The Artemis II moon mission might have come to an end after a 10-day voyage around the moon and back. But thankfully, the mission’s crew—Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen—as well as NASA’s cameras on Earth and in space, captured their daring journey from start to finish.
In fact, the mission was largely communicated to the world in photos, especially those from Monday’s capstone lunar flyby. From the moment the Orion spacecraft left the launchpad last Wednesday, each milestone was made timeless with stunning, perspective-shattering visuals that were beamed down to Earth via the Orion spacecraft’s novel laser-based communications system.
Here’s a look at twelve of our favorite photographs from the mission, including the moon photos that have inspired billions to gaze at the night sky anew.
1. Launch Day
Thousands of people trekked to Florida’s Space Coast on Wednesday, April 1, to watch the lift off of the first crewed moon mission since 1972. The launch went smoothly, and within a few hours the astronauts were in a controlled orbit, positioning themselves for a maneuver to put them on course for the moon the next day.
NASA
2. Spaceship Earth
On Tuesday, April 2, the Orion spacecraft burned 6,700 pounds of fuel to lurch out of Earth orbit and toward its distant target. The astronauts gazed out the capsule’s windows at an ever-shrinking Earth, committed to their long journey.
Tucker Carlson has called Donald Trump a “slave” who “can’t make his own decisions,” in the latest escalation of the feud between the two former allies.
“I’ve always liked Trump and still feel sorry for him, as I do for all slaves,” Carlson told Newsmax Friday. “He’s hemmed in by other forces. He can’t make his own decisions. It’s awful to watch.”
His remarks came shortly after Trump posted a lengthy Truth Social rant, which took aim at several MAGA acolytes who have split from the president in recent months over the ongoing conflict in Iran.
In the post, Trump described Carlson, as well as other right-wing commentators Megyn Kelly and Candace Owens, as well as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as all having “Low IQs.”
Tucker Carlson has called Donald Trump a ‘slave’ who ‘can’t make his own decisions,’ in the latest escalation of the feud between the two former allies (Getty)
“They’re stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too! Look at their past, look at their record. They don’t have what it takes, and they never did!” he fumed.
“They’ve all been thrown off Television, lost their Shows, and aren’t even invited on TV because nobody cares about them, they’re NUT JOBS, TROUBLEMAKERS, and will say anything necessary for some “free” and cheap publicity.”
Both Carlson and Trump have recently ramped up their rhetoric and actions against one another.
Tucker Carlson Network merchandise riffing on insults directed against the broadcaster by President Donald Trump (X/@TCNetwork)
In response to Thursday’s social media tirade from the president, Carlson has launched a new line of merchandise, including baseball caps bearing the phrase “LOW IQ,” in reference to the insults.
“Calling all nut jobs, troublemakers, and third-rate podcasters! New merch just dropped,” The Tucker Carlson Network posted Friday, advertising the new apparel.
.
Tucker Carlson has called Donald Trump a “slave” who “can’t make his own decisions,”
Tyler Pager is a White House correspondent. He traveled with Vice President JD Vance to Islamabad, Pakistan.
After more than 16 straight hours of closed-door meetings that stretched into early Sunday morning, Vice President JD Vance ambled into an ornate ballroom in Pakistan and let out a sigh. When he arrived at the lectern to speak to the press, he grimaced.
He talked about “shortcomings,” “bad news,” and not being “able to make headway.” The United States and Iran did not reach any agreement.
Exhausted and frustrated after 21 hours on the ground, Mr. Vance provided few details, took three questions, and departed. He did not address whether the two-week cease-fire with Iran would hold, or what would happen to the Strait of Hormuz or if President Trump would now follow through with his threat to wipe Iranian civilization off the map.
It was a remarkable conclusion to a high-stakes diplomatic trip for Mr. Vance, who made his opposition known to a full-scale war in Iran. America’s allies and adversaries alike were pinning their hopes on Mr. Vance to find a way out of a conflict that has upended the global economy, frayed alliances, and expanded to the wider region.
Instead, he left with nothing. He blamed Iran for the failed talks, saying the United States sought a commitment that Iran would not seek a nuclear weapon, and it refused.
That it was Mr. Vance who found himself in this position was extraordinary in itself. The man inside Mr. Trump’s inner circle most opposed to the war was tasked with leading the highest-level talks between the United States and Iran in nearly 50 years. Mr. Trump, for his part, was thousands of miles away at the Kaseya Center in Miami, watching a U.F.C. fight alongside Marco Rubio, his secretary of state and national security adviser.
For Mr. Vance, the trip represented the highest-profile assignment of his tenure, which has largely been marked by domestic politics. White House officials had hoped he would be spending the months leading up to the midterms traveling the country to boost the Republican Party. Instead, he spent the early part of the week in Hungary campaigning for Prime Minister Viktor Orban and concluded it in Pakistan, trying to negotiate the end of a messy and complicated war.
The United States and Israel have spent more than five weeks bombing Iran. They have assassinated the supreme leader and other senior officials, hit 13,000 target,s and, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, killed more than 1,700 civilians. Iran responded by launching attacks at countries across the region, including U.S. military bases, and effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Vice President Vance, left, meeting with Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, in Islamabad on Saturday.Credit…Pool photo by Jacquelyn Martin
And now, Mr. Trump must decide what to do next: return to the negotiating table or resume a deadly and costly conflict that has already created the largest energy disruption in modern times. On Sunday, he partly answered the question by announcing a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, which is generally considered an act of war.
‘Extend the Open Hand’
Mr. Vance started his trip to Pakistan striking a cautiously optimistic tone, telling reporters that the United States would “extend the open hand” if Iran were “willing to negotiate in good faith.”
Want to stay updated on what’s happening in Central Asia and the Middle East? , and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.
But as Mr. Vance set off from Washington, with a brief refueling stop in Paris, the details of how the negotiations would take place remained unclear.
Iranian officials repeatedly threatened to refuse direct meetings if the United States did not accede to various demands, including unfreezing Iran’s overseas assets and expanding the cease-fire to include Lebanon. The latter demand underscored the degree to which many events of this war are out of U.S. control: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has expressed the desire to continue fighting with Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy.
And in the hours leading up to the meeting, even once the vice president was on the ground in Islamabad, disagreements were spilling out into the press. Some Iranian officials told media outlets that the United States had agreed to unfreeze Iranian assets held in Qatar and foreign banks before the meetings began as a sign of good faith. The United States said those reports were false.
Iranian state media then reported the American team was confused.
Foreign trips by U.S. presidents or vice presidents are usually highly-scripted affairs, with detailed schedules and planned deliverables. Advance teams travel far ahead of the principal to iron out the details, building minute-by-minute timetables.
Mr. Vance’s team had only a few days.
.
Vice President Vance is arriving for a news conference after meeting with representatives from Pakistan and Iran in Islamabad on Sunday. Credit…Pool photo by Jacquelyn Martin
Asparagus cooks quickly, so make sure to have all your ingredients ready by the stove. It’s best served warm or room temperature; ice-cold asparagus is unpleasant.
How to Buy and Store Asparagus
Asparagus comes in different shades and sizes, and each has its strengths. Here are some tips on how best to choose, clean, and store it.
Credit…Karsten Moran for The New York Times
What does asparagus’s color mean?
There are three colors of asparagus: green, purple, and white.
Green asparagus is by far the most common and is available year-round in American supermarkets. You’ll find thin, medium, and fat green spears in almost any market. Whatever its thickness, green asparagus should be cooked al dente.
White asparagus is more common in Europe. It is white because the plants are covered in mulch to prevent them from developing the chlorophyll that gives plants their green color. White asparagus must be completely peeled from tip to tail, and, unlike green, should be well-cooked. It is a mistake to cook green and white asparagus together.
Purple asparagus has a beautiful violet skin that turns dark green when cooked. Its taste is similar to that of green asparagus.
Credit…Karsten Moran for The New York Times
What about its thickness?
Asparagus usually comes in three sizes: pencil-thin, medium, and jumbo. The thickness of the asparagus does not indicate its maturity; a thin asparagus spear does not grow into a fat one. What you’ll choose is based on personal preference and what you’re cooking. Some describe thin spears as grassy or thicker ones as meaty.
Thin asparagus is great for stir-fries and sautéing.
Fat asparagus is good for roasting or grilling, and best when you want to serve whole spears, even simply steamed.
Medium spears work in almost any cooking method.
Credit…Karsten Moran for The New York Times
How should I store asparagus?
Store your asparagus in your crisper drawer, wrapped in a damp paper towel and then in a plastic bag, no longer than three days. Do not clean it first. Or you can store asparagus upright in a container with an inch of water. Place it in the fridge, uncovered.
Preparing the Asparagus
Before you begin cooking, take a minute to snap or cut off the tough bottom ends of the asparagus. If you have nice fat spears, peel their tough skin away too. We’ll show you how.
How to Snap Off the Ends
Snapping off woody asparagus bottoms gives you spears of slightly different lengths, but guarantees no tough ends when you sit down to eat.
To snap, hold a spear with both hands and find the natural bending point near the bottom of the stalk. Then snap. Make sure your hands really are near the bottom, or you risk discarding too much; a stalk will snap in the middle if you’re not careful. The spear should break at a point where the asparagus has started to lose its moisture.
Cutting your spears is fine as long as you take care to avoid the woody ends. (But please, don’t use the discarded ends to make anything but compost.)
Credit…Karsten Moran for The New York Times
How to Peel Asparagus
The skin on larger asparagus spears doesn’t soften with cooking, which is why it’s best to peel the lower stalks of medium or fat spears, both green and purple. Always peel white asparagus.
To peel, place the spear flat on your work surface. Using a vegetable peeler, preferably one with a swivel blade, peel the asparagus from about halfway up the spear toward the root end. Never peel the tips. Use a light hand, or you’ll peel off too much of the sweet core.
Asparagus can be peeled a few hours ahead of time, wrapped, and refrigerated.
How to Roast Asparagus
Roasting asparagus allows for a slight caramelizing of the vegetable’s skin. It’s luscious and a fast way to get delicious asparagus on the table without standing at the stove.
Here’s a very simple method that just requires olive oil, salt, and pepper, but you can add other spices as well: cayenne, red pepper flakes, or smoked salt. Or try chopped walnuts, a sprinkle of grated Parmesan, and a drizzle of balsamic vinegar.
Heat your oven to 425 degrees, and dress asparagus spears lightly with olive oil and season with salt and pepper. Spread them on a baking sheet or in a roasting pan in one layer and roast until lightly browned and sizzling, and just firm-tender. If you are roasting on a baking sheet, that should take 10 to 12 minutes, or about 15 minutes in a heavy-bottomed roasting pan. The trick here is getting the spears nicely colored without overcooking them, and you should always err on the undercooked side — asparagus will continue to cook off the heat.
Credit…Andrew Purcell for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Carrie Purcell.
How to Steam, Blanch, and Simmer Asparagus
Simply steamed or simmered asparagus is delicious, and you can dress the spears however you like: in a bagna cauda, with lemon juice and olive oil, or nothing at all. Any size spear will work, although medium is best. We’ll also tell you how to blanch asparagus, a useful method when incorporating the vegetable into other dishes.
How to Steam Asparagus
It’s easy to cook asparagus in a steamer. Bring 1 inch of well-salted water to a boil in a pot with a steamer insert, and place the spears in the steamer in a single layer. (If necessary, work in batches; do not pile in the asparagus or try to cook too many at a time.) Cover the pot and cook for about 3 minutes, depending upon size of spears. Err on the undercooked side — asparagus will continue to cook off the heat.
Remove from the pot with a slotted spoon or tongs and blot the excess water away with a towel.
How to Simmer Asparagus
Simmering asparagus is another easy way to cook asparagus quickly, and a good option if you don’t own a steamer.
In a wide pot, boil a few inches of generously salted water and add your asparagus. Cook at a rapid simmer for 2 to 4 minutes, depending on the size of your asparagus. Again, don’t cook too many at one time; a dozen in the pot at once is plenty. Remove from the pot with a slotted spoon or tongs and blot to remove any remaining water.
Old recipes sometimes call for using twine to tie asparagus into bundles, to make it easier to retrieve them from the water. If you do, blot the cooked bundle, transfer to a platter, and snip the twine with kitchen shears.
How to Blanch Asparagus
Spring pasta dishes may call for blanching asparagus, and it’s quite simple.
In a wide pot, boil a few inches of generously salted water and add your asparagus, either whole stalks or cut into pieces. Cook at a rapid simmer for 1 minutes. Then immediately plunge the spears into a bowl of ice water to halt the cooking and to keep them green. Remove from ice
water and blot, otherwise risk waterlogged asparagus.
How to Prepare Raw Asparagus
Tender, sweet asparagus can be delicious raw and dressed simply with olive oil, lemon, and salt. And you don’t even need to turn on your stove.
Fat asparagus works best in raw preparations, like this fast recipe for a delicious asparagus salad.
Using a sharp, thin-bladed knife, slice 6 to 8 fat asparagus spears very thinly on the diagonal. (Alternatively, you can cut them on a mandoline, or use a peeler to slice them lengthwise into long, thin ribbons.) Pile them into a bowl and dress with 1 tablespoon lemon juice, 3 tablespoons olive oil, and a few pinches of salt. Toss and serve.
With Artemis II’s Orion spacecraft and its four crew nearing a splashdown off San Diego, Calif., after a spectacularly successful flyby of the moon, NASA’s plan to return humans to the lunar surface for the first time in more than 50 years now seems almost unstoppable. But it may still be Chinese astronauts, rather than American ones, who will take the next fateful steps on the moon in the 21st century.
NASA’s Artemis II circumlunar mission has dominated the spaceflight calendar this year, with its crew reaching new heights and returning stunning views of Earth from deep space. Yet China has quietly been making its own large, if less headline-grabbing, strides toward putting its astronauts on the moon.
On February 11, a single-stage version of China’s in-development moon rocket, the Long March 10, topped with a Mengzhou spacecraft, lifted off from a pad at the Wenchang Space Launch Site on the nation’s southern island of Hainan. Early in the ascent, mission controllers deliberately triggered a solid rocket system designed to rapidly pull the spacecraft away from danger in case of trouble with its launcher. Mengzhou then descended via parachutes for recovery in the South China Sea, marking a successful in-flight abort of the uncrewed spacecraft. Meanwhile the Long March 10 stage continued its flight to simulate a full orbital mission before it performed a boost-back burn and a controlled, propulsive splashdown into the waves—a feat that NASA’s current moon rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), simply cannot match.
These tests pave the way for the next crucial milestone: a full orbital flight of the Long March 10 and Mengzhou later this year, though most likely without crew. As is typical of China, which tends to be tight-lipped about many specifics of its space plans, the nation has not divulged when exactly this flight will take place. Candidate mission patches for the inaugural flight suggest that Mengzhou, which features a low-Earth orbit variant designed to carry six or seven astronauts and another to take three to low lunar orbit, could rendezvous with or fly alongside China’s Tiangong space station. The rocket will be the Long March 10A, a slimmed-down version of the rocket that will be meant for low-Earth orbit rather than any lunar destination.
China is not yet ready to perform a crewed circumlunar mission like the U.S., which began development of the Orion spacecraft in the 2000s and redesigned it to go with the SLS rocket in the early 2010s. But China is progressing on all the necessary hardware to reach the moon, with a stated goal of a crewed landing before 2030. Notably, the nation has already tested a key component that the U.S. is still working to bring online: the landing hardware. Last year, China demonstrated its Lanyue crewed lunar lander, performing a propulsive lunar landing and lunar launch tests in simulated moon gravity conditions. In the U.S., SpaceX and Blue Origin are both working on NASA-funded lander concepts needed to make a 2028 Artemis landing possible. Meanwhile, new launch facilities at Wenchang to host the full Long March 10 rocket are almost completed.
The full Long March 10 will use a common booster core configuration, similar to how the SpaceX Falcon Heavy is essentially a triple-sized Falcon 9. After test flights of the 10A, the next step will be bundling together three booster cores—something commercial firm CAS Space achieved in China for the first time late last month—for the larger rocket and test flights to the moon.
To get to the moon, China will use two Long March 10 rockets, one launching a crewed Mengzhou spacecraft and the other lofting the Lanyue lunar lander. These will meet up in low lunar orbit, with two astronauts transferring from Mengzhou to Lanyue for the descent to the lunar surface. It is likely that China will perform crewed low-Earth orbit and uncrewed lunar missions before progressing to an Artemis II–style mission in the next couple of years, setting up a potential crewed lunar landing attempt before the decade is out.
NASA, aiming for a landing in 2028 with Artemis IV, relies on a complex network of commercial and international partners, while China’s more centralized approach depends largely on its state-owned contractor, the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation.
“If the Chinese can maintain a single concentrated effort, they will retain an advantage, as the U.S. is splitting its resources and seemingly making large structural programmatic changes very late in the day,” says Bleddyn Bowen, co-director of the Space Research Center at Durham University in England. “Ironically, today China’s effort resembles the 1960s U.S. Apollo moon program more, while the U.S. Artemis program resembles the Soviet Union’s competing design bureaus of the late 1960s.”
The narrative of a “race” is hard to avoid. But that depends on the point of view of the competitor. “It really is one-sided, at least in public,” says Victoria Samson, chief director for space security and stability at the Secure World Foundation. “The United States constantly cites China’s intentions for the moon as the reason why the U.S. has to get back there first, while I don’t think I’ve seen anything equivalent come from Chinese statements.” That’s not to say China isn’t invested in lunar exploration: Samson views geopolitical competition with the U.S. as a driver for the Chinese space program.
“I do see the United States getting there first but just barely, and I think that the Chinese have a better chance of getting a permanently crewed station on the moon first,” she adds.
Race or not, the two rivals will need to reach an understanding on key aspects of lunar exploration, Samson says.
“If the United States is serious about having a permanent human presence on the moon, we are going to have to figure out how to coordinate with the Chinese on matters of safety and interoperability—whether we like it or not,” she says. “People’s lives will depend on it.”
.
A single-stage version of China’s in-development moon rocket, the Long March 10, soars through the sky during a flight test from the Wenchang Space Launch Site on February 11, 2026. The rocket also carried an uncrewed Mengzhou capsule, a spacecraft that, alongside China’s Lanyue moon lander, is planned to take the nation’s astronauts to the lunar surface by 2030.CFOTO/Future Publishing/Getty Images
Collateral damage is a universally acknowledged hazard of war – more commonly known for its impact on truth and non-combatant civilians.
Its consequences are much less frequently visited on military alliances.
The United States’ North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) allies are fearful that may be about to change as a result of the fallout from Washington’s decision to team up with Israel in waging war against Iran.
Donald Trump has attacked the pact with a vehemence rarely heard over what he regards as disloyalty and failure to help in re-opening the strait of Hormuz. Tehran closed the strategic waterway in response to the military onslaught it faced in the conflict, which is currently paused thanks to a two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan.
Trump’s criticisms of the 77-year-old alliance are nothing new; accusations of freeloading against allies for supposedly inadequate defence spending date back to his first term. But the stridency and threatening nature of Trump’s complaints have escalated, triggering fears that he could abandon the alliance – an act that would require approval from Congress.
The air of panic drove Nato’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, into a hurried trip to Washington, where he tried to soothe Trump’s resentments in a closed-door White House meeting on Wednesday.
The two-and-a-half-hour session did not go smoothly, despite Rutte’s reputation as a “Trump whisperer”.
“It went shit,” an unnamed European official told Politico, calling the encounter “nothing but a tirade of insults” in which Trump “apparently threatened to do just about anything”.
Afterwards, Trump resorted to his familiar fusillade of abuse on his Truth Social platform, posting in capitals: “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN. REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!”
Omitted – to widespread relief – was any definitive declaration that Trump intended to withdraw from an alliance that the US founded in 1949 with 11 other countries, in what was then seen as a vital bulwark against the spread of Soviet communism. Since the end of the cold war, it has expanded to include 32 countries.
In a speech to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute a day after the White House showdown, Rutte – a former Dutch prime minister – fluctuated between self-flagellation and self-abasement in his condemnation of his fellow Europeans for previously failing to meet their own defence costs, while voicing understanding for Trump’s viewpoint over Iran.
Nato members had been “a bit slow, to say the least”, he conceded, to provide support for the US’s war against Iran – a campaign about which none of its members had been consulted and few supported.
But praising Trump for his “bold leadership and vision”, Rutte argued that Nato would survive not in spite of the US president’s splenetic outbursts, but because of them.
“President Trump’s commitment to progress reversed more than a generation of stagnation and atrophy by reminding Europe that values must be backed by hard power – hard power provided not only by the United States,” he said, referring to an allied commitment agreed last year for members to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035.
“Why, then, does everyone in this room have a knot in their stomach about the future of the transatlantic alliance? Why, when we turn on our televisions or scroll on our phones, do we see eager early drafts of Nato’s obituary? Let me be clear, this alliance is not whistling past the graveyard.”
Yet its physical survival may conceal a multitude of moral wounds inflicted by Trump’s rhetorical assaults, which have included belittling Nato as a “paper tiger” and demanding that one of its founders, Denmark, cede Greenland to the US – putting Washington on a potential military collision course with other members.
Additionally, there has been profound shock over the macabre nature of Trump’s bellicose threats against Iran – among them a warning that Iranian civilization would be eliminated “never to return” if the country’s leaders did not open the strait of Hormuz.
Analysts say Trump’s demands and accusations, coupled with threats to commit what many saw as tantamount to genocide and that ran contrary to Nato’s values, corrode the trust that has sustained the alliance.
“It is hard to imagine that the current war with Iran and the crisis over the strait of Hormuz does not represent a fundamental rupture in the North Atlantic security structure,” wrote Francis Fukuyama, a historian at Stanford University.
“Nato is an alliance built on trust: its deterrent value rests on the belief that NATO members will come to one another’s aid if a member is attacked. Trump is accusing alliance members of betraying the United States by not collaborating with it to re-open the strait–but no one ever signed up to wage offensive war.”
Charles Kupchan, director of European studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, said that while Nato’s European members were trying to keep Nato afloat until the end of Trump’s presidency, they have long-term fears about the alliance’s future, amid suspicions that the US no longer shares their values.
“The United States has always tried, in some ways, to be an idealist power that’s navigating a realist world, and [it] wanted to change the world,” he said. “[But] you could argue that the world has changed the United States, and now it is just another great power playing by the rules of realpolitik, like Russia or China. I think that mystifies allies and confounds allies.”
Kupchan predicted a domestic backlash against Trump’s hostility towards Nato – which retains significant support among the US public – that would produce a more traditional posture towards the alliance from a successor administration.
But allied suspicions would persist, he warned: “If you are an American ally, you now have to wonder whether the United States is passing through a prolonged period of political dysfunction and unpredictability that forces you to call into question its reliability? My answer is yes.
“That’s because this is not just about Trump. This is about the hollowing out of America’s political center [and] a foreign policy that has been swinging quite wildly from one extreme to the other. The world has whiplash.”
Still, Trump’s withdrawal from Nato is thought unlikely given the presence of 80,000 US troops and numerous military bases in Europe, which are vital components in the projection of American global power that has become a hallmark of his second presidency.
Kristine Berzina, a Nato specialist at the German Marshall Fund, said Trump’s attacks risked weakening the alliance at a time military cooperation within it is at an all-time high.
“The magic of Nato is not only the real military power, and that is actually still as strong as ever, but what is the deterrence effect, and how aligned are all of the allies within the alliance?” she said. “When there are such open attacks on it from its strongest member, at the very least, it’s dispiriting. It calls into question the military power in a way that is not reflective of the actual reality and the very close coordination between the militaries in the alliance.”
More damaging still, she warned, is the danger of western European nations widening the breach with Trump by waging a war of words that could provoke the White House into turning its back on the alliance, leaving eastern European members exposed to Russian aggression.
“What I’m getting increasingly concerned about is a sense from western Europeans in particular that speaking out against Trump is going to be in their interest,” Berzina said. “The reality is that Europeans cannot do without the United States, when facing down the possibility that a revanchist Russia could try to cross Nato’s borders. The countries that are loudest in efforts to push back against Trump and his rhetoric right now are the countries least likely to have to face any consequences of such rhetoric on their own soil.
“Europe is stuck with the United States, and it has to make the best of it. Yes, it’s bad right now. It’s unpleasant and unfortunate and regrettable and stressful, but [the US] is indispensable.”
.
Nato secretary general Mark Rutte with Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on 21 January 2026. Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
When President Trump attacked Iran on Feb. 28, we called his decision reckless. He went to war without seeking congressional approval or the support of most allies. He offered thin and contradictory justifications to the American people. He failed to explain why this naïve attempt at regime change would end better than earlier attempts by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
In the six weeks since, the recklessness of his war has become clearer yet. He has disdained careful military planning and acted on gut instinct and wishfulness. After Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel predicted to Mr. Trump that the attacks would inspire a popular uprising in Iran, the director of the C.I.A. countered that the notion was “farcical,” The Times reported. Mr. Trump proceeded nonetheless. He was so confident that he assembled no plan to respond to an obvious countermove available to Iran: causing a spike in oil prices by blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Nor did he develop a feasible strategy for securing the enriched uranium that Iran can use to rebuild its nuclear program.
Last week he careened from illegal and immoral threats about erasing Iranian civilization to a last-minute cease-fire that accomplishes few of his announced war aims. Iran continues to defy a central part of the deal and block most traffic from crossing the Strait of Hormuz. Mr. Trump’s irresponsibility has left t
The United States on the cusp of a humiliating strategic defeat.
As we have emphasized, Iran’s regime deserves no sympathy. It has spent decades oppressing its people and sponsoring terrorism elsewhere. And the current war, combined with the June attacks by the United States and Israel and other Israeli operations since 2023, weakened Iran in important ways. Its navy, air force, and air defenses have been degraded, and its nuclear program has been set back. Its murderous network of regional allies — including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria’s fallen government — has been eroded.
Yet these successes cannot mask the ways in which the war has weakened the United States. We count four main setbacks for America’s national interests that are the direct result of Mr. Trump’s carelessness. These setbacks likewise weaken global democracy when authoritarians in China, Russia, and elsewhere were already feeling emboldened.
The most tangible blow to the United States and the world is the increased influence that Iran has secured over the global economy by weaponizing the Strait of Hormuz. About 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas flows through the strait, which is next to Iran’s southern shore.
Before the war, Iran’s leaders feared that blocking traffic would invite new economic sanctions and a military attack. Once the attack happened anyway, Iran closed the strait to nearly all traffic except its own ships. The policy is inexpensive because it mostly involves a threat, namely that a drone, missile, or small boat blow up a tanker. Forcibly reopening the strait, by contrast, would require an enormous military operation potentially including ground troops and an extended occupation.
Mr. Trump’s lack of foresight about the Strait reveals glaring incompetence. The two-week cease-fire does not bring back the status quo because Iran is still limiting traffic and has threatened to impose tolls as part of a final peace deal. The war has shown Iran’s leaders that controlling the waterway is a real possibility. Eventually, other countries are likely to develop alternatives, including pipelines, but those solutions will take time. For now, Iran appears to have won diplomatic leverage that it could have only dreamed of six weeks ago. The only apparent way to change the situation would be for a global coalition to demand the strait’s reopening — the sort of coalition that Mr. Trump is distinctly unsuited to lead.
The second setback is to America’s military standing around the world. This war, together with recent U.S. assistance to Ukraine, Israel and other allies, has burned through a substantial portion of the stockpile of some weapons, such as Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors (which can shoot down other missiles). Experts believe the Pentagon used more than one-quarter of its Tomahawk missiles just in the war against Iran. Returning the stockpile to its previous size will take years, and the United States will have to make tough choices about where to maintain its military strength in the meantime. Already, the Pentagon has pulled missile defenses from South Korea.
The war has also revealed that the U.S. military is vulnerable to new ways of warfare. America used billions of dollars’ worth of high-tech munitions to destroy Iran’s traditional air and naval forces, while Tehran used cheap, disposable drones to halt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and hit targets in the region. The world saw how a country that spends one-hundredth of what the United States does on its military can seek to outlast it in a conflict. It is a reminder of the urgent need to reform America’s military.
The war’s third big cost is to America’s alliances. Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada and most of Western Europe refused to support the United States in this war — unsurprisingly, given Mr. Trump’s treatment of them. When he demanded their help in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, most allies declined. These countries will remain allies in important ways, but they have made clear that they no longer consider the United States a reliable friend. They are working to build stronger relationships with one another so that they can better resist Washington in the future. “Perhaps the greatest long-term damage to the United States from the Iran war will be in its relationships with allies around the world,” Daniel Byman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington wrote on Wednesday.
The situation in the Middle East is more nuanced. Iran’s decision to attack its Arab neighbors during the war may draw those countries closer to the United States. But that prospect is uncertain. Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries have been damaged economically by the war and feel abandoned by Mr. Trump’s cease-fire. The past six weeks have given them reason to question his judgment and his understanding of their interests.
The fourth setback is to America’s moral authority. For all the flaws of this country, it remains a beacon to many around the world. When pollsters ask people where they would move if they could, the United States is consistently the runaway No. 1 answer. America’s appeal stems not only from its prosperity but also from
ts freedom and democratic values. Mr. Trump has undercut those values for his entire political career and perhaps never more than in the past week, when he made odious threats to erase Iranian civilization. His Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, made a series of bloodthirsty remarks, including a threat to offer “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.”
Those would be war crimes. Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth have embraced a brutal approach to armed conflict that the United States led the world in rejecting after World War II. By doing so, they have undermined the foundations of America’s global leadership, which claims to place human dignity at the center of an argument for a freer and more open world.
Our editorial board has long opposed Mr. Trump’s approach to politics and governing. Yet we take no pleasure in his failures over the past six weeks. For one thing, there have been deaths, injuries, and destruction, in Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and elsewhere. At least 13 U.S. service members have died in the war.
It is also a mistake for any Americans, including Mr. Trump’s critics, to root for this country to fail. We all have a stake in the nation that he leads. So does the rest of the free world. There are no other democracies with the economic and military strength to counter China and Russia. When America is weaker and poorer, as this war has made us, authoritarianism benefits.
The best hope now may sound naïve, but it remains true. Mr. Trump should at long last recognize the ineptitude of his impulsive, go-it-alone approach. He should involve Congress and seek help from America’s allies to minimize the damage from his war.
After a record-breaking trip around the moon and back, the Artemis II mission is on its way home to Earth, and preparations are in full swing for its final descent. NASA is targeting splashdown—the moment that the capsule holding the crew will hit the Pacific Ocean—for Friday at 8:07 P.M. EDT. But the hours and minutes leading up to that moment are all critical.
The four Artemis II astronauts—Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen—will begin their day at 11:35 A.M. Shortly after that, at approximately 1:50 P.M., they will be working to configure the capsule’s cramped cabin for reentry, stowing away baggage and making sure that everything they need for their journey through the Earth’s atmosphere is ready to go.
Next, NASA has scheduled a final trajectory-course-correction burn for 2:53 P.M. if needed to keep the mission’s Orion capsule, named Integrity by the crew, on track for its final target—Earth.
The astronauts will also review their reentry checklist to make sure that they are each properly in their space suit, which will help protect them on the potentially bumpy ride down, and clear on their responsibilities during the fall.
NASA will livestream the entire process, with the space agency’s own broadcast coverage beginning at around 6:30 P.M.—a little more than an hour before the capsule is due to reenter Earth’s atmosphere.
Moments before it does, the capsule will ditch its bulky service module at about 42 minutes before splashdown. Then, at approximately 7:37 P.M., the Orion capsule will perform a quick burn to maneuver into the right position and attitude for reentry and splashdown. Subsequently, at around 7:53 P.M., Orion will reenter Earth’s upper atmosphere some 400,000 feet above the surface, kicking off a 13-minute descent. At this time, the capsule will be traveling at about 24,000 miles an hour.
Amanda Montañez; Source: NASA (reference)
In the first two minutes of that descent, the spacecraft will plunge 200,000 feet, at which point it will experience temperatures reaching 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,760 degrees Celsius) because air molecules ahead of it will compress so violently, according to NASA. As the capsule falls, it will experience extreme pressure and heat stress. NASA has engineered the Orion capsule with a protective layer, a heat shield, that is designed to char, melt, and disintegrate in such a way that heat won’t penetrate the inside of the spacecraft. It will also go through a six-minute communications blackout, when the heat will effectively cut the crew’s ability to talk to mission control.
At this point, the spacecraft’s thrusters will help to slow the descent. Along the way, the craft will also roll from one side to another to burn off some excess energy.
At about nine minutes into the descent, the spacecraft will be traveling just under the speed of sound at around 35,000 feet above Earth’s surface. At that time, the capsule will begin deploying its parachutes. It has four sets: the forward bay cover parachutes, the drogues, the pilots, and the mains.
The drogue deployment will occur at around 10 minutes in, bringing Orion from 24,000 feet to 6,800 feet. The pilots will then deploy, followed by the mains, which will guide the spacecraft gently down to the water through its final 5,000 feet at around 17 mph.
Splashdown is targeted for 8:07 P.M. in the Pacific Ocean just off the coast of San Diego, Calif. During this 13-minute period, the crew will have effectively traversed 1,701 nautical miles.
There, the USS John P. Murtha will be waiting for them. Within two hours of the astronauts’ splashdown, divers will help extract them from the capsule and get them into helicopters that will carry them to the ship. They will then undergo preliminary medical exams onboard before they return to terra firma.
Sixteen weeks into my second pregnancy, I had a miscarriage alone at home on an otherwise unremarkable autumn afternoon. I had officially entered the supposed “safe zone” of the second trimester, the point in pregnancy where risks of fetal complications and loss drop dramatically. By the time I saw bright red blood, I was certain I was “out of the woods.” I had finally begun to wrap my mind around the idea of having another child. My husband and I were excited to introduce a newborn into the confident rhythm we had established with our 3 1/2-year-old son. It was the beginning of one of the most devastating and profound experiences of my life. As a clinical psychologist who specializes in reproductive and maternal mental health, I was well aware that up to 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. I knew the heart-wrenching reality of that experience as well as I could without having yet lived through it myself. Throughout my own pregnancy, I’d listened to heartbreaking stories of pregnancy loss, including chemical pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, twin loss, infant loss, stillbirths, and terminations for medical reasons. I’d sat with countless women as they processed their grief, how their histories and experiences compounded those feelings, and how the unfortunate silence, stigma, and shame that so often follows pregnancy and infant loss heightened their pain. Now, however, my theoretical knowledge of the experience became corporeal.
Despite the fact that up to 25% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage (the actual number being likely much higher due to chemical pregnancies and underreporting), research shows that a majority of women feel a sense of shame, self-blame, and guilt in the aftermath of pregnancy loss. Cultural ideas about women’s bodies and patriarchal messages have wormed their way into women’s own perceptions of themselves, firmly planting the idea that if we haven’t “successfully” carried a healthy baby to term, our bodies must be somehow defective or inadequate, or we must have done something “wrong” to cause the loss. However, most miscarriages are the result of fetal chromosomal abnormalities, not the result of anything a woman did or didn’t do. Despite this, a national survey found that people believed miscarriage could be caused by going through a stressful event (76% of responders), lifting a heavy object (64%), previously having an intrauterine device (IUD) (28%), or taking birth control pills (22%). The misconceptions surrounding miscarriage get even wilder: The survey found 21% of people believed it could be caused by getting into an argument, 7% thought it could be caused by moderate exercise, and 4% thought it could be caused by having sex.
In my practice, I’ve found that the impulse to blame ourselves is often about perceptions of control. If I did something wrong and this is my fault, that means maybe I can do things differently the next time around and therefore change the outcome. There is shame in those thoughts, but perversely, there is also a sense of agency. That grasp for control is closely related to the cultural stigma attached to pregnancy loss that prevents women from talking about it openly and breeds isolation and misinformation. But when women know the facts about miscarriage and why it happens, they are less likely to blame themselves.
While I fully believe in the importance of talking about stigmatized issues like pregnancy loss, sexual trauma, anxiety and depression, and aging, I know from experience that doing so is hard.
We live in a culture that tells women that so many of the challenges they face are somehow our fault and that whatever we’re feeling about those challenges should be kept quiet. That cultural message often keeps us from talking about the most important and real experiences in our lives, overwhelmed by the fear that if we do speak our truths, we will be met with stunned stares or awkward lapses in conversations. But in the absence of real, nuanced, and sometimes messy conversations about the truth of our experiences, we feel ashamed and often end up turning our pain inward, convinced we should be able to swallow it and push through.
Even as someone who fully believes in the importance of talking about stigmatized issues like pregnancy loss, sexual trauma, anxiety and depression, and aging, I know from experience that doing so is hard. There’s no single source of the pressure to stay silent about these taboo subjects; it’s in the water, so to speak. Women go through so many potentially momentous transitions over the course of their lives, inhabiting many roles and navigating continually changing bodies while fielding messages from a culture hell-bent on telling them how to look, how to feel, how to act, how to be at every available opportunity. In so many moments in a woman’s life, there’s an insidious whisper: This is too messy. Don’t talk about it.
Film and Writing Festival for Comedy. Showcasing best of comedy short films at the FEEDBACK Film Festival. Plus, showcasing best of comedy novels, short stories, poems, screenplays (TV, short, feature) at the festival performed by professional actors.
A. R. Bernard: one of many
NASA
Tucker Carlson has called Donald Trump a “slave” who “can’t make his own decisions,”
Vice President Vance is arriving for a news conference after meeting with representatives from Pakistan and Iran in Islamabad on Sunday. Credit…Pool photo by Jacquelyn Martin
Christopher Testani for The New York Times
Nato secretary general Mark Rutte with Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on 21 January 2026. Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
Jason Hendardy for The New York Times
NASA
MTStock Studio/E+/Getty Images
James' World 2 