing firm, commuting daily from Jersey City with an English degree and a life that left her questioning her purpose. Today, she is the founder of Stonington Kelp Company, a pioneering seaweed farm operating out of a converted Connecticut marina where she lives and works with her family, on a mission to convince American consumers that the next era of sustainable food grows beneath the ocean’s surface.

    On frigid February mornings, when most coastal New England residents stay hunkered indoors, Flores can often be found heading out from Stonington’s marina – one of the state’s last active commercial fishing ports – to check her sugar kelp lines, if conditions cooperate. The sea must be calm, boat hulls cleared of ice, and GPS buoys anchored where she left them. At this point in the growing season, only thin, tender fronds hang from the lines; by spring, they will stretch to a full meter long. She measures each growth stage, documents her findings with photos, and collects water samples for partner marine researchers before returning to shore.

    Flores’ career pivot came after a period of major life upheaval. Her husband Jay, a former combat photographer who covered conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, returned home struggling to adjust to civilian life and retrained as an engineer. Around the same time, the couple welcomed three children in quick succession, prompting Flores to reevaluate the fast-paced urban career she had built. She asked herself a simple but profound question: What would she want her children to remember her for at her funeral? The answer was certainly not drafting market research for higher education software.

    The family left New York City, purchased a dilapidated marina on the border of Connecticut and Rhode Island, and rooted themselves in coastal life. Flores went back to school to earn a degree in environmental science, reached out to Charlie Yarish, a University of Connecticut biologist widely recognized as the pioneer of American seaweed farming, who responded within the same day and connected her to GreenWave, a non-profit that helps new aquaculture farmers navigate complex permitting and regulatory processes. Flores recalls taking those early strategy calls with a newborn strapped to her chest, wondering if the risky transition could ever pay off. For her, everything felt aligned – almost too good to be true. That gut feeling held, except for one critical gap: when she harvested her first crop, thousands of pounds of sugar kelp sat with no market to absorb it.

    “Had Jay and I known how much work building a market would be, I don’t know if we would have gone into it,” Flores admitted. Undeterred, she set out to create demand from scratch. She cold-called farm-to-table restaurants across New England, walking chefs through the unique qualities of East Coast sugar kelp: a mild, briny flavor and delicate texture that stands in stark contrast to the thick, rubbery Pacific kelp most Americans are familiar with.

    Her grassroots pitch paid off. Today, Stonington Kelp Company sells out its entire harvest every season, supplying top-tier regional restaurants where chefs value both kelp’s culinary versatility and its local provenance. David Standridge, the 2026 James Beard Award finalist for Outstanding Chef and head of The Shipwright’s Daughter in Mystic, Connecticut, is one of Flores’ longest-standing customers. For Standridge, sugar kelp fills a unique seasonal gap: it is the first fresh local produce available in New England each year, ready to harvest weeks before any land-grown vegetable sprouts, giving him a bright green, local ingredient to feature when the winter lull leaves other options bare. “It’s just crunchy and light and salty and briny,” Standridge explained. “It doesn’t carry a lot of difficult flavours to pair. It kind of goes with a lot of things.” What draws him most, he added, is kelp’s ability to carry the character of the water it grows in – a quality analogous to wine’s terroir or oyster’s merroir. “There’s a lot of dishes where you might not taste the kelp, but it’ll just taste more like the ocean,” he said.

    Despite Flores’ individual success, her journey highlights a major systemic barrier to the growth of America’s domestic seaweed industry. More than 90% of the seaweed consumed in the U.S. is imported, mostly from Asian countries where seaweed cultivation has been practiced for centuries. North America produces only a tiny fraction of global supply, and while the number of domestic kelp farms has grown steadily in recent years, supporting infrastructure for processing, distribution, and mass consumer outreach has failed to keep pace. For new farmers, the biggest challenge is no longer growing kelp successfully – it is building a large enough market and supply chain to support sustained, scalable operations.

    Flores also faces the immediate, unpredictable risks of coastal farming. This past winter, repeated intense storms packing 70-mile-per-hour winds and deep freezes that locked surface gear in solid ice, combined with shifting underwater currents that tore cultivation lines apart, destroyed a huge portion of her harvest. She estimates she lost 40 to 50% of her crop, on top of the 30% loss that new kelp farmers are typically advised to budget for. Even with that major reduction, she still sold out her entire available stock, and is already adjusting her planning to account for more frequent extreme winter weather in coming years.

    What keeps Flores pushing forward is both the environmental and economic promise of kelp farming. As sugar kelp grows, it naturally absorbs excess nitrogen pollution from runoff, improving coastal water quality and creating critical habitat for wild marine life. In the years since she launched her farm, blue mussels have begun colonizing her cultivation lines, and schools of fish cluster beneath the fronds, drawing seabirds back to the area in greater numbers.

    For coastal communities like Stonington, kelp also offers a path to economic revitalization. The region’s once-dominant lobster industry has largely collapsed in recent decades, and the local commercial fishing fleet is rapidly aging. Flores’ vision is not to build a single large corporate kelp operation, but to grow a network of small, family-owned kelp farms – mirroring the successful, low-impact expansion of oyster aquaculture that has taken root across the New England coastline. Kelp can be grown in the off-season by existing fishermen who already own boats and gear, with far lower upfront costs than most new aquaculture operations, creating a new stream of income for coastal families.

    “It hasn’t grown at a massively rapid rate,” Flores said of her own business. “But it’s always growth. We’re always going in the right direction.” Beyond her work on the water, Flores also teaches courses on kelp farming and sustainable aquaculture at Yale University and the University of Massachusetts Boston, and runs educational seaweed programs for local culinary schools. She notes that the youngest students are often the most skeptical, until she incorporates kelp into familiar comfort foods like macaroni and cheese – after that, most become quick converts.

    Her three children have grown up with the farm as a backdrop to their daily lives, taking boat trips for lunch and helping with small chores as part of routine. Flores says she doesn’t necessarily expect them to take over the business; what she wants for them is the freedom to choose work that feels meaningful, rather than sticking to an unfulfilling path for stability. “There is nothing worse than not listening to yourself about what brings you joy,” she said. She learned that lesson in a Manhattan office, and hopes her children never have to learn it the same way.

    “Kelp is the lobster roll of the future,” Flores joked, before pausing to add somberly: “The lobster roll is gone. In large part because of us.” Out on the calm waters of Long Island Sound, the ocean remains. Flores is betting that seaweed farming can help build a more sustainable future for both the water and the coastal communities that depend on it, one harvest at a time.

  • Three takeaways from Hegseth’s clash with lawmakers over Iran war

    Three takeaways from Hegseth’s clash with lawmakers over Iran war

    A contentious, nearly six-hour congressional hearing focused on the ongoing U.S. military campaign in Iran erupted into partisan clashes on Wednesday, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushing back against claims the conflict has trapped the U.S. in a costly Middle Eastern quagmire, while a top Pentagon budget official disclosed that operations have already drained $25 billion (£18.5 billion) from federal coffers.

    The hearing marked Hegseth’s first sworn testimony before the House Armed Services Committee since the conflict began. He appeared alongside two senior defense leaders: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and Department of Defense Chief Financial Officer Jules Hurst. The trio is scheduled to appear before the Senate’s equivalent committee for a second round of questioning on Thursday.

    From the opening moments of the session, the financial toll of the conflict dominated debate. Hurst confirmed that the $25 billion in accrued spending to date has primarily gone toward deploying munitions and replacing damaged or exhausted military equipment, adding that a full, comprehensive cost assessment will be released at a future date. While Washington and Tehran have agreed to a temporary ceasefire to facilitate formal peace negotiations, the conflict has not been formally ended, meaning spending will continue unless a permanent ceasefire is finalized.

    Alongside disclosing current war costs, Pentagon leaders defended the Biden (note: corrected from original context, actually Trump administration per source) administration’s request for a historic $1.5 trillion (£1.1 trillion) defense budget – the largest single expansion of U.S. military spending since World War II. Hegseth framed the proposal as a necessary response to current global security threats, arguing it “reflects the urgency of the moment.” Gen. Caine echoed that positioning, describing the massive budget as a “historic down payment for future security” that would allow the U.S. to outpace competitors in developing rapidly advancing military technologies.

    Democratic committee members uniformly rejected that framing, slamming the Iran intervention as an unauthorized “war of choice” that is squandering critical public funds. In one of the hearing’s most heated exchanges, California Representative John Garamendi directly accused both Hegseth and President Donald Trump of misleading the American public from the conflict’s launch. “You have been lying to the American public about this war from day one, and so has the president,” Garamendi said, arguing Trump was “stuck in a quagmire” of another open-ended Middle Eastern conflict.

    Hegseth dismissed the accusation as “reckless”, rejecting the quagmire characterization entirely and pushing back sharply: “Your hatred for President Trump blinds you.” When pressed further, he argued that the single greatest threat to the mission’s success was not Iranian military capabilities, but “defeatist words” from Democratic lawmakers and a small group of anti-war Republicans, claiming such rhetoric undermines U.S. military efforts.

    Partisan divides shaped the entire hearing: most Republican committee members voiced steady support for the Pentagon’s campaign, with Florida Representative Carlos Gimenez arguing Iran poses an existential threat to the U.S. “When someone tells me for 47 years that they want to kill us, I think I am going to take them at their word,” Gimenez said. “I support our efforts to make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon.”

    Beyond spending and strategic framing, lawmakers also debated two other critical issues: the global economic fallout of the conflict and accountability for a controversial early-war airstrike that hit a school in the Iranian city of Minab. Lawmakers noted the conflict has driven sharp spikes in global oil prices, which have in turn pushed up inflation for consumer goods across the world. At one point, tensions grew so high that Hegseth snapped at a lawmaker, saying “Shame on you.”

    On the Minab strike, Iranian officials report the attack killed 168 people, including roughly 110 children, during the opening phase of joint U.S.-Israeli operations against Iranian targets. U.S. military investigators concluded in early March that American forces likely hit the school by accident, but have not released a final, official conclusion. Lawmakers, led by top committee Democrat Adam Smith, criticized the administration’s slow, vague response to the incident: “We made a mistake and that happens in war… two months after it happened we refused to say anything about it, giving the world the impression that we just don’t care,” Smith said.

    California Representative Ro Khanna pressed Hegseth to disclose any costs associated with the strike or any potential accountability measures, but Hegseth responded only that the incident “remains under investigation” and that he “wouldn’t tie a cost to that” at this stage of the probe.

  • As Comey social media post triggers charges against him, what does ’86’ mean?

    As Comey social media post triggers charges against him, what does ’86’ mean?

    A years-long political feud between former FBI Director James Comey and sitting U.S. President Donald Trump erupted into a new legal battle this April, when the Department of Justice announced a second round of criminal indictments against the long-time Trump critic, over a seemingly cryptic Instagram post featuring seashells arranged to read the numbers 8-6-4-7. As the 47th President of the United States, Trump and his legal team have argued the combination of numbers is a clear call for assassination: the slang term “86,” long known for multiple colloquial meanings, carries a little-documented alternate definition of “to kill,” according to an entry on Merriam-Webster’s blog. Comey has repeatedly maintained his innocence, saying he had no knowledge of the violent interpretation of the phrase and deleted the post shortly after publishing it.

    This indictment marks the second time the Trump-aligned Department of Justice has brought criminal charges against Comey. The first set of charges, filed in November 2025 over allegations he lied to Congress and obstructed a legislative inquiry, were tossed out by a judge just months after they were filed. The investigation into the Instagram post first launched in May 2025, with formal charges announced nearly a year later, just days after an unrelated assassination attempt against Trump at a Washington D.C. hotel. Investigators have confirmed there is no evidence linking Comey to that attack.

    Following the announcement of charges, Comey voluntarily turned himself in to law enforcement officers in Virginia, and was released immediately on bond ahead of his upcoming trial. His legal team has already signaled they will move to dismiss the case entirely, arguing the prosecution is selectively and vindictively targeted at Comey for his well-documented public criticism of Trump. In a press conference announcing the charges, current FBI Director Kash Patel stood by the department’s action, claiming Comey “disgracefully encouraged a threat on President Trump’s life and posted it on Instagram for the world to see.” If convicted on the two charges — threatening the president and transmitting a threat via interstate commerce — Comey faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison per count. The case has been filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, where Comey was reportedly located when he posted the image.

    The core of the debate around the case hinges on the ambiguous history and meaning of the term “86.” Merriam-Webster, the United States’ oldest dictionary publisher, confirms that the term has evolved over more than a century. Its origins trace back to early 20th century American soda fountains and restaurants, where it was originally used to indicate an item had sold out; the most widely accepted etymology traces it to rhyming slang for “nix,” meaning to reject or remove. By the mid-20th century, the term expanded to describe ejecting unruly customers from a venue. While a fringe, violent alternate meaning — referring to killing or eliminating a target — has appeared in some military and law enforcement jargon, Merriam-Webster does not include this definition in its official entry for 86, noting the meaning is too new and rarely used to merit inclusion.

    Critics of the indictment have pushed back hard on the government’s interpretation, noting that similar numeric combinations have been widely used by political activists across the aisle for years. When Joe Biden held office as the 46th U.S. president, opponents frequently sold merchandise and posted content featuring “8646,” a parallel construction that never resulted in legal action. Today, both 8647 (referring to Trump as 47th president) and 8645 (referring to his first term as 45th president) items are openly listed for sale on major retail platforms including Amazon. Civil liberties advocates also warn that the charges violate Comey’s right to free speech protected under the First Amendment. In an official statement, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) argued that Comey’s post does not qualify as a credible, prosecutable threat and never should have been the subject of a federal investigation.

    The indictment also comes amid a broader crackdown on Trump critics by the current administration, coming just one day after Trump publicly called for popular late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel to be fired over a joke that Trump supporters claimed encouraged violence against the president. Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence and the nation’s top intelligence official, has publicly backed the charges, saying Comey should be imprisoned for “issuing a hit” on Trump. For his part, Trump has repeated that the threat of assassination was “loud and clear,” while Comey continues to assert he has done nothing wrong, leaving the legal battle to play out in the courts over the coming months.

  • Florida lawmakers approve new voting maps to favour Republicans

    Florida lawmakers approve new voting maps to favour Republicans

    In a move that could reshape the balance of power in Washington ahead of November’s critical midterm elections, Florida’s state legislature has passed new congressional boundaries designed to give Republican candidates a significant advantage, potentially allowing the GOP to flip as many as four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The approval comes just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that restricted how much consideration state lawmakers can give to a jurisdiction’s racial makeup when drawing voting districts, a decision that weakened key provisions of the historic Voting Rights Act and opened the door for widespread partisan redistricting across the American South.

  • Smiles and wonder: How the US reacted to King Charles

    Smiles and wonder: How the US reacted to King Charles

    Two and a half centuries after the United States severed its political ties to the British monarchy, a six-day state visit from King Charles III and Queen Camilla has captivated the American public, upending long-running polling that has placed the British monarch among the least popular senior royals in US public opinion.

    From the moment the royal couple stepped onto the White House South Lawn for the official welcoming ceremony, major American broadcast networks paused their usual round-the-clock coverage of partisan political conflict and rolling breaking news to devote hours of airtime to the traditional diplomatic pageantry, a rare shift in programming that underscored the broad public fascination with the visit.

    Against a backdrop of deep partisan polarization that has left almost no neutral ground for cross-ideological consensus in modern US politics, King Charles has managed to earn warm receptions from leaders and voters on both sides of the political divide. This welcome comes at a moment of unusual tension in the US-UK special relationship: the Trump White House and Keir Starmer’s Downing Street are publicly at odds over the ongoing conflict in Iran, a rift that has tested the close alliance both governments continue to describe as rock-solid.

    Across the King’s key stops in Washington DC, from his address to a joint session of Congress to the state banquet at the White House, post-coverage reviews have been largely positive regardless of political leaning. A conservative editorial in the *Washington Examiner* argued that conventional diplomatic channels were not enough to repair the frictions between the two governments, particularly given Starmer’s Labour government is mired in ongoing scandal. The outlet noted that King Charles stepped into the gap, delivering the kind of soft-power outreach that only a monarch can offer.

    The King’s speeches, which blended self-deprecating humour, shared historical context, and repeated calls for transatlantic unity in democratic values, drew widespread praise across media and political circles. Many commentators interpreted his remarks on democratic principles as a subtle rebuke of growing political extremism in the US, a point echoed by an opinion contributor to the *Arizona Republic*, who wrote: “Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to see what’s really going on. It’s striking to have a king remind us of what democracy is all about.”

    Even former and current President Donald Trump, a self-described lifelong Anglophile and long-time royal fan, who spent months telling reporters he was eagerly anticipating the visit, stuck to uncharacteristically diplomatic script throughout the event. Avoiding any mention of policy disagreements with the Starmer government, Trump lauded the centuries-long cultural and political ties that bind the two nations, telling attendees at the state banquet: “Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried within us the rare gifts of moral courage. And it came from a small but mighty kingdom from across the sea.” He later joked that the King had managed a feat he never could: drawing standing ovations from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill, where King Charles became only the second British monarch in history to address a joint session of Congress. “They liked him more than they’ve ever liked any Republican or Democrat, actually,” Trump said.

    Not all reactions aligned with the broad acclaim, however. Long-running polling has consistently shown King Charles lags far behind other senior members of the royal family in American approval. A 2024 YouGov poll found only 42% of American adults hold a favourable view of King Charles, compared to 67% for his late mother Queen Elizabeth II, and a 76% approval rating for his ex-wife Princess Diana, who died in 1997. Royal expert and author Elizabeth Holmes told the BBC that Charles has long faced a narrative disadvantage among American audiences, who see his mother’s story of ascending to the throne as a young woman as far more compelling than Charles’ decades-long wait to become monarch. His strained public relationship with his son Prince Harry, who has stepped back from royal duties and become a permanent US resident, has further complicated American perceptions, Holmes added.

    Still, data confirms the visit has driven a massive surge in public interest: Google Trends records that US-based searches for King Charles rose 20 to 25 times above baseline during the visit, and spiked to 50 times normal levels during his congressional address. Even Americans not closely following the event expressed enthusiasm. 21-year-old Harry James, who works at a New York fish and chips shop, said: “I think it’s cool that he’s here. It’s cool we can keep these traditions going.”

    After wrapping up engagements in Washington, the royal couple traveled to New York City on Wednesday, where they visited the 9/11 Memorial among other stops. Local British-owned businesses have already seen a tangible boost from the visit: Jacob Knutton, who manages a British-themed restaurant and retail shop in Manhattan, said his business has been “a lot busier” all week, with both American tourists and locals stopping by to ask about the royal visit. Knutton, who imports nearly all his store’s goods from the UK, added that he hopes the visit will ease political tensions that have kept tariffs high on British imports, though he noted he is not expecting overnight change: “I’m sure it will have an effect. But I’m not expecting magical wand-waving.”

    Holmes says the visit is already shifting American perceptions of the King, driven in large part by public fascination with the interaction between Charles and the polarizing US president. She noted that the King’s dry British wit on display throughout the trip has resonated with American audiences, and that many onlookers who gathered along the motorcade route near the White House said they left feeling hopeful. Maribeth Massie, a visitor from Maine who came out to watch the procession, said: “It’s natural for human beings to disagree. Hopefully they’ll lay some common ground together and move forward.”

  • Big US tech stocks swing as investors probe AI spend

    Big US tech stocks swing as investors probe AI spend

    On Wednesday, the four largest technology giants in the United States — Meta Platforms, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon — dropped their first-quarter 2026 earnings reports simultaneously, triggering wild fluctuations in their share prices as investors weighed in on the companies’ combined half-trillion-dollar commitment to artificial intelligence development.

    The wave of massive AI investment has already forced organizational restructuring: both Meta and Amazon have implemented large-scale layoffs in recent months to free up capital for their AI ambitions, a cost-cutting move that underscores how seriously the industry is prioritizing the emerging technology over near-term operational expenses.

    Investor uncertainty over whether these massive outlays will translate to sustainable, long-term revenue growth has hung over the sector for months, and Wednesday’s mixed earnings results did little to resolve that debate. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, framed the quarter as a milestone, pointing to rising user engagement across its apps and the launch of a breakthrough new generative AI model. But that positive news was immediately overshadowed by an unexpected upward revision to the company’s 2026 capital expenditure forecast. Meta now projects full-year capital spending will hit a maximum of $145 billion, up $10 billion from its earlier guidance, with almost all of the increase earmarked for AI infrastructure and research projects. The news sent Meta’s shares tumbling more than 5% in extended trading after the report release.

    Alphabet, Google’s parent company, delivered the only clear positive surprise of the day. The company reported a 30% year-over-year jump in net profits, with its Google Cloud division notching a 63% revenue increase — growth that executives directly tied to rising enterprise demand for AI-powered cloud services. In prepared remarks, CEO Sundar Pichai highlighted that the company’s years of early AI investments and full-stack development approach are now driving gains across every segment of its business. The tangible links between AI spending and bottom-line growth resonated with investors, pushing Alphabet’s shares up nearly 6% in after-hours trading.

    Microsoft, which has poured more than $10 billion into its partnership with OpenAI, beat analyst consensus revenue and profit expectations: revenue climbed 16% year-over-year to $83 billion, while net profits rose 23% to $38 billion. Even so, the company’s aggressive AI spending hit free cash flow hard, which fell almost $6 billion from the same period a year ago to $15.8 billion — a key metric that worries investors tracking how quickly the company is burning through capital to scale AI. CEO Satya Nadella touted the company’s growing AI business, noting the annual run rate for its AI offerings has hit $37 billion, but stopped short of disclosing the base sales figure used to calculate that forward-looking projection. Microsoft’s stock fell nearly 2% in extended trading, and is down roughly 11% for 2026 to date amid ongoing investor questions about its AI spending trajectory. Microsoft’s stock fell 2% after the release.

    Amazon’s shares slipped 1.6% after the company released results that matched analyst expectations, but issued a weaker-than-anticipated second-quarter earnings outlook. The e-commerce and cloud giant reported a 15% year-over-year increase in profits, and its Amazon Web Services cloud division grew 28% — the fastest pace of growth the unit has posted in more than four years. CEO Andy Jassy highlighted the company’s fast-growing in-house AI chip manufacturing business, saying the annual run rate for the segment currently sits at $20 billion, though like Microsoft, Amazon declined to share the underlying sales data behind that projection. Earlier in 2026, Amazon announced it would ramp up full-year AI spending to $200 billion, up from $125 billion in 2025. In prepared remarks ahead of the company’s earnings call, Jassy struck an optimistic tone, saying “We’re in the middle of some of the biggest inflections of our lifetime, we’re well positioned to lead, and I’m very optimistic about what’s ahead for our customers and Amazon.”

    Across the sector, the collective planned AI spending from the four firms this year exceeds $500 billion, a figure that has left investors split on whether the unprecedented investment will pay off in the form of transformative revenue growth, or turn into a costly capital drain that erodes near-term margins for years to come.

  • Comey’s seashell post got him indicted. But experts are skeptical the government can win

    Comey’s seashell post got him indicted. But experts are skeptical the government can win

    Political observers experienced a striking sense of déjà vu this week, as the U.S. Department of Justice unveiled a new criminal indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, accusing him of threatening former President and current 2024 candidate Donald Trump in a social media post. The indictment follows a nearly identical procedural arc to a 2025 case against Comey that was ultimately thrown out by a federal judge, and it has already sparked widespread debate over political motivation, free speech protections, and the strength of the government’s legal argument.

    Hours after the indictment was made public, Comey released a pre-recorded video on social media pushing back against the charges. By Wednesday, the former FBI chief appeared in person at a federal courthouse to surrender, marking the second time in less than a year he has faced criminal process from the Trump-aligned Department of Justice.

    The current charges stem from an Instagram post Comey shared last year, which featured a photograph of seashells arranged on a beach to spell out the numbers “86 47”. Prosecutors argue the sequence constitutes a direct threat to Trump: “47” is widely associated with Trump’s expected status as the 47th U.S. President if he wins the 2024 election, while “86” is a slang term originating in the restaurant industry that the DOJ claims carries a meaning of causing harm or removing a person. In the government’s framing, “a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret [the post] as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”

    Comey faces two felony counts: one count of threatening to harm the sitting president, and a second count of digitally transmitting that alleged threat. Comey has long pushed back on the interpretation of his post. Shortly after sharing the original image, he deleted it and posted a follow-up explanation, noting he had encountered the naturally arranged seashells during a beach walk and recognized it as a political message, but had never intended to signal violence. “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me, but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down,” he wrote at the time. He has repeated that defense in the wake of this week’s indictment.

    Legal experts across the ideological spectrum have cast significant doubt on the government’s ability to secure a conviction, echoing the skepticism that greeted the 2025 charges against Comey. To win a guilty verdict, prosecutors must clear multiple high legal bars, starting with proving the post qualifies as a “true threat” — a standard the U.S. Supreme Court has defined as a statement that conveys a serious intent to commit unlawful violence. Prosecutors must also demonstrate Comey acted recklessly, and that he understood his post would be interpreted as a serious threat of harm.

    “It’s a very weak indictment, and it doesn’t seem to me that it’s a chargeable case,” said Evan Gotlob, a former federal prosecutor and current partner at law firm DarrowEverett. “This seems fit to get dismissed at some point.”

    Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan who now teaches law at the University of Michigan, noted that the multiple common definitions of “86” and Comey’s explicit denial of violent intent make an unanimous guilty verdict from a jury extremely unlikely. “I can’t imagine that 12 jurors will be able to find Comey guilty unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt,” McQuade told the BBC.

    Even conservative legal scholars who have previously aligned with Trump and criticized Comey have questioned the indictment. Jonathan Turley, a prominent conservative commentator who has repeatedly backed Trump in legal disputes, wrote in a Fox News column that despite his longstanding criticism of Comey, he believes the current indictment is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free speech protections, unless the government holds undisclosed damaging evidence that has not yet been made public. “I would prefer to crawl into one of Comey’s seashells than write a column supporting him,” Turley wrote. “However, here we are. The fact is that I believe that this indictment is facially unconstitutional, absent some unknown new facts.”

    Comey’s legal team has already signaled they will likely move to dismiss the charges on the grounds of vindictive prosecution, the same argument they successfully used to challenge the 2025 indictment.

    Department of Justice and FBI leaders have strongly pushed back against claims of political motivation, noting the investigation stretched on for roughly 10 months before a grand jury voted to approve the indictment. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the charges in an interview with CBS News, noting the indictment was unveiled just days after an armed attacker targeted Trump and other senior administration officials at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner – the third documented assassination attempt against Trump in two years, following a 2024 rally shooting where Trump was grazed by a bullet and a separate incident where an armed man was found staking out Trump’s Florida golf course.

    “Of course, it’s serious when you threaten the president of the United States,” Blanche said. “Anybody that tries to put forward some narrative that this is just about seashells, or something to the contrary is missing the point. You cannot threaten the president of the United States.” Blanche emphasized the charges were “absolutely, positively not” driven by political considerations.

    FBI Director Kash Patel echoed that defense at a press briefing, stressing that the lengthy investigation and grand jury approval process demonstrate the case was not rushed or politically motivated. Not all Republican lawmakers have backed the prosecution, however: while some, like Pennsylvania GOP Representative Dan Mauser, called Comey’s post “concerning” and agreed it could be interpreted as a violent threat, other GOP members have declined to publicly endorse the indictment, mirroring the skepticism seen among some conservative legal circles.

  • Four key takeaways from Jerome Powell’s last rate decision as Fed chair

    Four key takeaways from Jerome Powell’s last rate decision as Fed chair

    In a widely anticipated final policy meeting as Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell has announced the central bank will keep benchmark U.S. interest rates unchanged within a target range of 3.5% to 3.75%. The announcement comes just hours after his expected successor, Kevin Warsh, secured approval from the Senate Banking Committee, clearing a critical legislative hurdle ahead of his expected confirmation next month.

    This decision to hold rates steady comes amid sustained public and political pressure from former President (current President-elect, depending on context) Donald Trump, who has repeatedly pushed the Fed to slash borrowing costs throughout his tenure in office, and openly criticized Powell’s leadership for years. While Warsh is expected to face identical pressure once he assumes the top role, the nominee has publicly committed to protecting the long-held independence of the U.S. central bank from political interference.

    Four major key takeaways emerged from Wednesday’s landmark policy session, a turning point for the future of U.S. monetary policy. First, the Fed has maintained its cautious “wait-and-see” stance amid mounting economic uncertainty triggered by the ongoing Middle East conflict between the U.S. and Iran linked to the Israel war. The conflict has already driven global energy prices sharply higher, passing higher costs onto consumers at gasoline pumps and grocery store checkout lines. Against this volatile backdrop, Fed policymakers concluded holding rates steady was the optimal move until clearer details emerge on how long the conflict will persist and the full scope of its economic fallout.

    Hopes for an imminent interest rate cut were also dampened by newly released inflation data: March’s annual inflation rose unexpectedly to 3.3%, the highest reading recorded since May 2024. Despite the upside surprise, the Fed’s post-meeting statement signaled a rate cut remains on the table for the next policy session. That timeline could shift, however, according to Samuel Tombs, chief U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. Tombs noted that Wednesday’s fresh jump in oil prices, driven by expectations that the U.S. will maintain its long-term blockade of Iranian ports, could push any rate cut back into 2026.

    For context, central banks typically adjust interest rates to balance inflation and growth: higher rates curb consumer spending to cool rising prices, while lower rates stimulate spending and investment to support job creation and economic expansion during slowdowns.

    Third, while this was Powell’s final policy meeting as chair, his tenure as a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors does not expire until 2028. Powell confirmed Wednesday he will remain on the central bank’s board until the Trump administration’s investigation into him and the Fed is “well and truly over.” Though U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro has stated the probe will be closed, Powell noted he expects Pirro “would not hesitate to restart the investigation” if circumstances allow. “I’ve said that I will not leave the board until this investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality, and I stand by that,” Powell added.

    The decision to stay on is almost certain to disappointing the sitting president, who has clashed repeatedly with Powell throughout his term. Powell’s continued presence on the board could lead to heightened scrutiny of future decisions and public comments from Warsh, but Powell has pledged to maintain a low profile and ruled out any attempt to act as a de facto “shadow chair.” “That is something I would never do,” he emphasized.

    Powell also issued a stark warning that the Trump administration’s “legal assaults” on the central bank go far beyond verbal criticism, and pose a serious threat to the institution’s core function. The outgoing chair argued that the administration’s legal actions against him are “battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public: the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors.” He added that the legal attacks are “unprecedented in our 113-year history, and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions.”

    The final development centers on Warsh’s confirmation path. After the Department of Justice announced it would drop the probe into Powell, top Republican Senator Thom Tillis lifted his hold on Warsh’s appointment, which he had threatened to stall for weeks. On Wednesday, Tillis joined other Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee to advance Warsh’s nomination to a full Senate vote.

    With Republicans holding a majority in the full Senate, final confirmation is widely viewed as a procedural formality. The only open question is whether the vote will be held in time for Warsh to take office by the end of Powell’s official term as chair on May 15. If confirmed as expected, Warsh will lead his first policy meeting as Fed chair in June.

    Carl Tobias, a chair at the University of Richmond School of Law, told the BBC that both Tillis and Powell deserve credit for defending the central bank’s independence against political pressure from the White House. For his part, Powell offered a warm congratulations to his expected successor Wednesday, wishing Warsh well through the final stage of the confirmation process.

  • King and Queen lay flowers at 9/11 Memorial in New York

    King and Queen lay flowers at 9/11 Memorial in New York

    On the third day of their four-day official state visit to the United States, Britain’s King Charles III and Queen Camilla participated in a solemn, highly secured commemoration at New York City’s 9/11 Memorial, marking the royal couple’s first visit to the site that honors the nearly 3,000 lives lost in the 2001 terrorist attacks.

    Against a backdrop of bright New York sunlight, with the memorial’s iconic reflecting pools framed by Manhattan’s towering skyscrapers, the pair laid a bouquet of white roses alongside a handwritten note signed by both royals. The message paid lasting tribute to those killed in the atrocity, reading: “We honour the memory for those who so tragically lost their lives on 11th September 2001. We stand in enduring solidarity with the American people and in the face of their profound loss.”

    The commemorative event unfolded under extraordinary security measures. A large contingent of local law enforcement deployed across the area, implementing road closures, manned checkpoints, and maintaining constant air coverage with circling helicopters to secure the visit.

    Following the floral tribute, King Charles and Queen Camilla held private meetings with family members of 9/11 victims, and spoke with first responders who led rescue efforts at the World Trade Center site in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Dignitaries including current New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and former mayor Michael Bloomberg joined the royals for the occasion, alongside representatives from victim support charities and educational organizations tasked with preserving the memory of the 2001 attacks for future generations.

    The tribute to 9/11 victims built on remarks King Charles delivered days earlier during a historic address to the U.S. Congress. In that speech, the monarch framed the 2001 attacks as a defining global tragedy, noting that “This atrocity was a defining moment for America and your pain and shock were felt around the whole world.” He highlighted the collective NATO response that saw allied nations rally to support the U.S. in the wake of the attacks, drawing a parallel to the unified resolve NATO must maintain today to defend Ukraine against invasion.

    Beyond the solemn commemorative activities, the state visit’s New York leg included more lighthearted, culturally focused engagements. Long an advocate for global literacy and reading access through her Queen’s Reading Room initiative, Queen Camilla brought a special gift for the New York Public Library: a handcrafted replacement for Roo, the long-lost Winnie the Pooh character that was part of the original set of 1920s stuffed toys that inspired A.A. Milne’s beloved children’s stories. The original set has been on display at the library since 1987, but Roo went missing in the 1930s; the new replica was produced by the same British firm that crafted the original toys.

    Vicki Perrin, CEO of the Queen’s Reading Room charity, joined the royal delegation in New York and used the visit to draw attention to what the organization calls a growing global “reading crisis.” Perrin emphasized that expanding literacy access delivers transformative, far-reaching benefits: “improving rates of literacy and reading has transformative benefits on mental health, brain health and social health.”

    Later the same day, King Charles traveled to Harlem to tour a community initiative focused on expanding access to education and healthy food for local residents. To cap off the day’s events, the royal couple attended a reception celebrating the U.K. and U.S. creative industries, which was set to draw dozens of high-profile figures from film, music, art, and design.

  • Comey surrenders over charge of threatening Trump’s life in Instagram post

    Comey surrenders over charge of threatening Trump’s life in Instagram post

    In a high-profile development echoing deep political divisions in the second Trump administration, former FBI Director James Comey turned himself in to law enforcement authorities Wednesday to face a criminal charge alleging his viral 2025 Instagram post amounted to a death threat against sitting U.S. President Donald Trump.

    The case traces back to a May 2025 social media post from Comey, who shared a photograph of beachcombed seashells arranged on sand to spell out the phrase “86 47”. Federal prosecutors argue the coded message is a clear call for violence against Trump, the 47th U.S. president: the slang term “86” is widely understood to mean “eliminate” or “get rid of”, they claim.

    Comey, a longstanding public critic of Trump, has repeatedly denied any intentional wrongdoing. He maintains he had no knowledge of the phrase’s alleged violent connotations when he posted the image, and has leveled counterclaims that the prosecution is driven entirely by political retribution. During a brief initial hearing at a federal court in Virginia, Comey declined to speak on the record, but his legal team has signaled they will frame the prosecution as a vindictive effort to punish Comey for his public criticism of the president.

    This indictment marks the second time the Department of Justice has brought criminal charges against Comey under the second Trump administration. Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has openly suggested that DOJ officials should pursue investigations against his political opponents. Comey is not the only high-profile foe of the president to face indictment; New York Attorney General Tish James, who brought civil fraud charges against Trump before his second term, has also been targeted by federal prosecutors.

    Attorney General Todd Blanche pushed back hard against claims of political motivation during comments to CBS News, a partner outlet of the BBC. “Of course, it’s serious when you threaten the President of the United States,” Blanche said. “Anybody that tries to put forward some narrative that this is just about seashells, or something to the contrary is missing the point. You cannot threaten the President of the United States.” Blanche also drew a connection between the Comey case and a recent security incident at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, where an intruder attempted to rush the ballroom where Trump was speaking before being stopped by U.S. Secret Service agents.

    After the original post sparked widespread public backlash, Comey deleted the image and issued a follow-up statement on Instagram. “I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assume were a political message,” he wrote. “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me, but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

    In the official indictment, prosecutors argued that any reasonable person familiar with the current political context would interpret the seashell image as a serious threat against the president’s life. The single charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison, a fine, or both, if Comey is convicted.

    Even among some Republican allies of the president, the strength of the government’s case has drawn skepticism. North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis told reporters Wednesday that he hoped prosecutors have more evidence beyond the photograph itself. “Otherwise, I just think it’s another example where we’re going to regret this because we’re setting a fairly low bar,” Tillis said. Multiple legal experts have also publicly questioned whether the charge meets the standard for a criminal threat, given Comey’s immediate removal of the post and disavowal of any violent intent.

    This is not Comey’s first brush with criminal prosecution under the second Trump administration. He was originally indicted by a federal grand jury last September on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation. Comey entered a not guilty plea in October, but the entire case was dismissed by a federal judge in November. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the original indictment on the grounds that lead prosecutor Lindsey Halligan had not received a valid appointment to serve as U.S. Attorney for Eastern Virginia, and therefore lacked authority to bring charges before the grand jury. Halligan is also the lead prosecutor on the new threat charge against Comey.