By MICHELLE L. PRICE, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday fired his embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, after mounting criticism over her leadership of the department, including the handling of the administration’s immigration crackdown and disaster response.

Trump, who said he would nominate in her place Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin, made the announcement on social media on Thursday, two days after Noem faced a grilling on Capitol Hill from GOP members as well as Democrats.

Trump says he’ll make Noem a “Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas,” a new security initiative that he said would focus on the Western Hemisphere.

Noem, took the stage to address a Department of Homeland Security event moments after Trump’s announcement but made no immediate mention of her ouster. Instead, she read from prepared remarks, including reinforcing Trump’s message from the State of the Union last month.

Noem is the first Cabinet secretary to leave during Trump’s second term. Noem’s departure caps a tumultuous tenure overseeing immigration enforcement tactics that have been met with protests and lawsuits.

Noem’s tenure looked increasingly short-lived after hearings in Congress this week where she faced rare but blistering criticism from Republican lawmakers. One particular point of scrutiny was a $220 million ad campaign featuring Noem that encouraged people in the country illegally to leave voluntarily.

Noem told lawmakers that Trump was aware of the campaign in advance, but Trump disputed that in an interview Thursday with Reuters, saying he did not sign off on the ad campaign.

Noem has faced waves of criticism as she’s overseen Trump’s immigration crackdown, especially since the shooting deaths of two protesters in Minneapolis at the hands of immigration enforcement officers. The former South Dakota governor was also criticized over the way her department has spent billions of dollars allocated to it by Congress.

Frustrations over Noem’s execution of the Republican president’s hard-line immigration agenda — particularly her leadership after the shooting deaths of the two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis — as well as her handling of disaster response, paved the way for her downfall. She faced blistering criticism from Democrats, and some Republicans, in Congress hearings this week over those issues and others.

Aside from immigration, Noem also faced criticism — including from Republicans — over the pace of emergency funding approved through the Federal Emergency Management Agency and for the Trump administration’s response to disasters.

Mullin would need to be confirmed by the Senate, but under a federal law governing executive branch vacancies, he would be allowed to serve as an acting Homeland Security secretary as long as his nomination is formally pending.

By LAURIE KELLMAN and FARNOUSH AMIRI

Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Its ballistic missiles. Its proxies. The ruling Islamic theocracy. Israel.

All of the above are part of the Trump administration’s shifting rationale for pummeling Iran and killing its leader without first seeking the buy-in of Congress and U.S. allies. There’s more that’s unclear about the widening war launched by the president and Board of Peace leader — including an exit strategy, a timeline and who President Donald Trump wants to take control of Iran from what he calls the “sick people” who run it now.

What makes the latest U.S.-Iran conflict different from a series of others is that the Trump administration’s own officials do not appear to be clear or uniform on the important questions at hand: Why and why now?

“It’s the standard practice to agree on the rationale before you start and then stick to delivering a consistent messaging,” said David Schenker, a former Trump administration official who is now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “But that’s a challenge for this administration.”

By Wednesday, the White House was describing the Republican president’s decision to launch Operation Epic Fury as a consideration of past Iranian threats to the U.S. “and the president’s feeling, based on fact, that Iran does pose an imminent and direct threat to the United States of America.” Analysts say that’s unclear.

Here’s a curated selection of the Trump administration’s explanations over the last week as the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran expanded into a war.

The re-obliteration of Iran’s nuclear program

WHAT THEY SAID after the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran last summer:

— “THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED!” — Trump in a June 24, 2025, post on Truth Social.

WHAT THEY SAID after a reported intelligence analysis suggested Iran’s nuclear program had only been set back a few months:

— “That is a false story, and it’s one that really shouldn’t be re-reported.” — Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a June 25, 2025, interview with Politico.

WHAT THEY SAID since the strike that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

— “If we didn’t do what we’re doing right now, you would have had a nuclear war and they would have taken out many countries because, you know what? They’re sick people.” — Trump on Tuesday at the White House.

THE BACKGROUND:

Iran has long insisted its program is peaceful, but the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog and Western nations say Tehran had an organized nuclear weapons program up until 2003.

The current state of the program remains a mystery as officials have not allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency access to the nuclear facilities that were bombed since June. That is according to a confidential report by the watchdog circulated to member states and seen Feb. 27 by The Associated Press.

For its part, Iran has said it has not enriched since June. Satellite photos analyzed by the AP have shown new activity at two of those sites, suggesting Iran was trying to assess and potentially recover material.

Iran is legally obliged to cooperate with the IAEA under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but it suspended all cooperation after the war with Israel.

Iran’s ballistic missiles

WHAT THEY SAID:

— “Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, particularly short-range ballistic missiles, that threaten the United States and our bases in the region, and our partners in the region, and all of our bases in the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain.” — Rubio to reporters on Feb. 25.

— “The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases — both local and overseas — and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America.” — Trump during a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House on Monday.

— Iran “was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions.” — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during the Monday Pentagon briefing.

THE BACKGROUND:

Iran hasn’t acknowledged that it is seeking to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. The country currently has a self-imposed limit on its ballistic missile program, limiting their range to 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles). That puts all of the Mideast and some of Eastern Europe in range.

Trump administration officials told congressional staffers in private briefings on Sunday that U.S. intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the U.S. The administration officials instead acknowledged there was a more general threat from Iran and proxy forces.

“There’s been a lot of reporting that the assessments from the intelligence and military didn’t suggest that there was going to be an Iranian first strike,” said Naysan Rafati, senior Iran analyst at the Washington-based International Crisis Group. “My sense has been that opportunity is at least as much of a significant factor as threats, certainly.”

Israel’s role

WHAT THEY SAID:

— “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. And we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after (Iran) before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” — Rubio to reporters on Monday.

— “Israel was determined to act in its own defense here, with or without American support.” — House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters. If that happened, he added, “exquisite intelligence” by the U.S. indicated that Iran would retaliate against American assets. “If we had waited, the consequences of inaction on our part could have been devastating,” he said.

— “No,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday, when asked if Israel had forced his hand on attacking Iran. “If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

THE BACKGROUND:

There is no sign that Israel was forced into cooperating with the U.S. in the strike.

An Israeli military official, on customary condition of anonymity, on Wednesday described lockstep planning between the U.S. and Israel. Three weeks before the strikes, Israel understood that the operation was pointing toward another confrontation with Iran and sent a team to the Pentagon, the official said. On Friday, the Israeli army deliberately suggested that the military was standing down for the weekend, releasing photos suggesting that staffers and senior commanders were heading home for Shabbat dinner.

The shared information allowed the strikes to be carried out hours later in a surprise daylight attack, people familiar with the operation told the AP over the weekend. The eventual barrage of U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran came so quickly that they were nearly simultaneous — with three strikes in three locations hitting within a minute — killing Khamenei and some 40 senior figures, another Israeli military official said Sunday.

During the strikes, the U.S. and Israeli war rooms were synchronized in real time to allow for quick adjustments, the first Israeli military official said Wednesday.

In a televised address, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel had carried out the strikes “in full cooperation” with the U.S.

Trump has been both for and against regime change in Iran. Now what?

WHAT THEY SAID:

— “If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” — Trump on Truth Social on Jan. 2.

— “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.” — Trump to Iranians on Truth Social just after the first strikes.

— “This is not a so-called regime change war. But the regime sure did change, and the world is better off for it.” — Hegseth at the Pentagon on Monday.

THE BACKGROUND:

Washington has a long, complicated history with regime change. See Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq and Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001, and Venezuela just weeks ago.

And in Iran, the CIA in 1953 helped engineer a coup that toppled Iran’s democratically elected leader and gave near-absolute power to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. But as with the shah, who was overthrown in Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, regime change rarely goes as planned.

That’s in part because it’s fundamentally out of Trump’s complete control, as he acknowledged Tuesday.

“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” he told reporters. “Now we have another group. They may be dead also based on reports. So, I guess you have a third wave coming, and pretty soon we’re not going to know anybody.”

Josef Federman and Julia Frankel in Jerusalem contributed to this report from Jerusalem.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Mike Johnson and the GOP leadership are calling for Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas to withdraw from his reelection race after he admitted having an affair with a former staff member who later died by suicide.

The Republican leadership announced its decision Thursday, a day after Gonzales acknowledged a relationship that has upturned the political world in his home state and in Washington, and after the House Ethics Committee announced an investigation into his conduct.

“We have encouraged him to address these very serious allegations directly with his constituents and his colleagues,” said Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Whip Tom Emmer, and GOP Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain in a statement.

“In the meantime, Leadership has asked Congressman Gonzales to withdraw from his race for reelection.”

Johnson, R-La., has been under enormous pressure from his own GOP lawmakers to take action, and several Republicans have already called for Gonzales to step aside.

Republicans are struggling to maintain their slim majority in the House in the fall midterm elections.

Gonzales, appearing on the “Joe Pags Show” on Wednesday was asked whether he had a relationship with the aide, Regina Ann Santos-Aviles.

Santos-Aviles, 35, died after setting herself on fire in the backyard of her home in Uvalde, Texas. The Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office later ruled her death a suicide.

“I made a mistake and I had a lapse in judgment, and there was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions,” Gonzales said.

The congressman, now in his third term, has said he would not step down in response to the allegations, telling reporters recently that there will be opportunities for all the details and facts to come out.

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and PAUL WISEMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Some two dozen states challenged President Donald Trump’s new global tariffs on Thursday, filing a lawsuit over import taxes he imposed after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court.

The Democratic attorneys general and governors in the lawsuit argue that Trump is overstepping his power with planned 15% tariffs on much of the world.

Trump has said the tariffs are essential to reduce America’s longstanding trade deficits. He imposed duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs he imposed last year under an emergency powers law.

Section 122, which has never been invoked, allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15%. They are limited to five months unless extended by Congress.

The lawsuit is led by attorneys general from Oregon, Arizona, California and New York.

“The focus right now should be on paying people back, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. The suit comes a day after a judge ruled t hat companies who paid tariffs under Trump’s old framework should get refunds.

The new suit argues that Trump can’t pivot to Section 122 because it was intended to be used only in specific, limited circumstances — not for sweeping import taxes. It also contends the tariffs will drive up costs for states, businesses and consumers.

Many of those states also successfully sued over Trump’s tariffs imposed under a different law: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Four days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping IEEPA tariffs Feb. 20, Trump invoked Section 122 to slap 10% tariffs on foreign goods. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant told CNBC on Wednesday that the administration would raise the levies to the 15% limit this week.

The Democratic states and other critics say the president can’t use Section 122 as a replacement for the defunct tariffs to combat the trade deficit.

The Section 122 provision is aimed at what it calls “fundamental international payments problems.’’ At issue is whether that wording covers trade deficits, the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them.

Section 122 arose from the financial crises that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Other countries were dumping dollars in exchange for gold at a set rate, risking a collapse of the U.S. currency and chaos in financial markets. But the dollar is no longer linked to gold, so critics say Section 122 is obsolete.

Awkwardly for Trump, his own Justice Department argued in a court filing last year that the president needed to invoke the emergency powers act because Section 122 did “not have any obvious application’’ in fighting trade deficits, which it called “conceptually distinct’’ from balance-of-payment issues.

Still, some legal analysts say the Trump administration has a stronger case this time.

“The legal reality is that courts will likely provide President Trump substantially more deference regarding Section 122 than they did to his previous tariffs under IEEPA,’’ Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University’s Institute of International Economic Law, wrote in a commentary Wednesday.

The specialized Court of International Trade in New York, which will hear the states’ lawsuit, wrote last year in its own decision striking down the emergency-powers tariffs that Trump didn’t need them because Section 122 was available to combat trade deficits.

Trump does have other legal authorities he can use to impose tariffs, and some have already survived court tests. Duties that Trump imposed on Chinese imports during his first term under Section 301 of the same 1974 trade act are still in place.

Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

By PETER SMITH

On its own, the phrase “Christ is king” sums up a core tenet of the Christian faith, that Jesus is the divine ruler of the universe. Catholics and many Protestants celebrate a Christ the King Sunday each year.

But the ancient proclamation can morph into something political, controversial or even sinister, depending on who says it and how it’s said.

In recent years, “Christ is king” and similar phrases have been chanted at political rallies, posted on social media and proclaimed in speeches by voices on the right.

At times the phrase is used to support the notion of America as a Christian nation or as one that owes its allegiance specifically to the Christian God. Some current Cabinet officials and recent members of Congress have used the phrase in speeches and on social media.

But other times, political activists have paired “Christ is king” with anti-Zionist statements or negative Jewish stereotypes.

The phrase has gained popularity among far-right figures and their followers. Conservative influencer Candace Owens, who shares antisemitic conspiracies, sells branded “Christ is King” coffee mugs and T-shirts.

The controversy connects to a larger schism on the right, with some conservatives pushing back against an increasingly vocal faction whose denunciations of Israel, critics say, often combine with blatant antisemitism. Some of the latter group insist they’re not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist. That itself is a sharp break from what was once a near-consensus of pro-Israel sentiment among Republicans.

But there are times when the use of the phrase “Christ is king” is unquestionably hostile toward Jews, said a 2025 report by the Rutgers University-affiliated Network Contagion Research Institute.

Analyzing social media postings between 2021 and 2024, the institute reported a dramatic increase of the phrase “Christ is king,” often used as a hate meme targeting Jews. The report lamented this deviation from its historical use as a hopeful, sacred affirmation with biblical roots.

“The weaponization or hijacking of ‘Christ is King’ represents a disturbing inversion of its original intent. Rather than sacralizing shared values, extremists have exploited this religious expression to justify hatred,” the report said.

Controversy spotlighted at religious liberty hearing

A recent meeting of the Religious Liberty Commission, a group President Donald Trump created and appointed, put the phrase and related controversies in the spotlight.

At a Feb. 9 hearing focused on antisemitism, a witness, Seth Dillon, spoke of often hearing people use the phrase “Christ is king” followed immediately by a highly contemptuous slur toward Jews.

“This should offend every Christian,” said Dillon, the CEO of the conservative satirical site The Babylon Bee.

Commission member Carrie Prejean Boller repeatedly grilled witnesses about whether opposing Zionism could be construed as anti-Jewish. She said that as a Catholic she opposes Zionism but that this is not antisemitic. She asked Dillon if he thought “saying ‘Christ is king’ is antisemitic.”

Dillon said no and that, as a Christian, he regularly declares that “Christ is my king” — but context matters.

He testified that the phrase has been co-opted by Groypers, alluding to the followers of far-right influencer Nick Fuentes, who has spread antisemitic views.

It’s “using the Lord’s name in an abusive manner,” Dillon said.

Fuentes’ supporters chanted “Christ is king” at the Million MAGA March, a November 2020 rally denying the Republican Trump’s defeat to Democrat Joe Biden in that year’s presidential election.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican who chairs the Religious Liberty Commission, announced Prejean Boller’s removal from the panel after the meeting. He asserted that she tried to “hijack” the hearing for her own agenda.

Following the commission meeting, Prejean Boller has posted prolifically on X, denouncing “Zionist supremacists” and repeatedly using the phrase “Christ is King.” She also has denounced the war launched by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.

A recent Catholic convert, she said she opposes a popular evangelical view that modern-day Israel exists in fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

A religious phrase ‘co-opted by extremist figures’

The commission hearing was hardly the first forum to air controversy over “Christ is king.”

The Network Contagion Research Institute’s 2025 report noted that while many “Christ is king” references on social media are strictly religious, the phrase has been “systematically co-opted by extremist figures.”

The report said Fuentes and other extremists use the phrase as a “white supremacist mantra publicizing their antisemitic beliefs.”

Fuentes has said the Holocaust was exaggerated, and he has denounced “organized Jewry in America.” He has claimed to be in battle with “satanic, globalist elites,” an antisemitic trope.

The religious phrase “Christ is king” is not inherently political, said Brian Kaylor, president and editor-in-chief of Word&Way, a progressive site covering faith and politics.

But that fact provides a “deniability” to those politicizing it, he said.

“We’re at a dangerous point with the phrase ‘Christ is king’ because of the heavy activity and use of it on the far right in very fascist, antisemitic ways,” said Kaylor, a Baptist minister and author of several books on religion and politics. “We’re at the danger of that phrase losing its meaning to where this new antisemitic use is the dominant definition.”

The phrase has also gained popularity in political settings with some on the Catholic and evangelical right who are strongly pro-Israel and have repeatedly denounced antisemitism, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Kaylor said the phrase is often used as “a declaration of Christian nationalism ” asserting that “the nation should be brought under the dictates of Christ.”

A dispute over politics and religion

The controversy has highlighted both religious and political fissures.

The Vatican has diplomatic relations with Israel and has also recognized a state of Palestine. Pope Leo XIV has called for a two-state solution while denouncing antisemitism. During the Israel-Hamas war, popes Francis and Leo denounced the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas and Israel’s massive military response, with Leo demanding a halt to Israel’s “collective punishment” of Gaza’s population.

Other Catholics on the Religious Liberty Commission noted that Jesus and his followers were Jews and that a seminal 1965 Vatican document rejects antisemitism and the blaming of all Jews, including those alive today, for Jesus’ crucifixion.

Patrick, the commission chairman, said the dispute with Prejean Boller reflects “a real problem with a very small group in our Republican Party.” Antisemitism needs to be repudiated or “this is going to destroy our party,” he said on “The Mark Levin Show,” a podcast.

But Prejean Boller has galvanized supporters from a staunchly conservative group called Catholics for Catholics, a lay-led, self-described “militant organization dedicated to the evangelization of this great country.”

It plans to honor Prejean Boller at a March 19 event with a Catholic Champion Award in Washington featuring speakers such as Owens.

Prejean Boller has reposted announcements of the event on X, including one post that shared a Spanish-language statement that translates to “We will not rest until we convert the USA into a Catholic nation.” The post concluded in English with “Christ is King!”

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

By J.M. HIRSCH

MIAMI (AP) — Rachael Ray isn’t sick. Her marriage is healthy, too. And yes, she’s still on TV.

Rumors have swirled around the woman who gave us 30-minute meals since she stepped away from her daily show. But that hasn’t diminished her thrill at rolling through her mid-50s still cooking on television and still pulling crowds for beachside burger parties.

Welcome to Ray’s third act, the recipe for which is equal parts serendipity and returning to her hands-in-pans roots.

Three years ago, the woman who turned culinary effervescence, EVOO and garbage bowls into a media empire stepped away from the Food Network and her syndicated daytime talk show. Today, she acknowledges, “It can be hard to find me.”

Ray sat down with the AP recently during a break from events at the South Beach Wine & Food Festival to talk about what’s next, what keeps her going and why she doesn’t care about her legacy.

“I’ll be dead, so who cares?” She said that a lot, actually. About her critics. About the gossip. About whether people today get her and her decisions.

Except, clearly she does care. Particularly about the thread common to it all — giving people kitchen confidence. She once described her cooking as the food equivalent of a pop song. Which sounds flip. But when your entire career is built around breaking barriers to food, the easy digestibility of pop is an apt analogy.

“That was the message I wanted to bring to people. Don’t be scared of this,” she said. “If it doesn’t come out all right, who cares? It’s just dinner.”

From store demos to TV celebrity

The story of Ray’s rise is well-trod. Young woman from upstate New York gets noticed while doing food demos at an upscale grocery store, lands a gig on the Food Network demystifying cooking with a focus on fast and affordable, parlays that into a daytime show backed by Oprah Winfrey, and in short order she and her rat-a-tat Yum-o!-punctuated vernacular — not to mention her knives, books, pans, magazine, pet food and all manner of other products — were ubiquitous.

Then, in 2023 — after 17 seasons on daytime TV — she jarred fans by walking away from much of it, a decision she’d been quietly considering for years. Network television brought with it armies of executives and lawyers.

“I just didn’t want to do that anymore. I didn’t want to live by committee,” she said. “I wanted to focus more on food the way I want to teach it, talking to people I want to talk to, and being just me.”

Stepping out of the limelight

To many, she seemed to slow down or even disappear. After fire destroyed her home in upstate New York and flooding ruined her city apartment, she moved much of her life to Italy. A podcast was started, then quietly shuttered. All amid rumors of failing health and marriage.

Moved under the radar might be more accurate than slowed down. But let’s start with the gossip.

“We’re very volatile people. We’re loud, and then we’re lovey dovey, and I think we confuse a lot of folks because of that,” she said of her marriage to musician and lawyer John Cusimano. “I have a great marriage. My health is fine. I lift weights every morning, 4 o’clock, you know. I’m doing just fine.”

As for slowing down?

After ending her daytime show — the only thing she misses is the energy of the live audience — she created her own production company, Free Food Studios, an effort to control her content (sans layers of lawyers) and launch new talent. A&E soon acquired a 50% stake in it and ordered hundreds of episodes, including several new series starring Ray.

“People tell me on the plane or at the airport or at the grocery store, ‘Oh, I miss your show so much!’ And I’m like, I have many! You know, look on YouTube or look at A&E or look at Disney or Hulu,” she said. “It rotates through all these different platforms now, so it’s harder for people to find.”

In fact, her “Meals in Minutes” recently was renewed for more than 100 new episodes, and she’s producing two additional shows with other stars. Meanwhile, she’s planning an eighth humanitarian trip to Ukraine — she’s been collaborating on them with José Andrés since early in the war — recently launched her own gin, and still sells plenty of pots and pans and pet foods, the latter of which helps fund The Rachael Ray Foundation, which has donated $140 million to animal welfare and nutritional advocacy groups.

Crashing the chefs’ A-list

Today, culinary pedigrees among food celebrities are few and far between, making the early critiques of Ray — She’s not a serious cook! She’s not a chef! — seem quaint, sexist, maybe both. She’s thankful social media has lowered the bar for entry to her world, saying fresh faces no longer need money, connections, a culinary degree or blind luck to get noticed.

What hasn’t changed is the way aging women are judged, particularly when they have the audacity to do so as a public figure. Her appearance has been a hot topic in recent years, but Ray said she refuses to join the beauty bandwagon. “I tried Botox here (pointing at her eyebrows) years ago,” she said. “And I just looked sort of shocked or something. And I thought, this isn’t you.”

At this year’s South Beach festival’s Burger Bash, which Ray has hosted for two decades — consuming some 568 burgers over the years, but who’s counting? — crowds swarmed her with stories of growing up on her recipes and shows. At a private dinner the next night, 20-plus people paid $500 each to clamor as she served pasta alle vongole and told family stories while Cusimano mixed cocktails.

“Honey! I’m talking too much! This got hot!” Ray said, handing him a Martinez cocktail to refresh. “I don’t drink a hot cocktail. I almost never drink the second half of my cocktail.” The crowd of mostly middle-aged women nodded enthusiastically, clearly adopting a new Ray-endorsed rule to foist on their own spouses.

“I love the fact that it’s still relevant that I come here,” Ray said. “I’m a woman in her mid-50s that’s still employed, still making programming, and still can book an event and have thousands of people come out. That means a lot to me.”

What comes next?

“I like not knowing,” she said. “I like watching things evolve and discovering what’s next for myself. So there’s no plan. There’s no road map.”

J.M. Hirsch is a food and travel journalist, and the former food editor for The Associated Press.

By CHEYANNE MUMPHREY

Children living through the latest war in the Middle East or seeing images of the conflict may need help making sense of events that many adults find unnerving. Exposure to war, even if it is indirect, can affect how kids think, feel and behave, according to mental health experts.

Child psychologists and development specialists encourage parents to check in with their children, make time for age-appropriate conversations and to correct misinformation without going into excessive detail.

“Sometimes adults think if they don’t talk about something that is difficult, than it doesn’t exist. But we know that’s not the reality in children’s lives,” said Rebecca Smith, the global head of child protection at Save the Children, an international aid and advocacy organization. “Ignoring or avoiding the topic of conflict can lead to children feeling lost, alone and scared. … It is essential to have open and honest conversations with children to help them process what is happening.”

Below are suggestions for having conversations with children about war and its impacts.

Create a safe space, then listen and validate feelings

Experts recommend starting with what a child might know about what is happening in Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, Israel, Sudan or other parts of the world before attempting to address any feelings of fear, sadness, anger or anxiety.

Some children may not know that fighting has escalated between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran and its proxies on the other. Other kids may be more aware than their families realize and suppress their emotions. Children visiting or living in Middle Eastern countries directly impacted will have seen weapons light up the sky and may know people killed or have to leave their homes.

“For some children where missiles are now visible in the skies, this might be an entirely new and terrifying experience,” Smith said. “When events like this happen, they disrupt a child and family’s sense of safety. What once felt stable and secure may suddenly feel uncertain.”

To help children work through their emotions, the trusted adults in their lives also need to take care of themselves, according to experts. Guidance from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network says adults sharing their own feelings with children can be an opportunity to convey personal beliefs and values about how to treat others. The key is to not assume what children might be thinking or feeling.

If children do not want to talk or are not ready, experts suggest adults remain patient and tell children they are there for them.

“It is necessary to respect child’s ability to refuse communication, their ability not to talk or not to tell about something. Because they can have their own feelings, their own states, which they might not want to share,” child psychologist Nataliia Sosnovenko said, speaking in Ukrainian. Sosnovenko works with Voices of Children, a Ukrainian organization that provides psychological support and documents children’s experiences in the country during the yearslong war with Russia.

Some children might share what they have seen or heard, how they feel or ask questions when given an opportunity. Experts say this is when adults should validate their feelings and address what’s happening honestly while taking their ages and maturity levels into account.

Let their age guide the conversation

The American Psychological Association recommends giving kids basic, age-appropriate information about war and conflict, and addressing any upsetting images, headlines or conversations they were exposed to without going into details that might make them unnecessarily anxious. But ultimately, parents know their children best, experts say.

Families who have loved ones in the region may need to take the extra time to discuss the safety of their relatives and friends, and the difficulty of uncertainty. Families in the region themselves may need to have a plan in place for what to do if they become separated. Experts with Save the Children say to keep it simple and to practice the plan calmly.

Depending on how young, some children can understand the idea that two countries are fighting. But young children living abroad may not be able to distinguish between what they see on screens and what is happening nearby. For children in the U.S., the Iran war can seem much closer than it is if they are frequently seeing images on TV or social media, meaning they may need additional reassurance they are safe from danger.

Older children are likely to understand war and its consequences, which means they might be more concerned and have more questions, the American Psychological Association says. Adults may want to consider focusing on what is within their control and giving children some agency, such as supporting humanitarian efforts, staying informed and addressing misinformation.

UNICEF, the United Nations agency that provides humanitarian aid and long-term support to children worldwide, says it is OK to not have all the answers.

In Lebanon, some families have sought refuge since Saturday in a brick school building. Nora Ingdal, Save the Children’s Lebanon Country Director, says children there are asking several questions about the reason for conflict and when things might return to normal.

“This one daughter was clinging to her mother and looking up to her mom and asking, ‘Mom, why are they fighting? Why are they attacking us?’ The mother looks at me, but has no answer. Then she’s asking, ‘When are we gonna go home?’ Again, the mom looked at me,” Ingdal said. “I said to her, ‘It’s all right to say that you don’t know, you cannot guarantee anything, but I’m here with you.’”

Limit unnecessary exposure and use this as a teaching opportunity

While some global agencies say children should be aware of what is happening in the world, experts say adults still have a responsibility to keep youngsters safe and limit unnecessary exposure.

Parents are encouraged to pay attention to how exposed children are to the news. The younger the child, the less exposure they should have, according to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network.

Some agencies recommend switching off the news entirely or limiting conversations about distressing events with other adults if children can hear. Others recommend using the opportunity to educate children on the importance of news, understanding where to find accurate facts and how to identify when something is not true or deceiving.

Save the Children says caregivers can model responsible digital behavior, encourage kids not to spread harmful or graphic information and remind them to think twice before sharing content that is possibly inaccurate or emotionally triggering.

It is important for caregivers of children living in conflict zones to remember that some kids do not know a time before war and do not have the ability to disconnect from what is happening around them, Sosnovenko said. That’s where professional help might support conversations and education.

“During the war, the types of people who come to us have changed,” she said. “Thanks to the fact that the psychological culture of the population is improving, people began to understand that therapy is important. These days, help of a psychologist is needed by most people and children as well.”

AP journalist Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Ukraine, contributed to this story.

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal panel reviewing President Donald Trump’s plans to build a ballroom at the White House has set April 2 for a final vote on the project, the chairman said as the agency prepared to give additional consideration to the construction plans.

Will Scharf, chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission and a top aide to the Republican president, made the announcement Thursday at the start of the panel’s March meeting.

The panel will hear additional details about the project from the White House as well as its own staff, and had been expected to vote on Thursday.

But Scharf announced that the vote was switched to April to give every member of the public who wants to comment a chance to do so. More than 100 people had signed up to comment at Thursday’s meeting, which was being conducted online as a result.

The panel has also been flooded with written comments submitted by more than 35,000 people, according to the commission, with the majority opposed to Trump’s plans to build a 90,000-square-foot (8,360-square-meter) addition where the East Wing of the White House once stood. Trump has said it will cost about $400 million and be paid for with private money. Trump had the East Wing demolished in October.

Scharf said the meeting was being conducted online to ease the public testimony portion, which he said was likely to extend into Friday given the number of people who had signed up to speak.

“They are taking time out of what I presume are busy schedules to join us,” he said. “One way or the other, we are going to make sure that members of the public have the opportunity to be heard on this project.”

Critics of the project have argued that Trump should not have demolished the East Wing until the National Capital Planning Commission and a separate panel, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, had reviewed and voted on his plans. The fine arts panel approved the project last month.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private, nonprofit group, asked a federal judge to temporarily halt construction until the White House submitted the plans both to federal panels and to Congress for approval, and allowed the public to comment.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon rejected the request last week, and the trust has said it plans to file an amended lawsuit.

By BILL BARROW

Jasmine Crockett on Wednesday conceded the Democratic primary in the Texas Senate race to James Talarico.

The congresswoman called on the party to unify behind the state representative, who clinched the nomination overnight.

“Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person,” Crockett said in a statement. “This is about the future of all 30 million Texans and getting America back on track.”

Crockett’s campaign had previously suggested that she would file a lawsuit over voting challenges in the primary. A spokesperson did not immediately respond to a question about those plans.

Talarico will face the winner of the Republican runoff, either Sen. John Cornyn or state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

By STEPHEN GROVES, LISA MASCARO and MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Senate is headed toward a vote Wednesday on President Donald Trump’s decision to embark on a war against Iran, an extraordinary test in Congress for a conflict that has rapidly spread across the Middle East with no clear U.S. exit strategy.

The legislation, known as a war powers resolution, gives lawmakers an opportunity to demand congressional approval before any further attacks are carried out. The Senate resolution and a similar bill being voted on in the House later this week face unlikely paths through the Republican-controlled Congress and would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump even if they were to pass.

Nonetheless, the votes marked a weighty moment for lawmakers. Their decisions on the five-day-old war — which Trump entered without congressional approval — could determine the fates of U.S. military members, countless other lives and the future of the region.

“Wars without clear objectives do not remain small. They get bigger, bloodier, longer and more expensive,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer at a news conference Tuesday. “This is not a necessary war. It’s a war of choice.”

Trump administration scrambles for congressional support

After launching a surprise attack against Iran on Saturday, Trump has scrambled to win support for a conflict that Americans of all political persuasions were already wary of entering. Trump administration officials have been a frequent presence on Capitol Hill this week as they try to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.

“We are not going to put American troops in harm’s way,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in a raucous news conference at the Capitol Tuesday.

But six U.S. military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait.

Trump has also not ruled out deploying U.S. ground troops. He has said he is hoping to end the bombing campaign within a few weeks, but his goals for the war have shifted from regime change to stopping Iran from developing nuclear capabilities to crippling its navy and missile programs.

“I think they are achieving great success with what they’ve done so far,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday, adding that what happens next in the country will be “largely up to the Iranian people.”

Almost all Republican senators were readying to vote Wednesday against the war powers resolution to halt military action, but a number still expressed hesitation at the idea of deploying troops on the ground in Iran.

“I don’t think the American people want to see troops on the ground,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., as he exited a classified briefing Tuesday. He added that Trump administration officials “left open that possibility,” but it wasn’t an option they were emphasizing.

Lawmakers to go on record

The votes in Congress this week represented potentially consequential markers of just where lawmakers stand on the war as they look ahead to midterm elections and the consequences of the conflict.

“Nobody gets to hide and give the president an easy pass or an end-run around the Constitution,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat leading the war powers resolution. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”

Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts that Trump has entered or threatened to enter. This one, however, is different.

Unlike Trump’s military campaigns against alleged drug boats or even Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the attack on Iran represents an open-ended conflict that is already ricocheting across the region. For Republicans who are used to operating in a political party dominated by Trump and his promises of keeping the U.S. out of foreign entanglements, the moment represented a bit of whiplash.

“War is ugly, it always has been ugly, but we’re taking out a regime that has been trying to attack us for quite some time,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has long pushed Trump to engage overseas, argued that the widening conflict represented an opportunity for Arab and European countries to join in the fight against Iran and the militant groups it supports.

“I don’t mind people being on record as to whether or not they think this is a good idea,” he told reporters, but also argued that too much power over the military was ceded to Congress in the War Powers Act, which mandates that presidents must withdraw troops from a conflict within 90 days if there is no congressional authorization.

House vote looms

On the other side of the Capitol, House leaders were also readying for an intense debate over the war followed by a vote Thursday.

“I do believe we have the votes to defeat it, I certainly hope we do,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said after an all-member briefing on Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said he expected a strong showing from Democrats in favor of the war powers resolution.

As lawmakers emerged from a closed-door briefing Tuesday night, Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, implored the Trump administration to “come to Congress” and speak directly to the American people about the rationale for the war.

His voice filled with emotion as he said, “Our young men and women’s lives are on the line.”

By SUMAN NAISHADHAM and JOSEPH WILSON

MADRID (AP) — Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez again criticized the U.S. and Israel’s military actions in Iran, standing firm on Wednesday against trade threats from Washington and warning that the war in the Middle East risked “playing Russian roulette” with millions of lives.

“We are not going to be complicit in something that is bad for the world and is also contrary to our values ​​and interests, just out of fear of reprisals from someone,” Sánchez said in a televised address.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to end U.S. trade with Spain because of Spain’s refusal to allow the U.S. to use joint military bases in the country in its attacks on Iran.

Sánchez has called the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran an “unjustifiable” and “dangerous” military intervention.

It’s not clear how Trump would cut off trade with Spain, which is a member of the European Union. The EU negotiates trade on behalf of all its 27 member states.

On Wednesday, Sánchez expressed concern that the attacks on Iran could lead to another costly military quagmire in the Middle East, similar to the past American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“In short, the position of the government of Spain can be summarized in four words,” Sánchez said. “No to the war.”

The EU said Wednesday it would protect its interests and work to stabilize its trade relationship with the U.S, with which it struck a trade deal last year after months of economic uncertainty over Trump’s tariff blitz.

“We stand in full solidarity with all member states and all its citizens and, through our common trade policy, stand ready to act if necessary to safeguard EU interests,” said European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill.

After Spain denied U.S. use of its bases, Trump on Tuesday said “we could use their base if we want,” referencing the Rota and Morón installations in southern Spain that the U.S. and Spain share, but which remain under Spanish command. “We could just fly in and use it,” Trump said. “Nobody’s going to tell us not to use it, but we don’t have to.”

Tuesday’s threats from Washington were just the latest instance of the U.S. president wielding the threat of tariffs or trade embargoes as punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court last month struck down Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs, saying emergency powers do not allow the president to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs.

However, Trump maintains that the court allows him to instead impose full-scale embargoes on other nations of his choosing.

Spain has not had any direct contact with the U.S. since Trump’s criticisms, Economy Minister Carlos Cuerpo said Wednesday.

“I want to send a message of calm,” Cuerpo told Spanish radio station Cadena Ser. “Beyond those comments (by Trump), there have not been any more moves (by the U.S.).”

Spain’s main business groups expressed concerns over the U.S. trade threat, calling the U.S. a “key partner from an economic and political standpoint.”

“We trust that our trade relations will ultimately not be affected in any way,” the Spanish business chambers CEOE, CEPYME and ATA said Tuesday.

Last year, Spain’s central bank issued a report that concluded Europe’s fourth-largest economy was relatively cushioned compared to the EU average when it came to exposure to tariffs by Trump.

Spain’s exports and imports with the U.S. accounted for 4.4% of GDP, the Bank of Spain said, while trade with the U.S. for the EU as a whole was 10.1%.

Exports of Spanish goods to the U.S. accounted for 1% of Spain’s GDP, or $18.6 billion, making it Spain’s sixth largest export market for goods, the bank concluded. The Southern European nation’s main exports to the U.S. include pharmaceutical products, olive oil refined gas and electrical transformers, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

Spain’s position on the Iran conflict is the latest flare-up in its relationship with the Trump administration.

Spain was an outspoken critic of Israel’s war in Gaza and attracted Trump’s ire last year when it backed out of NATO’s pledge to increase defense spending by members to 5% of GDP. At the time, Spain said it could meet its estimated defense needs by spending less — just 2.1% of its GDP — a move that Trump roundly criticized and also threatened with tariffs in response.

Wilson reported from Barcelona. Associated Press journalist Sam McNeil in Brussels contributed to this report.

By KONSTANTIN TOROPIN and REBECCA BOONE

WASHINGTON (AP) — An operations center targeted by an Iranian drone strike that killed six American soldiers on Sunday was located in the heart of a civilian port in Kuwait, miles away from the main Army base, according to satellite images and a U.S. official.

The husband of one of the slain soldiers, who was part of a supply and logistics unit based in Iowa, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the hub was a shipping container-style building and had no defenses.

The development, reported earlier by CNN and CBS News, raises questions about the safety precautions that the U.S. military had in place as it, along with Israel, launched an attack on Iran, which has responded with retaliatory strikes against several countries in the region, including Kuwait. President Donald Trump and top defense leaders say more American casualties are likely.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Monday that the six soldiers were killed in a “tactical operations center” when a projectile made its way past air defenses. A day later, the Pentagon confirmed it was a drone strike in Port Shuaiba when announcing the names of four of the soldiers who were slain.

A satellite image taken Monday and reviewed by the AP showed the main building in the complex destroyed, with a trail of black smoke rising from it. It is located in the heart of Port Shuaiba, a working seaport and industrial area just south of Kuwait City. The U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a matter under active investigation, confirmed the image depicted the location of Sunday’s attack.

The Army base, Camp Arifjan, is more than 10 miles to the south. The operations center was just a little over a mile from some of the piers where merchant ships would offload cargo containers and was surrounded by oil storage tanks, refineries and a power plant.

Joey Amor, husband of Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Amor, said his wife was moved off-base to what he described as a shipping container-style building a week before the Iranian strike. The 39-year-old from White Bear Lake, Minnesota, was one of the soldiers killed in the attack.

“They were dispersing because they were in fear that the base they were on was going to get attacked, and they felt it was safer in smaller groups in separated places,” he said.

After news reports about the operations center emerged, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on social media that the “secure facility was fortified with 6-foot walls.” He said the military has “the most extensive Air Defense umbrella in the world over the Middle East right now and control of the skies is increasing with every wave of airpower.”

Parnell’s office did not respond to questions about what role the walls would have played in defending against a drone attack or what air defenses were present in range of the command center at the port.

Capt. Tim Hawkins, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said “it would be inappropriate to comment given the incident is under investigation.”

Boone reported from Boise, Idaho. Associated Press writer Michael Biesecker contributed to this report.

By THOMAS ADAMSON

PARIS (AP) — He is known as the French Banksy — or simply JR. Now the artist popular across France for large-scale projects, from photographs to graffiti and street art, wants Parisians to do something unusual on the city’s arguably most famous bridge: stop.

In June, he plans to transform the bustling Pont Neuf that dates back to the 17th century into a walk-through “cave” — a temporary, monumental public artwork that will cover the stone arches with a rocky illusion and invite visitors to cross the River Seine through a tunnel, complete with sound and digitally augmented reality.

He says it’s possibly the “largest immersive installation ever made” and — one that will be accessible around the clock and offer a “totally different approach” to the bridge.

“We’re about to leave something pretty incredible in the middle of Paris,” JR told The Associated Press at his studio in eastern Paris, wearing his trademark hat and shades.

His project, the Pont Neuf Cavern is to run June 6-28, spanning 120 meters (yards) in length and over 17 meters in height.

A tribute — and a gamble

The installation is a nod to a Paris legend: the late artistic duo Christo and Jeanne-Claude who in 1985 wrapped Pont Neuf — and its streetlamps — in a pale golden fabric. The project, which took years of negotiations with the authorities, helped define the genre of monumental public art in modern cities across the world.

To JR, the homage is both aesthetic and personal.

“I had the chance to meet Christo along the years,” he said. “We had big respect for each other’s work.”

While walking recently on the street with an AP crew, an older woman stopped JR — now, a household name in his country — to share her memories of the Christo and Jeanne-Claude wrapping. She told him she was excited to see the bridge transformed again.

Still, JR — a pseudonym stemming from first name, Jean-René — acknowledges the weight of following in the iconic pair’s footsteps.

“It’s pretty hard to go after them,” he said, “but I’m doing it in a very different style, in my own way.”

His idea is about “bringing back mineral and nature” to the heart of Paris.

From the outside, his installation will make Pont Neuf look “as if it has been overtaken by a prehistoric outcrop,” a structure visible along the banks of the Seine — a rocky mass that is “literally going to break the landscape,” he said.

Two experiences: the city, then the cave

JR said there will be two main ways for people to experience his installation. From the outside, those heading to Pont Neuf will see the giant installation hundreds of meters away.

And from the inside, once visitors enter the “cave” on Pont Neuf, they will be able to walk through a long tunnel-like structure, having a feeling of “total immersion,” he said.

The cave will allow no daylight in and once inside, visitors “will lose track of time,” JR said.

A key collaborator on the project is Thomas Bangalter, a former member of French rock band Daft Punk who is creating the sound to accompany the installation — “something you’ll only hear from the inside,” JR said.

Snap’s AR studio in Paris is developing the augmented reality technology. Visitors will be able to use their smartphones to “experience and see things that you can’t see with your eyes,” JR said.

He is intentionally mysterious about what that is — keeping it a surprise until closer to the opening.

JR’s team conducted extensive engineering studies, including tests in a hangar at Paris’ Orly airport, to understand how the structure behaves, especially in an emergency when the electricity that fuels the cave’s air supply cuts off. Tests show the structure stays the same. There is also the security question — the bridge is a busy zone, especially during Paris’ tourist-packed early summer.

JR said visitor numbers will be limited at any given time, and that his team is consulting with authorities on that. During the three weeks of the exhibition, the installation will be continuously monitored.

A cave, and a metaphor

JR is best known for his large-scale art — enormous portraits pasted on buildings, border walls and rooftops. Because of his origins in graffiti and street art he has inevitably drawn comparison with Banksy, the elusive U.K.-based artist famous for his huge murals and activism.

JR’s installation will not have any massive faces, but the theme is still human, he says: gathering, connection, and what people project onto a shared space.

He says his installation is also an allusion to Plato’s allegory of the cave in which chained men interpret shadows on the cave wall as reality, ignorant of the real world outside — and compares that to the fake reality created by the visual world of our social media platforms.

“What are our caves today is our phone,” JR said, “because we … believe that … our algorithm on social media … is the reality.”

During the installation, which will coincide with June’s Paris Fashion Week and World Music Day, the bridge will close to traffic.

By Michael Ordoña, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — Some of this year’s Oscar-nominated documentary shorts hit so hard, viewers may be grateful to come across one that simply follows donkeys visiting an observatory in the desert — even if it bumps up against the very boundaries of the genre.

‘All the Empty Rooms’

Director Joshua Seftel hadn’t spoken with his former colleague, longtime CBS News correspondent Steve Hartman, in 25 years. Then Hartman, famed for stories of human kindness and compassion, reached out: He and photojournalist Lou Bopp had been documenting bedrooms left behind by children killed in American school shootings.

“I said to him, ‘This could be a great film,’” says Seftel, though Hartman asked not to be in it. “I said, ‘You are the “Good News Guy” and people trust you. If the Good News Guy is telling you he’s got some bad news, people are going to listen.’ ”

The rooms provide silent testament to those who once lived there. One is festooned in SpongeBob memorabilia; another contains the rack on which a girl would arrange her outfits for the week.

“You meet these families and hear the stories and there’s a heaviness” in the rooms, says Seftel. He says he could see them weigh on Bopp and Hartman. A filmmaker friend, on seeing the film, told Seftel, “Steve Hartman is a haunted man.”

‘Armed Only With a Camera: The Life and Death of Brent Renaud’

Brent Renaud and his brother, Craig, made documentaries in Haiti, Egypt, Iraq and other hot spots, and won awards for their portrait of a troubled Chicago school. Then, while covering the war in Ukraine, Brent was killed by Russian soldiers.

“For Brent, it was always a focus on people caught in the middle of conflicts,” says Craig Renaud. “Going back to the front lines over and over again, we often had to be on the ground for months at a time in these war zones.”

Included in the clips of Brent Renaud’s work: a weeping Iraqi woman clutching the bloody jeans of her slain son; Renaud interviewing a Honduran boy embarking on the hazardous trek to the U.S. on his own; and a Somali man telling Renaud, “The way you hold the camera, you’re doing it from your heart.”

It also includes casual mention of his diagnosis as neurodivergent.

“He’s calm as a monk in a firefight,” Craig Renaud says, “but a cocktail party in Brooklyn is absolutely terrifying.”

‘Children No More: Were and Are Gone’

In Tel Aviv, a group of Israeli protesters stands silently, holding posters emblazoned with the faces of Palestinian children who have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli military.

“They didn’t choose to be part of this war,” says Israeli filmmaker Hilla Medalia. “They were killed not because they brought it on themselves, but because someone decided they needed to die.”

Medalia’s film follows activists whose silent vigils draw both support and condemnation. So far, despite sometimes having to abandon their protests when situations become potentially threatening, they remain undaunted.

“Their focus is to stop the war and this war crime and other things that are happening in our name, and to force the general public to confront those images and to look at the kids and to feel for them,” Medalia says. “It’s amazing to me how humanity and compassion become an act of resistance.”

‘The Devil Is Busy’

At a women’s health clinic in Atlanta, a typical day includes religious protesters on megaphones (“All men,” points out co-director Geeta Gandbhir) and women seeking help only to discover their pregnancies are just past the six-week mark, making terminating them illegal in Georgia.

“We decided to focus on the providers,” says Gandbhir. “They’re putting themselves at risk to provide care. What you see are the hurdles they face.”

Co-director Christalyn Hampton says the burdens on these independent clinics have drastically increased as about 50 Planned Parenthood sites closed last year. She points out the spectrum of healthcare provided and the complexity of situations for both patients, many of whom must travel considerable distances, and providers.

“When the technician is giving the young lady a sonogram, the [patient] goes through several emotions: She’s happy, she’s crying, she’s nervous. That speaks to the vulnerability these women feel when they have to make certain decisions. That emotional moment [reminds us] of that human aspect.”

‘Perfectly a Strangeness’

A trio of donkeys traverses a desert to an observatory. Captured with creative camera angles and accompanied by an imaginative score, Alison McAlpine’s film pushes the boundaries of what documentaries are.

While shooting her previous feature in Chile, McAlpine noticed donkeys hanging out around an observatory. “We hired three gentle donkeys [for the film]. It was a combination of trying to direct the donkeys up from the valley to the observatory, and sometimes we just followed the donkeys.”

McAlpine acknowledges that her film has been difficult to categorize. “Sometimes it’s at IDFA, which is an international documentary festival. Sometimes it’s just competing with fiction, where it’s been lucky to win awards sometimes. But what is a documentary? As soon as you put on a lens and a frame, it’s a personal document, not something objective.

“I’ve been moved because people have been touched; they seem to be transported elsewhere, which is what one wants as a filmmaker.”

©2026 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Malia Mendez, Los Angeles Times

According to relationship scientist Paul Eastwick, online dating is a market where there are dramatic winners and losers. “I think our modern existence happens to pull from modes of interaction that really amp up the importance of mate value,” Eastwick said. “But it does not have to be this way, and for a long time, it was not this way.”

This is the genesis of Eastwick’s decades-long research about how people initiate and maintain close relationships. His new book “Bonded by Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection” argues against evolutionary psychology’s philosophy of dating and relationships — debunking ideas like money matters most to women, looks matter most to men and everyone has an inherent objective “mate value.” In his work, the University of California Davis psychology professor offers a dating and relationships alternative in which compatibility trumps all.

Since the dawn of his career, Eastwick has had more than one bone to pick with evolutionary psychology.

The theoretical approach, which studies human behavior, cognition and emotions as products of natural selection, depicts relationship formation as sales-like, highly gendered and strategy-based. That model, which Eastwick calls the “EvoScript,” has never squared with his view of close relationships.

The researcher has long viewed the EvoScript as outdated and exaggerated if not completely incorrect. But it was only a few years ago, when online communities of so-called incels started latching onto evolutionary psychology’s story of close relationships that he began to see the EvoScript as dangerous.

“It was upon realizing that there’s this fun house mirror version of [evolutionary] psych out there that I was like, I think it’s time,” Eastwick said. “There was a wake-up call for me that, we need a scientific book out there that’s going to bring the most contemporary science to people.”

In his work, Eastwick argues that desirability is subjective and unpredictable — and that all anyone really wants is a secure attachment bond that sustains them through good and bad seasons.

The Times talked to Eastwick about how to reimagine the dating “numbers game,” tips for better dates and why men and women ultimately want the same thing.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

You write in your book that “online dating can bring the worst parts of dating to the fore by exaggerating gender differences and making you feel like a clearance item at the bottom of the bin.” What are the long-term and short-term psychological effects of that on people as they go through their dating lives?

“It makes dating feel a little bit like a job, like you’re making sales pitches, and you can set your sights high, but ultimately you’re going to have to settle. It makes the whole thing feel like you’re trying to get a deal, and I just think these are bad metaphors, especially if we want to be happy in the long run. But there is a slow burn approach that feels more like finding connection, opening oneself up, spending time getting to know other people sometimes just for the sake of getting to know other people. Part of what I want to do in the book is remind people that there are other ways — and those other ways also happen to be more democratic, for lack of a better word there — that pull for more idiosyncrasy and give more people a chance to find partners that will really appeal to them.

If you’re trying to tackle the EvoScript, as you call it, what is your thesis about dating?

My thesis is that, if we want to think about the nature of human relationships, how did people evolve to form close relationships, I would describe it as a search for compatibility in small groups. What people classically have looked for and what classically makes for the best, most satisfying pairings are finding and building something compatible with another person from a pretty limited range of options.

OK , so I need to meet people in person. I need to make friend groups. Where do you go to do that now, when things are expensive and a lot of life is online?

For somebody who’s heterosexual, if you’re a woman, it’s like, “OK, where am I gonna meet guys? Where are the guys out there?” Don’t worry if the guys are going to be there, because oftentimes when people meet partners, it’s like, friends of friends of friends, right? It’s all making connections. Maybe it’s sports, maybe it’s activities, maybe it’s a cooking class, maybe it’s a dancing class. Maybe it’s just calling back up the people from your last job that you haven’t seen in a while, getting together over drinks and making it a regular thing. I get it, people are really busy, and everything online is a draw. But the importance of hanging out with people in person, those loose acquaintances, that’s where so much of the magic happens.

People talk a lot about how it’s just a numbers game: You have to go on more dates, you have to swipe on more people. What’s your response to that?

It is a numbers game, but maybe, let’s think about the numbers like this. Rather than numbers of people, it’s numbers of interactions. So you could meet 12 people one time, or you could meet three people four times. I choose the second one, right? Meet fewer people more times. We’re still talking about numbers. We’re still talking about how much time you’re out there interacting with people, figuring out whether you click. But 20-minute coffee dates really pull for a snap judgment. In a perfect world, swiping right on somebody would mean I’m going to do a coffee date with you, and then we’re going to go to some interactive class, and then we’re going to go to a concert and I’m going to spend time with you in all three settings and kind of see how that goes in total and then assess it. So it’s not that the numbers game is misguided, you do have to get out there and try different things, but we often think, “Oh, I can just sample people really briefly, and eventually I’ll get lucky.” The smaller those samples are, the more painful this whole thing gets.

Coffee dates feel like interviews to me. But from a scientific standpoint, why do you recommend an activity-based date over the classic coffee date?

The best evidence that we have for what can you do to make yourself more appealing to someone is not to share your CV and impress them with those details. Do something that reveals a little bit about who you are, how you interact, how you relate to the world, and, best of all, something a little bit vulnerable about yourself. The 36 Questions test, sometimes called the Fast Friends procedure, is truly the best tool we have. Within an hour or two of something interactive, people have gotten to the point where they’re willing to talk about things that they regret, or things that they really like about the other person that they’ve just gotten to know. And this is all in that Fast Friends procedure. So when I think about people doing activities where their attention isn’t just on interview mode, it’s like, “Oh, we’re tackling something together,” it really decreases that self-promotion instinct, which is usually misguided.

In your book, you call compatibility “curated, cultivated and constructed.” Does that mean, to you, that you can theoretically be compatible with anyone?

If you take this idea to its extreme, if you push me, ultimately I land on probably. And of all the things I say that people are going to be resistant to, I think that’s the one that people are like, “No.” Again, I go back to the people involved in small groups. They made relationships work with the limited number of options that were available, and because we are creatures who engage in motivated reasoning, it is very, very possible to be happy with who you’re with, but that does not mean that people just get to turn off all of the alternatives that exist. I think the best way to think about it is, I think a lot of pairs have compatibility potential, but I also think that the many decisions along the way matter a lot.

If the idea of romantic destiny is, as you call it in your book, “the weakest idea ever promoted by scientists,” what is your number-one dating myth you feel your personal research has debunked?

That men and women want different things out of partnerships, that they’re either pulling for different traits or look like these totally different entities, I just think the evidence for this is completely wrong. We see differences when you ask men and women, “What do you want in a partner?” But when you look at the attributes that actually matter, it’s really amazing the extent to which men and women are similar. And it’s not to say that there are no differences, like there is a difference in the strength of the sex drive thing. It’s smaller than people say, but it is there. But if you think about, what do men and women want out of a close relationship? What they really want is somebody who’s going to be supportive, is going to celebrate my successes and is going to have my back.

How do people practically apply that in their dating lives?

Refocusing on attachment, I hope that reduces some of the heteropessimism out there in the world. We have arrived at this very bleak view of relations between men and women, like we see the world differently, we’re just always at odds. And boy, when you come at relationships with this attachment frame, and you look at the things that make people happy, men and women can absolutely build beautiful things working together, and they often do. Because we are creatures who attach, there is so much potential for genuine connection over a sustained period of time.

Do you have any predictions for what the future of dating might look like?

It certainly feels like people are getting tired of the apps and that they’re looking for more ways to socialize in person. I think that’s wonderful. I worry about what AI is going to do, like, is that going to feel so real that it causes our interactional muscles to atrophy? That’s the big question mark on the horizon. I’m not here to be grandpa, but I also hope that we don’t totally lose the ability to interact with real people.

©2026 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Darius Tahir, Lauren Sausser, KFF Health News

It’s the rare policy question that unites Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and the Democratic-led Maryland government against President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom of California: How should health insurers use AI?

Regulating artificial intelligence, especially its use by health insurers, is becoming a politically divisive topic, and it’s scrambling traditional partisan lines.

Boosters, led by Trump, are not only pushing its integration into government, as in Medicare’s experiment using AI in prior authorization, but also trying to stop others from building curbs and guardrails. A December executive order seeks to preempt most state efforts to govern AI, describing “a race with adversaries for supremacy” in a new “technological revolution.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” Trump’s order said. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Across the nation, states are in revolt. At least four — Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska, and Texas — enacted legislation last year reining in the use of AI in health insurance. Two others, Illinois and California, enacted bills the year before.

Legislators in Rhode Island plan to try again this year after a bill requiring regulators to collect data on technology use failed to clear both chambers last year. A bill in North Carolina requiring insurers not to use AI as the sole basis of a coverage decision attracted significant interest from Republican legislators last year.

DeSantis, a former GOP presidential candidate, has rolled out an “AI Bill of Rights,” whose provisions include restrictions on its use in processing insurance claims and a requirement allowing a state regulatory body to inspect algorithms.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that new technologies develop in ways that are moral and ethical, in ways that reinforce our American values, not in ways that erode them,” DeSantis said during his State of the State address in January.

Ripe for Regulation

Polling shows Americans are skeptical of AI. A December poll from Fox News found 63% of voters describe themselves as “very” or “extremely” concerned about artificial intelligence, including majorities across the political spectrum. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats and just over 3 in 5 Republicans said they had qualms about AI.

Health insurers’ tactics to hold down costs also trouble the public; a January poll from KFF found widespread discontent over issues like prior authorization. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.) Reporting from ProPublica and other news outlets in recent years has highlighted the use of algorithms to rapidly deny insurance claims or prior authorization requests, apparently with little review by a doctor.

Last month, the House Ways and Means Committee hauled in executives from Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and other major health insurers to address concerns about affordability. When pressed, the executives either denied or avoided talking about using the most advanced technology to reject authorization requests or toss out claims.

AI is “never used for a denial,” Cigna CEO David Cordani told lawmakers. Like others in the health insurance industry, the company is being sued for its methods of denying claims, as spotlighted by ProPublica. Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the company’s claims-denial process “is not powered by AI.”

Indeed, companies are at pains to frame AI as a loyal servant. Optum, part of health giant UnitedHealth Group, announced Feb. 4 that it was rolling out tech-powered prior authorization, with plenty of mentions of speedier approvals.

“We’re transforming the prior authorization process to address the friction it causes,” John Kontor, a senior vice president at Optum, said in a press release.

Still, Alex Bores, a computer scientist and New York Assembly member prominent in the state’s legislative debate over AI, which culminated in a comprehensive bill governing the technology, said AI is a natural field to regulate.

“So many people already find the answers that they’re getting from their insurance companies to be inscrutable,” said Bores, a Democrat who is running for Congress. “Adding in a layer that cannot by its nature explain itself doesn’t seem like it’ll be helpful there.”

At least some people in medicine — doctors, for example — are cheering legislators and regulators on. The American Medical Association “supports state regulations seeking greater accountability and transparency from commercial health insurers that use AI and machine learning tools to review prior authorization requests,” said John Whyte, the organization’s CEO.

Whyte said insurers already use AI and “doctors still face delayed patient care, opaque insurer decisions, inconsistent authorization rules, and crushing administrative work.”

Insurers Push Back

With legislation approved or pending in at least nine states, it’s unclear how much of an effect the state laws will have, said University of Minnesota law professor Daniel Schwarcz. States can’t regulate “self-insured” plans, which are used by many employers; only the federal government has that power.

But there are deeper issues, Schwarcz said: Most of the state legislation he’s seen would require a human to sign off on any decision proposed by AI but doesn’t specify what that means.

The laws don’t offer a clear framework for understanding how much review is enough, and over time humans tend to become a little lazy and simply sign off on any suggestions by a computer, he said.

Still, insurers view the spate of bills as a problem. “Broadly speaking, regulatory burden is real,” said Dan Jones, senior vice president for federal affairs at the Alliance of Community Health Plans, a trade group for some nonprofit health insurers. If insurers spend more time working through a patchwork of state and federal laws, he continued, that means “less time that can be spent and invested into what we’re intended to be doing, which is focusing on making sure that patients are getting the right access to care.”

Linda Ujifusa, a Democratic state senator in Rhode Island, said insurers came out last year against the bill she sponsored to restrict AI use in coverage denials. It passed in one chamber, though not the other.

“There’s tremendous opposition” to anything that regulates tactics such as prior authorization, she said, and “tremendous opposition” to identifying intermediaries such as private insurers or pharmacy benefit managers “as a problem.”

In a letter criticizing the bill, AHIP, an insurer trade group, advocated for “balanced policies that promote innovation while protecting patients.”

“Health plans recognize that AI has the potential to drive better health care outcomes — enhancing patient experience, closing gaps in care, accelerating innovation, and reducing administrative burden and costs to improve the focus on patient care,” Chris Bond, an AHIP spokesperson, told KFF Health News. And, he continued, they need a “consistent, national approach anchored in a comprehensive federal AI policy framework.”

Seeking Balance

In California, Newsom has signed some laws regulating AI, including one requiring health insurers to ensure their algorithms are fairly and equitably applied. But the Democratic governor has vetoed others with a broader approach, such as a bill including more mandates about how the technology must work and requirements to disclose its use to regulators, clinicians, and patients upon request.

Chris Micheli, a Sacramento-based lobbyist, said the governor likely wants to ensure the state budget — consistently powered by outsize stock market gains, especially from tech companies — stays flush. That necessitates balance.

Newsom is trying to “ensure that financial spigot continues, and at the same time ensure that there are some protections for California consumers,” he said. He added insurers believe they’re subject to a welter of regulations already.

The Trump administration seems persuaded. The president’s recent executive order proposed to sue and restrict certain federal funding for any state that enacts what it characterized as “excessive” state regulation — with some exceptions, including for policies that protect children.

That order is possibly unconstitutional, said Carmel Shachar, a health policy scholar at Harvard Law School. The source of preemption authority is generally Congress, she said, and federal lawmakers twice took up, but ultimately declined to pass, a provision barring states from regulating AI.

“Based on our previous understanding of federalism and the balance of powers between Congress and the executive, a challenge here would be very likely to succeed,” Shachar said.

Some lawmakers view Trump’s order skeptically at best, noting the administration has been removing guardrails, and preventing others from erecting them, to an extreme degree.

“There isn’t really a question of, should it be federal or should it be state right now?” Bores said. “The question is, should it be state or not at all?”

©2026 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By JESSICA DAMIANO

I’m currently dusting off my seed-starting supplies and sorting through seed packets from years past. Seed starting is an annual ritual for many gardeners, but if you’re new to the party, it would be helpful to know that not all seeds should be treated the same way.

Many seeds only require soil and water to sprout. Others, however, have a harder coating that makes germination a bit difficult. That’s because in the wild, they rely on birds and other wildlife that eat them to carry them far distances before dropping them.

It’s a good plan: The journey ensures biodiversity by introducing the species to another location. And the seed’s tough outer coating ensures its survival through an animal’s digestive tract, which erodes only enough of the protective layer to allow water to enter. The remaining coating prevents the seed from waking up too early, which would otherwise spell death for tender sprouts in cold temperatures.

But nature’s survival plan creates a bit of a challenge for home gardeners because the hard coating prevents those seeds from sprouting easily. So it’s up to us to mimic the effects of stomach acid to expose the seed’s inner layer so that moisture can penetrate.

This is called scarification, and there are a few ways to do it, all of which are simple.

Sanding

Rub each seed lightly against medium-grit sandpaper, an emery board or a nail file until you see a hint of its paler inner layer. This method works best with larger seeds, but you can also tuck several small ones between two sheets of sandpaper and gently rub the sheets together. Just a little friction should do the trick.

Nicking

Sometimes I use small nail clippers intended for babies to snip a tiny sliver off the edge of the seed’s coat.

Soaking

If you have more time than wherewithal, this is the easiest method: Place the seeds in a bowl, cover them with warm water, and let them sit for a few hours or overnight. They’ll swell slightly as they take in moisture, which is exactly what you want.

Some tips

Never use hot water; cooked seeds won’t grow. Keep the temperature below 150 degrees Fahrenheit. And whatever method you choose, do it right before planting. Once the seed’s inner tissue is exposed, it will begin to dry out.

Is scarification absolutely required? No. Seeds will often sprout without it, but it could take much longer, and you’ll likely end up with far fewer seedlings. Scarified seeds don’t have to wait around for their coats to break down under soil, which is a real advantage if your growing season is short, your elevation is high or you’re a procrastinator.

Some common annuals and perennials that benefit from the practice include Indian mallow (Abutilon), columbine (Aquilegia), hollyhock (Alcea), sweet alyssum (Alyssum), milkweed (Asclepias), wild indigo (Baptisia), beautyberry (Callicarpa), bellflower (Campanula), Joe Pye weed (Eutrochium), sweet pea (Lathyrus odoratus), bluebonnet (Lupine), mallow (Malva), poppy (Papaver), beardtongue (Penstemon) and nasturtium (Tropaeolum).

Edibles to scarify include all bean types, luffa, spinach, strawberry and winter squash.

Some of the really stubborn seeds — chickpeas, lima beans, nasturtiums — respond well to a one-two approach: a little nick or sanding, followed by a soak.

Jessica Damiano writes weekly gardening columns for the AP and publishes the award-winning Weekly Dirt Newsletter. You can sign up here for weekly gardening tips and advice.

For more AP gardening stories, go to https://apnews.com/hub/gardening.

By Glenn Whipp, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — To get to the “Sinners” exhibit on the Warner Bros. Studio Tour, you have to navigate past the backlot’s iconic water tower, cross through the New York Street and then skirt city hall and the fountain from the opening credits of “Friends.” Eventually, you wind up at Stage 48, home of the Central Perk Cafe, a gift shop selling all manner of “Friends” bric-a-brac and offering a smattering of knockoff furniture from Monica’s palatial apartment to enjoy.

Comparatively, the newly installed “Sinners” showcase, featuring costumes and a couple of props, is, to use a real estate agent’s euphemism, “cozy,” certainly smaller than Rachel’s closet. On the night of its opening, “Sinners” production designer Hannah Beachler and cinematographer Autumn Durald Arkapaw are inside sitting on a sofa — not the sofa, but close enough. A few hours ago, they were celebrating with their fellow Oscar nominees at the academy’s annual luncheon.

“She’s a regular,” Arkapaw says, her arm around Beachler, who won an Oscar in 2019 for her work on “Black Panther.”

The two women and the rest of the “Sinners” team have been hobnobbing with Oscar and guild voters for months now and talking about their work on the film, which was released in April, for even longer. At the time of this “Sinners” event on the Warner Bros. lot, which included yet another screening of the movie for guild members, the Oscars were still more than a month away.

“I can believe it,” Beachler says. Adds Arkapaw: “Me too. I’m stressing about the stuff they’re having us doing. But I think Teyana Taylor said it best: ‘Don’t be complaining about answered prayers.’”

“Sinners” had a lot of prayers answered when Oscar nominations were announced last month — 16, to be precise.

Now the question is whether that record-breaking haul might be enough to catapult Ryan Coogler’s genre-defying American horror story to a best picture Oscar victory.

When it opened in September, Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another” immediately took the pole position in the best picture race, and it remains the front-runner. But all those “Sinners” Oscar nominations do complicate things. Put it this way: When you submit your movie in 16 different categories and hit in each and every one of them, you have a film boasting broad support across a dozen voting branches. That’s significant.

And if you’re a voter and you weren’t necessarily a fan of the film — or had put off watching it because the horror genre gives you pause — the nominations total does something else. It prompts you to take stock. What is everyone else seeing? Maybe you watch “Sinners” again. Maybe you finally clear the deck and press play for the first time. Perhaps you see that it’s just as much a movie of the moment as “One Battle,” what with the unapologetic, overt racism coming from the White House.

So if you’re on the fence and you do reconsider “Sinners,” maybe it’s not a complete reversal. But it might be enough for you to put the movie higher on your ranked ballot when you vote for best picture.

As you may know, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences uses a preferential ballot for the best picture category and only the best picture category. When the academy’s 10,136 voting members mark their ballots this year, they cast a single vote in 23 of the 24 Oscar categories. The nominee with the most votes wins.

For best picture, though, members are instructed to rank the 10 nominated movies. The system, in place since the academy expanded the best picture field from five to 10 nominees in 2009, is designed to reflect the wishes of the greatest number of voters. This means that the winner is sometimes not the movie that is most passionately loved but the picture that is most generally liked — or, if you’re a glass-half-empty kind of person, the picture that is least disliked.

The process works like this: Once voting ends, PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants sort the best picture ballots and place them in stacks based on members’ No. 1 votes. They then eliminate the movie with the fewest first-place votes, giving those votes to each ballot’s second-ranked film. The process continues — smallest stacks eliminated, votes redistributed to the next choice down — until one movie has more than 50% of the vote.

The math to “Sinners” winning best picture necessitates it being the No. 1, 2 or 3 choice on more ballots than “One Battle After Another.” And that plays into what a couple of awards consultants told me about the psychological effect the movie’s record-breaking 16 nominations might have on voters when they rank the nominated movies.

“Maybe it’s not your favorite, but you still rank it high because of that overwhelming level of respect,” says one rival campaigner. “Who knows if the math adds up. But at this point in the season, you’re looking for any advantage you can find.”

A test of that math will come Saturday at the Producers Guild Awards, a ceremony that uses the same preferential ballot system to determine its best picture. The PGA winner more often than not repeats at the Oscars, though in the last decade there have been two notable exceptions — “Moonlight” besting PGA winner “La La Land” in 2017 and, three years later, “Parasite” taking the Oscar over “1917.”

Should “Sinners” prevail at the PGA and then the next night go on to win the cast prize at the Actor Awards (formerly known as the Screen Actors Guild Awards), then the race will be dramatically recast. Both ceremonies take place in the middle of the window of final voting for the Oscars, which runs Feb. 26 through March 5.

“It’s a miracle that we were all nominated,” Beachler says. “That’s rare for everyone to get that recognition.”

For a film with a hero named Preacher Boy, one last miracle certainly isn’t out of the question. And if the last few months have taught us anything, it’s that you underestimate “Sinners” at your peril.

©2026 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By J.M. HIRSCH, Associated Press

MIAMI (AP) — For nearly 10 years running, Lesley VanNess never missed the South Beach Wine & Food Festival, a beachfront bacchanal of celebrities, booze and bites that tens of thousands of attendees pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to join.

It was about access, the chance to nosh and gab with the likes of Rachael Ray and Bobby Flay, people she otherwise could experience only via the hands-in-pans purview of the Food Network.

“I’d get the Food Network Magazine and there would be advertisements for it. I’m like, ‘0h my god! You could go to that? Go to these great events and meet these celebrity chefs?’,” said VanNess, a 44-year-old former restaurant owner from Iowa. “I’m in!”

That was during the food festival heyday, a decade-long stretch starting around 2010 when copycat events popped up everywhere, creating a circuit-like scene for A-list chefs (and ample wannabes).

Then came social media, a force that melted barriers between fans and food celebs. People like VanNess realized that instead of crowding into football field-size tents to chance a chat with Flay, they could just DM him.

Or better yet, they could tune in to online #instafood chatter to perhaps discover the next Ray or Flay, a whole new level of social cred unlocked.

VanNess hasn’t been back to South Beach since at least 2020. “I’d rather see them on social media or go to their restaurant,” she said.

What chefs and foodies want

Last weekend, the South Beach Wine & Food Festival turned 25, cementing it as one of the elders of the festival scene, along with its sister event, the New York City Wine & Food Festival, and the Food & Wine Classic in Aspen, Colorado. By all accounts, all three are going strong. But many smaller festivals have disappeared, victims of the pandemic, slumping ticket sales, soaring food and labor costs, and chef disinterest.

So, are food festivals still relevant?

“South Beach and New York, they fill a niche and I can see them going on forever. But food events and food festivals are going in a whole other direction,” said Mike Thelin, one of the founders of the now shuttered Oregon festival Feast Portland.

Festivals’ success long hinged on the need of chefs, wineries, mixologists, food producers, and what only now are known as food influencers to reach a wider audience. In 2026, that’s an antiquated notion.

“In 2010, they wanted to get on the map,” Thelin said. “They don’t need that anymore.”

Seeking that local connection

That doesn’t mean festivals are dead. There’s a recalibration happening, he explained. What many call “white tent affairs,” a not-so-subtle nod to South Beach’s events that stretch along the sands of the Atlantic, are fading.

“If I’m going to a certain region, I want to know what makes that region special,” Thelin said. “I don’t want to go into a giant white tent that’s devoid of geography and drink a bunch of wines from California if I’m in Washington or Tennessee.”

Taking their place? A host of small, hyper-focused events grounded in people and place. Events like AAPI Food & Wine, a 3-year-old Oregon and New York City-based festival that highlights the work of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

“The foodie scene has changed so much,” said Lois Cho, one of the founders of that event, which draws about 1,000 attendees a year. “People didn’t realize wine and black bean noodles and izakaya and all these different Thai dishes — they had no idea they paired. Creating a different narrative and community where you can connect with people, those are the types of events we’ll see now.”

Social media, she said, unlocked so many overlooked voices.

“And a lot of people haven’t caught on because it’s been a lot of cookie-cutter events for the last 20 years,” she said.

It’s been a similar story for the Southbound Food Festival, which celebrates the culinary scene of Birmingham, Alabama. Started in 2022 and stretching over a week every fall, the event pulls support not just from chefs, but also the region’s art and music scenes.

“There’s less appeal today with these TV chefs. Great chefs are everywhere,” said Nancy Hopkins, one of the event’s founders. “People come to celebrate and uplift Birmingham.”

The OG festivals still draw crowds

Still, as Thelin said, the South Beach Wine & Food Festival and it’s New York sibling aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, white tents, Food Network faces and all. Tickets to nearly all of South Beach’s 110 events, which featured 500-plus chefs and food personalities, sold out this year. In its quarter century, the festival has raised more than $45 million for the Florida International University Chaplin School of Hospitality and Tourism Management.

Lee Schrager, the force behind the two festivals, said the South Beach blueprint remains relevant today.

“There’s something very different about DM’ing Bobby Flay than going to an intimate dinner at a table of 10 that he’s doing that’s sold out in three days,” Schrager said. “Social media has made everyone available, but can you touch and feel it?”

The first South Beach event, attended by only 10 chefs, was little more than a wine tasting. This year, more than 30,000 people attended. Martha Stewart hosted a luncheon at Joe’s Stone Crab, Italian celebrity butcher Dario Cecchini tossed slabs of beef into an eager dinner crowd, and Ray reprised her Burger Bash, where everything from Kool-Aid pickles to foie gras adorned smashed wagyu patties on potato buns.

Schrager acknowledged that most smaller festivals can’t operate the way his do, including hosting events he knows will sell tickets even if they ultimately lose money. He said he sold $7 million in tickets this year and brought in $6 million in sponsorships — and netted just a little over $1 million.

“It’s a good number in the festival world, but it’s not a great return if you’re running a profit business,” he said.

Ray, who has participated in nearly every South Beach and New York festival, continues to show up. It’s about loyalty to Schrager, who took her seriously when much of the food world didn’t. But it’s also about in-person access to fans.

“I love talking to people, being with people, having people climb all over you, hang on you, give you a compliment,” she said. “I love being in the real-life experience.”

J.M. Hirsch is a food and travel journalist, and the former food editor for The Associated Press.