James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

You might find these videos enlightening!

.

A. R. Bernard: one of many

.

.

Click the link below for the videos:

https://www.youtube.com

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

At this point, millions of people in the U.S. have tried at least one of a variety of glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist drugs such as Zepbound or Wegovy. For some, these medications have led to profound weight loss and often improvements in heart health. But many have ended up discontinuing the use of the drugs—despite the fact that they have been touted as lifelong treatments. That raises the question: What happens to people’s health after they stop taking these medications?

A new review study offers some clues to the answer. Research published on Wednesday in the BMJ found that people who stopped taking weight-loss drugs, including GLP-1 medications, are likely to see all the weight-loss and heart health benefits disappear in less than two years. The results also indicated that people who discontinue any kind of weight-loss medication regain the weight four times faster than those who stop dieting or working out to shed pounds.

“Weight regain after a period of weight loss is really common, no matter what approach you take,” says Sam West, lead author of the study and a research scientist at the University of Oxford, who specializes in integrated metabolism. “The fact that people regained weight after stopping medication wasn’t too surprising, but what was striking is just how fast it occurred.”

In addition to the newer GLP-1 drugs on the market, the study evaluated clinical trials on various weight-loss drugs, including older-generation GLP-1 medications and those outside of the class, such as orlistat and the combination of phentermine and topiramate. They compared the data on those treatments with a previous analysis on behavioral weight-loss interventions that included different dieting programs and exercise regimens.

People who took weight-loss drugs regained about a pound (0.4 kilogram) a month on average after they stopped treatment. All their cardiometabolic markers, including blood glucose levels, blood pressure, and cholesterol, also reversed.

Ultimately, people may see weight return to its pretreatment level within 1.7 years of stopping the drugs, and heart health markers return to their pretreatment state within 1.4 years, the study estimated. West says long-term data are needed to confirm these projections, however.

What these findings suggest is that, while weight-loss drugs lead to faster results than diet and exercise alone, quitting them also results in weight being regained much faster, regardless of how much was initially lost.

“If you look at the study’s charts, which I thought were striking, you see that you might regain more weight and end up worse off than you were before,” says Rozalina McCoy, an endocrinologist and internist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study.

People who take a weight-loss medication lose fat, muscle, and bone mass—but they tend to mostly regain fat if they don’t regularly exercise, McCoy says. “Even if you end up at the same weight as you were before, metabolically, you are likely a lot less healthy,” she says.

One possible strategy would be for people to go straight into a behavioral program, such as a diet or exercise regimen, as they came off the drugs. But that approach would need to be trialed and tested, McCoy says.

West says more assessments of people’s weight and health reversals after they stop treatment, conducted outside of the clinical trials, would help researchers fully understand what’s happening.

But the study “is on par with what we see clinically” in many people who stop GLP-1 medications, says Chika Anekwe, an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center, who was not involved in the research.

“It goes back to the effects that the GLP-1 medications have on appetite control. And once that’s gone, it’s really difficult to maintain any sort of behaviors that were helping you to keep the weight off,” she says.

Treating obesity is not just a matter of willpower for some people, Anekwe says, and the results underscore what happens when a helpful weight-loss intervention is interrupted.

“I think it’s a good reminder to insurance companies: when they change patients’ coverage abruptly or limit access to the medications, it may have long-term effects,” she says.

.

Tatsiana Volkava/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Now, a court ruling has Grumet worried. The decision, by Justice Nicholas Moyne in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, upheld a 450 percent increase in the rent that Grumet’s co-op pays the group that owns the land beneath the building. To cover the jump, he said he had been told, his monthly maintenance could skyrocket to more than $9,000 a month, from just over $3,700 now.

“Can we stay here?” asked Grumet, who uses a walker and whose wife navigates in a wheelchair. “I don’t know.”

The ruling involved a case brought by the landowner, which sought to confirm a three-person arbitration panel’s finding on the ground rent. The co-op had challenged the impartiality of the “umpire” on the panel, who was appointed to be neutral but did not disclose that the landowner’s lawyer had approached him about working on an unrelated project.

Justice Moyne said that “created the appearance of impropriety.” But he concluded that the co-op had not met “the very heavy burden of proof” required to show that the arbitration panel’s decision had been “prejudiced.”

Many co-ops own the land their buildings stand on. But the Ground Lease Co-op Coalition, a nonpartisan group of co-op owners, says that Carnegie House is the first of more than 12,000 ground lease co-ops potentially facing “land grabs from their landowners” because property values have surged since the first ground lease co-ops were formed, in the 1950s.

Richard Hirsch, the president of the Carnegie House co-op board, said the idea behind ground lease co-ops was “to allow middle-class people to live in the city.” By the coalition’s count, more than half of ground lease co-ops are in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens in areas where residents’ income is just under the citywide median of $79,000.

At Carnegie House, Hirsch said that prices of apartments in the building have plunged 90 percent since the dispute began and that banks would no longer write mortgages for prospective buyers.

‘An amount building residents simply cannot afford.’

Hirsch called the judge’s decision “a devastating blow.” He said the increase would bring the ground rent, now between $4 million and $5 million, to roughly $25 million a year, “an amount building residents simply cannot afford.”

“In the middle of a housing crisis, our billionaire landowners are pulling out all the stops to push out middle-class New Yorkers,” he said in a statement. He said in an interview that the co-op planned to appeal the ruling, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

A spokesman for the group that owns the land under Carnegie House said that the co-op residents are responsible for only 65 percent of the rent. Some 25 percent of the total is paid by the owner of the stores on the ground floor, he said, and another 10 percent comes from the parking garage in the building.

.

Katherine Marks for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

If you read the research on microplastics, these pollutants appear to be as frightening as they are ubiquitous. Found throughout our bodies, food and environment, both microplastics and their ingredients have been linked to heart attacks, stroke, respiratory conditions, fertility issues, and death—to name just a few issues.

Yet despite these traits, scientists don’t fully understand how all the minuscule filaments of plastic get into our environment. A study published last month in Science Advances offers some new clues as to how water may be contributing to their spread.

Scientists already knew that plastics degrade through exposure to sunlight and repeated weathering by waves, sand, or other debris. But the new study suggests contact with water itself is also a factor: in both marine and river environments, researchers found that microbubbles can form on the surface of a piece of plastic, breaking it down—and releasing tiny, practically invisible plastic bits into the surrounding water.

From there, nanoplastics and microplastics often enter the food chain—and, in turn, us. An estimated 130 million metric tons of plastic waste enters our bodies and the environment every year, with that number on track to more than double by 2040.

The results, the researchers write, could inspire future research on how to control the release of microplastic into, well, everything. “Plastic degradation is an invisible threat to the environment and human health,” said John Boland, a professor in the School of Chemistry at Trinity College Dublin and senior author of the study, in a statement. “Society urgently needs to come to grips with the enormity of the challenge posed by our ubiquitous use of plastics.”

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

State and local leaders say they do not believe that the FBI investigation of the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good will be fair and impartial, and are sounding alarms about the impact of federal officials holding onto evidence in a potential prosecution of the ICE agent who killed her.

Minnesota’s lead investigative agency, the bureau of criminal apprehension, initially began investigating the shooting in conjunction with the FBI. But the BCA issued a statement Thursday morning saying that “the US attorney’s office had reversed course: the investigation would now be led solely by the FBI, and the BCA would no longer have access to the case materials, scene evidence or investigative interviews necessary to complete a thorough and independent investigation”.

Hennepin county attorney Mary Moriarty, an elected Democrat and the county’s prosecutor, clarified at a press conference Friday that the BCA – which was established in the wake of the George Floyd case – has a very high investigative standard and that this standard can’t be met when the organization doesn’t have access to all the evidence. It does not preclude an investigation, she said. But a lack of access to evidence hampers the investigation.

“When the BCA came to the scene, the evidence had been taken by the FBI,” she said. “They collected the car and took it wherever the BCA does not have access to the car. And the problem isn’t that the FBI took the car, it’s that the BCA doesn’t have access to the car, or right now, even access to the forensic evaluation that happens as a result of the investigation with that car.”

In a press conference on Friday, the Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, described the federal government’s narrative casting Good as the villain as “garbage” and called on the state to conduct its own investigation. “This is a time to follow the law,” he said. “This is not a time to hide from the facts. This is a time to embrace them, making sure that we’re pushing for transparency every step of the way.”

“The fact that Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice and this presidential administration has already come to a conclusion about those facts is deeply concerning,” he added.

Media reports have identified the agent who shot Good as Jonathan Ross. ICE agents allowed Ross to leave the scene in the moments after the shooting, taking the weapon used in the shooting with him.

“It doesn’t preclude a state investigation, but if the feds are saying, for example, you don’t even get to look at the firearm that was used to kill this person, that would certainly complicate it,” said Eric J Nelson, a defense attorney in Minneapolis with a long record of defending police officers accused of crimes. Nelson represented Derek Chauvin in his murder trial for killing Floyd.

The legal standard for proving a case of excessive force rests on the “objective reasonableness” of the act as given in the Graham v Connor case decided by the US supreme court in 1989. From that case flows policies governing when and how police officers can use force. The standards are essentially the same for both state and federal prosecutions, he said.

The breakdown in cooperation between state and federal agencies in this investigation is “shocking”, Nelson said, and flies in the face of the public’s expectations of legal norms.

“There may be political differences, but ultimately in a question in a case like this, I don’t really think politics should have a place,” he said.

Moriarty and the Minnesota attorney general, Keith Ellison, called on the public to send whatever evidence they have to state and local investigators, given their concerns about access to material held by the FBI.

“We don’t know what we’re going to get now,” Moriarty said. “We think that there may be other evidence out there, video, that kind of thing. We won’t know. And so, as the attorney general and I know, it is critical to preserve evidence.”

Statements by Donald Trump and others about the case amplify the concerns of bias from local leaders.

Trump described the 37-year-old US citizen and mother of three killed by an ICE agent as a “high-level agitator” and “a professional troublemaker”, without evidence. Claims that Good was somehow harassing agents have been widely disputed by both local and state leaders in Minnesota, as well as by eyewitnesses.

Within hours of the shooting, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, declared that the shooting was justified, and that the driver deliberately aimed her car at the officer in an act of “domestic terrorism. Noem also said that state-level prosecutors “don’t have any jurisdiction in this investigation”.

On Thursday, JD Vance said in response to a question about sharing the investigation with Minnesota law enforcement agencies that the agent “is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job.”

Attorneys familiar with state and federal law and the prosecution of police officers say that the assertions of the vice-president and Noem are simply untrue.

“Just because the FBI is taking over the investigation, that does not preclude the state from conducting its own investigation,” Nelson said. “Both independent jurisdictions, state and federal, would make a decision about charges. I would expect that the state of Minnesota will continue to conduct its own investigation into this matter.”

The statements by federal officials raise questions about whether a federal investigation would be fair. Frey described the prospects as “pretty grim.

“We know that they’ve already determined much of the investigation,” Frey said, “and even if they haven’t, there is the appearance that there is some conclusion drawn from the very beginning.”

At this unsettling time

We hope you appreciated this article. Before you close this tab, we want to ask if you could support the Guardian at this crucial time for journalism in the US.

In his first presidency, Donald Trump called journalists the enemy; a year on from his second victory, it’s clear that this time around, he’s treating us like one. 

From Hungary to Russia, authoritarian regimes have made silencing independent media one of their defining moves. Sometimes, outright censorship isn’t even required to achieve this goal. In the United States, we have seen the administration apply various forms of pressure on news outlets in the year since Trump’s election. One of our great disappointments is how quickly some of the most storied US media organizations have folded when faced with the mere specter of hostility from the administration, long before their hand was forced.

While private news organizations can choose how to respond to this government’s threats, insults, and lawsuits, public media has been powerless to stop the defunding of federally supported television and radio. This has been devastating for local and rural communities, who stand to lose not only their primary source of local news and cultural programming, but health and public safety information, including emergency alerts.

While we cannot make up for this loss, the Guardian is proud to make our fact-based work available for free to all, especially when the internet is increasingly flooded with slanted reporting, misinformation, and algorithmic drivel.

.

Portrait of Renee Nicole Good outside an immigration detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, on 9 January. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The officials said details about the new schedule would be announced shortly. The Kennedy Center’s website currently lists the opera’s lineup of spring performances, including Scott Joplin’s “Treemonisha” and “West Side Story” as well as its upcoming gala, but a separate website has been set up.

The resolution also calls for the opera to begin negotiations with the Kennedy Center about ending an affiliation agreement that has bound the cultural institutions since it was signed in 2011, when the opera was facing financial challenges.

The opera declined to release a copy of the resolution, which was approved by the 37-member board during a virtual meeting on Friday. But details of its contents were provided to The New York Times by officials involved in the deliberations.

Under Mr. Grenell, the Kennedy Center has been aggressive in trying to discredit artists who have canceled commitments with the center. But on Friday, Roma Daravi, a spokeswoman, said the center agreed that the time had come to end this relationship.

“After careful consideration, we have made the difficult decision to part ways with the W.N.O. due to a financially challenging relationship,” she said. “We believe this represents the best path forward for both organizations and enables us to make responsible choices that support the financial stability and long-term future of the Trump Kennedy Center.”

In a social media post that has since been deleted, Mr. Grenell said that ending the arrangement would give the Kennedy Center the flexibility to bring in operas from around the world. “Having an exclusive Opera was just not financially smart,” he wrote. “And our patrons clearly wanted a refresh.”

Opera leaders said the decision to leave was in response to a drop in attendance and a decline in donor contributions during the president’s second term, as well as an escalating number of artists who have refused to appear at the Kennedy Center since Mr. Trump’s name was added to the building last month. (The authority of the board to overrule Congress and rename the center, which was created in 1971 in tribute to John F. Kennedy, is disputed, and The Times has continued to refer to its legal name.)

“I am deeply saddened to leave the Kennedy Center,” Francesca Zambello, who has been the opera’s artistic director for 14 years, said in a statement. “I have been proud to be affiliated with a national monument to the human spirit, a place that has long served as an inviting home for our ever-growing family of artists and opera lovers.”

In its statement, the opera appeared to take pains to be conciliatory, not naming Mr. Trump or Mr. Grenell.

“The board and management of the company wish the center well in its own future endeavors, including recognizing the center for having secured significant funding, including $275 million from Congress, for upgrades to the center,” the statement said.

.

Washington National Opera officials contend that exiting the Kennedy Center would also give it more control over programming decisions. Credit…Kenny Holston for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

President Donald Trump’s push to take control of Venezuela’s oil has focused global attention on the South American nation’s vast reserves.

Trump has repeatedly touted Venezuela’s rich oil supply as among the motivations for the January 2 military assault on the country and the capture of its leader, Nicolás Maduro, who has since been charged with drug trafficking and weapons possession.

But just how much oil does Venezuela have, and why?

In 2024, the country claimed more than 300 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves, the highest of any nation. The runners-up were Saudi Arabia, with more than 260 billion barrels, and Iran, with more than 200 billion barrels. The global total was 1,566 billion barrels.

And the vast reserves are not a coincidence. Geology is very much in Venezuela’s favor, says Luis Zerpa, a petroleum engineer at the Colorado School of Mines. “From the geology side, it just has the perfect location,” he says. And like all fossil fuels, the country’s oil owes its existence to deep time—and the planet’s dynamic surface.

The story of oil begins when land is pushed up in one region, creating a low-lying basin nearby, Zerpa says. Rock is eroded from the higher-elevation land into the basin, which also fills with the organic remains of plants and animals. Over millions of years, enough material piles up above to raise the temperature and pressure to the point that sediments turn into rock and organic material becomes oil and gas.

The balance of oil and gas depends on two factors. The first is how much rock builds up above the material. The so-called oil window occurs at a depth of anywhere between 4,000 and 12,000 feet; below it, organic matter is more likely to turn into gas. The other factor is the origin of the organic material itself—marine plants are more likely to become oil, whereas terrestrial plants are more likely to become gas.

As oil and gas form—and as tectonic plates move—the rock surrounding these deposits begins to fracture. This sets the hydrocarbons free from the source rock in which they formed and enables them to migrate up into more porous rock that then traps them in place.

Venezuela is nestled between the Caribbean and South American plates. And the Nazca plate, which underlies the eastern Pacific Ocean, also shapes the area’s tectonic scene. The jostling of all those plates lifted up the northern Andes and other highlands in the region, while it simultaneously created three sedimentary basins that have produced oil and gas: the Eastern Venezuela Basin in the north, the Maracaibo basin in the northwest, and the Barinas-Apure basin in the west.

Hence, Venezuela’s more than 300 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves were formed. Here, “proven” means that engineers have drilled enough wells to accurately estimate the extent of oil and gas deposits in the country’s territory.

Getting that oil is a different matter. Venezuela’s production of the fossil fuel peaked around 1970 at around 3.7 million barrels per day, before it fell steeply starting in the late 1970s and continued to drop during the 1980s. It recovered here and there in the mid-1990s and early 2010s. But in 2025, the nation produced only around 1.1 million barrels per day. Analysts expect that any political transition in the wake of Maduro’s capture and arrest will barely raise that output for at least the next two years: aging infrastructure has severely constrained production, and fixing that will take billions of dollars in investment and several years, Reuters has reported.

.

Amanda Montañez; Source: OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin 2025. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, 2025 (data)

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

In my work with parents who are caring for a child with an eating disorder, I’ve become keenly aware of the language we use when talking about kids and food. Our words can shape our attitudes and beliefs, our identities and anxieties. And the familiar phrase “picky eating” — with its undertones of disapproval and even blame — has always left a bad taste in my mouth.

“Picky eating” lacks an actual definition and is so vague it can describe a child who isn’t a fan of bitter vegetables, one who isn’t getting enough nourishment to grow, and everything in between. It’s become an abstract you-know-it-when-you-see-it phenomenon. But because our current perceptions of pickiness are so heavily shaped by diet culture and ableism, almost no family feels like they’re measuring up.

We’ve come a long way since the days of routinely categorizing foods as “good” or “bad.” But with an increasing focus on avoiding or addressing so-called pickiness, I worry we have simply shifted from vilifying foods to vilifying children themselves.

“I don’t believe there is any such thing as a picky eater because we are autonomous people and we are all entitled to our flavor and texture preferences,” says Dani Lebovitz, a pediatric registered dietitian based in Nashville. “If a child doesn’t want to eat something or they say they don’t like something, it’s not because they’re picky. They’re learning about their taste buds, their flavor preferences, and texture preferences.”

We honor adults’ idiosyncratic food selections all the time — watch anyone order a drink at Starbucks — but we’ve been taught to be suspicious and critical of children’s tastes.

Kids aren’t choosing to be choosy.

Perhaps the most pernicious myth about picky eating is that a manipulative child is exploiting weak, permissive parents. “It’s a loaded term that implies it’s potentially a hostile choice or an acting-out of some kind,” says Vera Hough, a mother of four in New Jersey who vividly recalls her own eating differences as a child. “I definitely was on no level looking for attention, trying to make trouble for other people, getting extra work out of other people. I literally was frightened, threatened, and disturbed by the tastes and textures of a lot of foods.”

Her parents were able to respond to her sensory needs in ways some feeding influencers might criticize as catering to a child’s unreasonable demands. “When my mother made grilled cheese for everyone for lunch, she made me a tuna fish sandwich, and I ate it in the car in the garage, so that I did not have to smell everyone else’s grilled cheese. My mother accommodated these things. They did all the things you’re supposed to do in terms of offering things from time to time, but didn’t make a big deal or a power play out of it.”

It’s time to ditch the parent blame.

While Hough feels grateful her needs were met and she wasn’t shamed for her way of eating, she developed a whole new perspective on feeding challenges when her youngest child struggled to eat after experiencing medical trauma. Even though she knew her son’s barriers to eating were not her fault, she still felt the sting of stigma and unrealistic expectations. “For some reason, it’s a mother’s entire responsibility to get her child to eat. And, by the way, doctors make you feel like sh*t about that.”

This immense pressure on parents, especially moms, to orchestrate some version of idealized eating is not only unrealistic but counterproductive. “When a child’s eating is painted as a problem, parents are charged with fixing it. And it can become a source of extreme stress, as the label ‘picky’ typically implies that the child is being stubborn or they’re being difficult by choice,” says Naureen Hunani, a registered dietitian in Montréal who specializes in working with neurodivergent children and their families.

Despite what social media brag posts or your aunt’s side-eye might lead you to believe, the way children eat “is not a gauge of the quality of parenting that you are doing. Some kids just struggle with food, and it has nothing to do with parenting. It’s actually heavily influenced by genetics,” notes Taylor Arnold, Ph.D., a pediatric dietitian in Gilbert, Arizona. A robust twin study recently provided strong evidence that a child’s approach to food is largely innate.

Parents aren’t to blame for a child’s eating challenges, but at the same time, we aren’t powerless, either. By rejecting conventional ideas about picky eating, we actually have a better chance of fostering a positive relationship with food.

The label can obscure the real reason a kid struggles with food.

False assumptions about pickiness not only fuel guilt and tension but can also mask what could really be going on for a child. “Our kids are communicating to us that there’s something they’re struggling with, whether they’re overstimulated, their sensory needs are not being met, whether it hurts to swallow, whether they have a stomachache because they’re constipated. And if we see a kid as picky, we could be missing things,” says Arnold.

When parents have a gut feeling an underlying physiological or neurological difference may be a factor in their child’s eating patterns, even medical providers can make the mistake of dismissing the behaviors as a “picky-eating” phase. Well-meaning pediatricians have even suggested parents withhold a child’s preferred foods and present only “healthier” options under the false assumption that no child will starve. Tell that to a family whose kid ends up needing a feeding tube.

“We know there are children who would rather starve than eat something that they have such an aversion to. In the moment, that is what makes them feel safest,” says Hunani.

And because diet culture makes us think only certain kinds of strong preferences are problematic, it’s easy for parents and doctors to miss early warning signs of anorexia or other eating disorders. Children who become particular about the perceived healthiness of food are more likely to be praised than be assessed for eating problems.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The war powers vote was the clearest sign that the president might not enjoy as free a hand as he has become accustomed to, even as he declared this week in an interview with The New York Times that the sole restraint on his power was his “own morality.”

Fifty-two senators on Thursday decided that might not be the case, as they agreed to consider whether the president had to seek their approval for future actions in Venezuela. They still carefully commended the president for removing the dictator Nicolás Maduro.

“Would Congress need to weigh in if the administration decided they needed to commit troops to the future for hostilities?” asked Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, one of the Republicans who backed the resolution. “Based on what I know and my reading of the Constitution, I just kind of think we would have to vote on that.”

The rare loss, not surprisingly, infuriated the president, who lashed out at the defectors in his own party in a politically counterproductive social media post. He urged the electoral defeat of all of them, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, whose re-election is critical to Republicans maintaining their Senate majority next year. Ms. Collins responded by suggesting that perhaps Mr. Trump would rather see a Democrat win.

The president began the week sounding resigned to Republican losses in November, telling House G.O.P. lawmakers on Tuesday: “They say that when you win the presidency, you lose the midterms.”

Whether his pressure will have an impact on those who broke with him on the war powers measure will be determined next week, when the Senate casts a decisive vote on the resolution.

It was not just Venezuela where Republicans sought to hold the White House in line. After days of Mr. Trump and his inner circle suggesting that Greenland might be next up for U.S. intervention, top Republicans had had enough. Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who leads the Armed Services Committee and has consistently backed the administration despite some doubts, said flatly that the citizens of Greenland did not wish to be bought, and that the United States should respect their prerogative.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who backed the war powers resolution, was even stronger, calling Trump administration rhetoric on Greenland profoundly troubling.

“I think most of us want to be able to just not only quiet that, but just make clear that is not only not going to happen — it is an option that has been taken off the table,” she said in a floor speech.

Across the Capitol, Republicans were also defying their leaders to bolster their own re-election chances. Seventeen of them sided with Democrats to support a three-year extension of pandemic-era Affordable Care Act subsidies, in what former Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted was a first for Republicans after years of condemning the health law.

While the measure has little chance of becoming law without changes, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, noted that many on Capitol Hill had been skeptical for months that Democrats could pull off such a win, saying the victory was one “a lot of folks in this institution believed was not possible.”

But the Republicans who backed the bill, many from competitive districts where they could lose their seats, said they had no choice but to give voters what they had demanded.

“Philosophically, I completely disagree with this,” said Representative Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin. “But I’m not going to leave millions of Americans who truly need health care insurance in the lurch.”

Other signs of sprouting congressional independence were visible. The House passed a bipartisan package of spending bills that rejected many of the steep cuts Mr. Trump had requested, and that Democrats noted were carefully drawn to give the administration less opportunity to make unilateral funding decisions overruling Congress.

The Senate agreed to post a plaque honoring the police who protected the Capitol and lawmakers during the Jan. 6, 2021, pro-Trump riot, even as the White House this week falsely claimed in its own version of events that police officers were the ones who caused the violence. And Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, said he would block any Department of Homeland Security nominees until Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, agreed to testify in the Senate after ducking earlier invitations.

Mr. Trump did avoid one congressional embarrassment this week, as the House failed to override his first vetoes of some fairly routine bills that he had rejected in his fights with interests in Colorado and Florida.

It was clear that many Republicans were ready to overrule Mr. Trump on legislation that had sailed through Congress with no opposition. But the back-to-back override votes came after his social media diatribe against the Republican senators who broke with him on the war powers measure. That outburst may have persuaded some G.O.P. lawmakers in the House to stay out of the line of fire.

Still, dozens of Republicans joined Democrats in the two unsuccessful override attempts, a notable development in the House, where unquestioning fealty to the president has been constant and nearly universal.

Democrats were relishing their wins over Mr. Trump and their newfound allies among Republicans, however short-lived they expected those alliances to be. Top Democrats suggested that reluctance among Republicans to blindly follow the president might be the shape of things to come as they accept that Mr. Trump has his own interests at heart, rather than their political fortunes.

“Public sentiment in terms of how Trump is behaving as president and what he’s doing as president keeps sinking and sinking and sinking,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said after the war powers vote. “So I think on this issue and other issues, you’re going to find our Republican colleagues saying, ‘You know, maybe following Trump is like Thelma and Louise — right over the cliff.’”

.

Kenny Holston/The New York Times

Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times

Eric Lee for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________