Another major storm has many Californians asking when will this stop? Dozens of towns and communities are still dealing with flooding from earlier storms.

It's Opening Day for Major League Baseball. The league is hoping that some new rules this season will mean big changes for players ? and for fans.

Russia detained a U.S. journalist working for The Wall Street Journal, accusing him of espionage. Evan Gershkovich was reporting in the city of Yekaterinburg when he was detained.

NPR's Adrian Florido talks to Christopher Stokes, who leads the Doctors Without Borders operation in Ukraine. A recent report by the organization says the medical situation in frontline areas is dire.

President Biden and Speaker McCarthy continue to spar over the next steps in negotiations on the debt ceiling. The country faces a historic default if no deal is reached before the summer deadline.

Irvo Otieno was killed in custody earlier this month at a psychiatric hospital while experiencing mental health distress. Reverend Al Sharpton says this has to be a turning point.

All 276 lawmakers present voted in favor of Finland's application. The action lifted the last hurdle in the way of the Nordic country's long-delayed accession into the Western military alliance.

The first of its kind in the country, the Idaho legislature has passed a bill allowing criminal charges for those who help a minor get an abortion out of state. The bill now goes to Gov. Brad Little.

The former president and 2024 hopeful has been indicted by a grand jury, multiple sources close to Trump confirmed to NPR. Join NPR as we unpack key moments.

The criminal indictment has been a topic of long-term anticipation, sharpened by recent news that Trump was invited to testify before the grand jury.

Former President Trump has been indicted on criminal charges by a New York grand jury. This makes him the first former president in American history to face indictment.

NPR's Adrian Florido talks to Kim Wehle, former U.S. attorney and now professor at the University of Baltimore, about the political and legal implications of an indictment of former President Trump.

Donald Trump will become the first former president to face criminal charges ? and it's happening right in the middle of a presidential primary campaign.

The Utah jury quickly sided with the Oscar-winning actress -turned-lifestyle guru on Thursday, saying that she wasn't at fault and that she was the victim in the 2016 ski slope collision.

Mexican authorities are investigating the deaths of at least 38 migrants as homicides. The deaths of at least 38 migrants in a fire Monday at a migrant detention center in Ciudad Ju?rez, just across the Texas border, are now being investigated as homicides, according to Mexican officials. It?s one of the deadliest incidents in immigration detention in recent history, and it?s evidence of the Mexican government?s limited capacity to care for and process migrants who have been shut out of the US through years of restrictive border policies. In a news conference Wednesday, Mexican authorities said they had identified eight suspects, including federal and state agents and a migrant they believe started the fire, and would seek four arrests. The announcement comes after immigrant advocates raised concerns about security footage obtained by El Universal that shows a security guard and another man in a National Institute of Migration uniform leaving the scene of the fire without releasing migrants from their cells.?We hope that immediate steps are taken, including criminal penalties if warranted, to prevent another tragedy like this,? Guerline Jozef, co-founder and executive director of the advocacy group Haitian Bridge Alliance, said in a statement. Mexican President Andr?s Manuel L?pez Obrador claimed in a news conference Monday that the migrants, after finding out that they were going to be deported, had put mattresses at the door of the shelter and set them on fire in protest. ?They did not imagine that this was going to cause this terrible misfortune,? L?pez Obrador said. UN Secretary-General Ant?nio Guterres has called for a ?thorough investigation? of the tragedy. In addition to those who were killed, another 30 migrants were injured and sent to nearby hospitals. On Tuesday, Mexican immigration authorities managed to identify the victims who died or were injured in the blaze, which included 28 Guatemalans, 13 Hondurans, 12 Salvadorans, 13 Venezuelans, a Colombian, and an Ecuadorian. Protests in immigration detention aren?t uncommon. Hunger strikes broke out at two immigrant detention facilities in California in March over low wages, long waits for medical treatment, and rotten food. But rarely do these protests have as deadly consequences as in the case of Monday?s fire.Immigrant advocates accuse US policies of endangering migrantsImmigrant advocates have accused the Biden administration of putting migrants waiting in Mexico in harm?s way by turning them away at the border en masse. Jozef urged the Biden administration to ?open the ports of entry to allow asylum seekers to seek protection so that no one has to wait in dangerous and vulnerable conditions at the US-Mexico border anymore.? The administration will soon sunset a controversial pandemic-era border enforcement policy that has kept millions of asylum seekers from entering the country. That pandemic-era rule, known as Title 42, was initiated by former President Donald Trump on dubious public health grounds in 2020 and is set to end in May. In short, it allowed the US to rapidly expel migrants on the basis that they would spread Covid-19, even well after cross-border travel resumed.In lieu of Title 42, the administration has proposed a new way to limit migrant border crossings. The rule would require migrants to schedule an appointment on the CBP One smartphone app to enter the US through an official border crossing or show that they were already denied asylum in Mexico or another country. If they fail to do so, the migrants would be turned away. It would go into effect for two years, with the possibility of an extension.But some Senate Democrats have urged the administration to withdraw that proposed rule on the basis that it would likely violate federal asylum law. The fire shows how Mexico?s immigration system is under strainUS policy isn?t solely to blame for the adverse conditions in Mexico that may have contributed to the tragedy at the migrant detention center. As a result of Trump-era policies that have largely continued under the Biden administration, there are now more migrants than ever waiting in Mexican border cities to enter the US as a result of policies pursued by the Trump and Biden administrations. As of late December, there were a record estimated 20,000 migrants waiting in Ju?rez alone. But Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokesperson for the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said the Mexican government can invest more in expanding its capacity to accommodate migrant populations that include families and unaccompanied children. ?[T]he Mexican government has an obligation to improve the conditions of migrant centers and collaborate with international organizations to provide basic services and protection ? in particular when accepting return of migrants from the United States,? she said.A network of NGOs and state agencies have provided most of the funding for humanitarian aid for migrants, but the available resources are inconsistent across Mexican cities. Update, March 30, 1:45 pm ET: This story, originally published on March 29, has been updated with new information on Mexican authorities? homicides investigations.

California v. Texas about the legality of the ACA on November 10, 2020, in Washington, DC. | Samuel Corum/Getty Images A notoriously partisan judge has launched a new attack on one of Obamacare?s key provisions. A case that was just decided by one of the most partisan judges in the country has the potential to make it much harder for many Americans to get health insurance that covers basic preventive care, like cancer screenings or birth control.Five years ago, Judge Reed O?Connor attempted to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. His decision striking down Obamacare was widely mocked, even in conservative circles ? in the words of one National Review article, O?Connor?s reasoning ?doesn?t even merit being called silly. It?s ridiculous? ? and the decision was eventually reversed by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court.Nevertheless, on Thursday, O?Connor handed down a new decision that blocks a key provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires health insurers to cover a wide range of preventive health care services ? ranging from cancer screenings to obesity counseling to drugs that prevent the spread of HIV.This Thursday decision is not a surprise. Last September, O?Connor declared a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, which empowers a body known as the US Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF) to require health insurers to cover certain treatments, to be unconstitutional. His more recent decision imposes a nationwide injunction implementing his opinion from September. So, as of Thursday morning, health insurers are no longer required to cover many forms of preventive care ? including, once again, screenings for deadly diseases such as cancer and drugs that can prevent the spread of potentially deadly viruses such as HIV.It is highly unlikely that O?Connor will have the final word in this case, known as Braidwood Management v. Becerra. And it is possible that this case will get even worse for patients as it advances to higher courts.One reason why is that O?Connor rejected a broader attack on two other bodies within the federal government, one of which has the power to require health insurers to cover vaccinations, and another that has the power to issue ?comprehensive guidelines? governing women?s health and preventive care for infants, children, and adolescents. O?Connor reasoned that binding precedents from higher courts prevented him from striking down these two other government bodies.But, as this case works its way to higher courts, it will be heard by judges ? and, most likely, justices ? who have the power to overrule these precedents.Worse, five members of the Supreme Court ? all Republican appointees ? strongly suggested in Little Sisters v. Pennsylvania (2020) that all three of these government bodies do not have the power to require health insurers to cover anything. And the Court has only grown more conservative since Little Sisters was decided, as liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was replaced by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.The result is that health coverage in the United States could get worse ? potentially much worse ? in the near future, thanks to the Republican Party?s successful capture of the federal judiciary. What are the stakes in Braidwood Management?Braidwood Management concerns three federal entities with specialized expertise on vaccination or preventive medicine. The Affordable Care Act gave each of these entities some authority to decide which treatments must be fully covered by insurers ? meaning that patients will pay no out-of-pocket expenses beyond their insurance premiums.The PSTF has fairly broad authority to require insurers to cover preventive treatments for all patients. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) determines which vaccinations should be covered. And a third entity, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), issues guidelines regarding women?s health and pediatric care.Together, these three government entities have placed about 80 items on the list of services insurers must cover. They include a wide range of preventive care, such as blood screening for newborns, vision screening for children, birth control, Pap tests, and screening for conditions like depression, hepatitis, HIV, and some forms of cancer.The Braidwood plaintiffs effectively want to strip these three entities of their power over health insurers, and to eliminate the list of services that insurers must cover in the process. Those plaintiffs are a hodgepodge of individuals and business owners (along with some businesses owned by individual plaintiffs) who object to buying insurance that covers at least some of these treatments, on either religious or economic grounds.Notably, the list of these treatments includes pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), medication that can be taken by HIV-negative patients to dramatically reduce their risk of contracting this virus. O?Connor?s decisions conclude that, even if the three preventive health bodies are otherwise lawful, many employers may still refuse to cover PrEP in their health plans if those employers object to providing this coverage on religious grounds.This religious liberty dispute about PrEP aside, however, most of the issues in Braidwood Management involve hypertechnical constitutional objections to Congress?s decision to delegate authority to the three government entities.One reason Congress delegated this power to these three entities, instead of simply itemizing which treatments health insurers must cover, is that it recognized that new health conditions and treatments would emerge over time. The Congress that enacted the Affordable Care Act in 2010, for example, could not have known that Covid-19 would emerge nine years later.O?Connor struck down the PSTF but left the other two government bodies in placeO?Connor?s September decision determined that the PSTF ? the body with broad authority over preventive care for all patients ? is unconstitutional. But it left the government?s authority over vaccinations, pediatric care, and women?s care largely intact. O?Connor did so based on a highly technical conclusion about how certain government employees must be chosen.The Constitution deems some, but not all, federal employees to be ?officers of the United States.? Certain high-ranking officers, such as Cabinet secretaries and federal judges, must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But other, lower-ranking officers may be appointed by the president acting alone, by a court, or by ?the heads of departments? ? a term that ordinarily refers to Cabinet secretaries and other very high-ranking officials who answer directly to the president.O?Connor concluded in his September decision that these rules do not impact the ACIP?s determinations that certain vaccines should be covered by insurers, or the HRSA?s determinations about women?s and pediatric care. That?s because both of these entities are under the supervision of the secretary of health and human services, and the HHS secretary ratified the ACIP and HRSA?s decisions to place certain items on the list of treatments that insurers must cover. Thus, even if the leaders of the ACIP and the HRSA were not properly appointed as officers of the United States, it doesn?t matter because a Cabinet secretary ? that is, an official who was nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate ? exercised their own authority to sign off on the ACIP and the HRSA?s decisions. The rules governing the PSTF, however, are much murkier. PSTF members are not directly supervised by the HHS secretary in the way that the leaders of the other two entities are. And its members are selected by the director of the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, who is not one of the high-ranking officials empowered to appoint officers of the United States. Accordingly, if PSTF members qualify as officers, they were not properly appointed.That said, under Lucia v. SEC (2018), even someone who exercises ?significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States? qualifies as an officer only if they perform ?continuing and permanent? duties rather than ?occasional or temporary? ones. And it is far from clear that members of the PSTF, who are health experts who serve on a part-time, volunteer basis, are engaged in anything more than ?occasional or temporary? service.As O?Connor admits in his September opinion, members of the PSTF only meet ?three times a year for two days in Washington, D.C.? And, in between meetings, they only ?devote approximately 200 hours a year? to PSTF work. So that looks a lot like occasional or temporary work, and not ?continuing and permanent? duties.Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has not defined clearly where the line is between ?occasional or temporary? work and ?continuing and permanent? work on the government?s behalf, so there is at least some ambiguity about whether 200 hours of work every year (plus a few meetings) qualifies as continuing and permanent. And O?Connor is a staunchly anti-Obamacare judge who attempted to repeal the entire law in 2018.So it is unsurprising that he latched onto this ambiguity to reach the outcome that would do the most harm to the Affordable Care Act. Accordingly, he deemed PSTF members to be officers who were not properly appointed, and thus their work is invalid.This case is likely to get worse for patients as it moves up the appellate chainThe Braidwood Management plaintiffs also make a separate attack on the government entities with power over preventive care, claiming that Congress?s decision to delegate power to these three entities violates something known as the ?nondelegation doctrine,? a judicially created doctrine that the Supreme Court briefly flirted with in the 1930s and then abandoned for nearly a century.But this nondelegation doctrine, which claims that there are strict constitutional limits on Congress?s power to delegate policymaking authority to federal agencies, appears to be on the verge of a renaissance. In 2019, five members of the Court seemed to endorse a proposal by Justice Neil Gorsuch to revive nondelegation. Notably, however, these five justices have never joined together in the same case to endorse Gorsuch?s approach, so the nondelegation doctrine technically still is not good law.Five of the Court?s Republican appointees did join Justice Clarence Thomas?s majority opinion in Little Sisters, however, which criticized the Affordable Care Act for supposedly giving the HRSA ?virtually unbridled discretion? to determine which preventive treatments should be added to the list of treatments insurers must cover. That?s a strong indication that there are five votes who are open to the Braidwood Management plaintiffs? nondelegation argument.That said, Little Sisters also explicitly reserved the question of how the nondelegation doctrine should apply to Obamacare for a future case. As Thomas wrote, ?no party has pressed a constitutional challenge to the breadth of the delegation involved here.?But Braidwood Management raises the very nondelegation issue that Thomas alluded to in his Little Sisters opinion. And, as noted above, the Court has only grown more conservative since Little Sisters, because Justice Ginsburg was replaced by Justice Barrett.All of which is a long way of saying that, while O?Connor?s decision only struck down part of the federal government?s ability to ensure that health insurers cover treatments like cancer screenings or birth control, the Supreme Court could strike down all of the government?s authority to do so.

Over-the-counter Narcan is a big win for slowing overdose deaths. But there is more to do. A long-sought tool in the fight against America?s opioid crisis is becoming available later this year: Narcan, the nasal spray that can stop opioid overdoses as they are happening, will finally be sold over the counter.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the change on Wednesday, a regulatory overhaul that patient advocates and community health groups have been pushing for. Emergent BioSolutions, the manufacturer of Narcan, said the product should be stocked on store shelves by the end of the summer.It?s a welcome sign of progress amid America?s worsening opioid crisis. Nationally, nearly 107,000 Americans died after overdosing on some kind of drug in 2021, up from about 92,000 in 2020 and 70,600 in 2019. The majority of those overdoses involved opioids and specifically fentanyl, the synthetic opioid that is much more potent than heroin and has become ubiquitous in the country?s drug supply over the past decade, contributing to the increasing number of overdose deaths.Narcan, the first-of-its-kind spray version of the anti-overdose medication naloxone, is remarkably effective at stopping overdoses. The drug blocks the receptors in a person?s brain that are targeted by opioids, reversing the dramatic slowdown in respiration that can lead to sudden death. It works quickly, within two to three minutes of being administered.Nearly 17 million doses of naloxone were distributed nationwide in 2021, according to a report from the Reagan-Udall Foundation on behalf of the FDA, continuing a surge in the drug?s availability since Narcan first debuted in 2015. Previous studies have found that the expansion of naloxone access decreased opioid overdose deaths by 10 percent or more in state and local jurisdictions that tried to make the drug more available.But despite that progress, the United States has still been struggling to get naloxone into the hands of people who really need it. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly half of overdose deaths in 2021 occurred with another person nearby who could have potentially intervened. Public health advocates have also long encouraged the co-prescribing of naloxone and prescription opioids, but that?s still extremely rare.Two problems have stood in the way of getting Narcan to people who may depend on it to save their life: stigma and cost. The FDA?s decision to allow Narcan sales over the counter could help to address the first, but may not do much on the second ? with a current retail price of $50 or more, cost is still a factor. This week?s news is a step in the right direction, but far from the end of America?s battle to prevent drug overdose deaths.How making Narcan available over the counter could help prevent overdose deathsBefore Wednesday?s FDA decision, Narcan was already available at retail pharmacies nationwide. Almost every state had issued a standing order to pharmacists, allowing them to distribute the drug to anyone who asks for it.But that required people to be comfortable approaching the pharmacy desk and making that request, which implies that either they or someone in their life is abusing drugs. Some people also reportedly worried about the information being shared with their health insurer if they produced an insurance card, even though most insurers have been covering Narcan at no cost to the patient. They might also need to pay for it, and 20 percent of people with substance use disorder do not have health insurance, according to the Reagan-Udall Foundation. That means they would have to pay the full price in order to get naloxone.Tellingly, out of those 17 million naloxone doses that were distributed in 2021, only a small share, about 2.6 million, passed through retail pharmacies. The other 14 million-plus doses were provided to patients by other medical providers, such as doctors and hospitals, or other groups such as health departments, harm reduction groups, first responders, schools, and community health organizations.Making Narcan available over the counter, instead of requiring somebody to confer with a pharmacist, should help to reduce the risk that stigma will prevent somebody from obtaining the drug in the first place. CVS and Walgreens, the country?s two largest retail pharmacy chains, said they both plan to stock their shelves with Narcan as soon as the over-the-counter version becomes available.In addition, convenience stores, gas stations, and other retail stores will now be able to carry Narcan. New York City is planning to set up vending machines with two packs of Narcan.That should make it easier to put Narcan in the hands of people who need it. The FDA determined, as part of its decision this week, that Narcan is simple enough to be used with appropriate instructions on its packaging. Some experts do worry that the opportunity to educate users will be missed by cutting out pharmacists, so here are some general tips:Signs of an overdose include a person being non-responsive, having slowed or stopped breathing, becoming purple or blue in their extremities, and their pupils becoming smallTo administer a dose of Narcan, lean the person?s head back and insert the spray plunger into one of their nostrils, then press to administer the doseAfter administering the medicine, call 9-1-1If the person does not respond within a few minutes of the first dose being administered, a second dose may be necessaryBut while the FDA?s decision should remove some barriers to naloxone access, it has not eliminated them entirely.The barriers that still exist to getting Narcan to the people who need itThe primary obstacle remaining to naloxone access is cost. Emergent BioSolutions did not immediately say what price it would set for over-the-counter Narcan, but the drug currently retails between $50 and $100, according to news reports.Previous research has found that costs as low as $10 can prevent people from buying medications that they need. That may prove especially true for people who are using ? and therefore purchasing ? illicit substances. As one recovery specialist in Minnesota who himself was in recovery told the Associated Press: ?There was no way I would spend $10 for something to save my life when I needed that money to buy drugs.?Stakeholders convened by the Addiction Policy Forum suggested a top-end price of $20 per unit, with a suggested retail price between $5 and $20, in order to prevent cost from being a barrier to people obtaining the medication.Health insurance generally covers Narcan for free or a minimal copay with a prescription, but health insurance does not typically cover over-the-counter medications. Public health advocates are urging insurers to continue covering the over-the-counter version at zero cost, but it remains to be seen whether they will. That would still raise the possibility that people will choose not to purchase the drug rather than alert their health insurer that they or somebody in their household is using drugs.Ultimately, cheaper versions of Narcan and other forms of naloxone would help to solve the cost crisis and this week?s FDA decision may open the door for their approval.Harm Reduction Therapeutics has already asked the FDA to approve its naloxone spray for over-the-counter sales, and experts said the agency?s decision on Narcan likely opened the door for that product?s approval. Generic competition would also help to reduce the sticker prices for people purchasing the drug directly off the shelf.Public health experts are also urging the government to make other forms of naloxone available over the counter. Liquid vials of the medication, sold with syringes, can often be much cheaper (as little as $4) than the spray version and, according to people who work in recovery, are sometimes preferred by people familiar with syringe use because of their drug abuse.So there is still work to be done to make naloxone as widely available as possible. And the need is only growing more urgent.Narcan is more important than ever as fentanyl rips through the USDrug overdose deaths have been steadily rising for the past two decades. About 20,000 Americans died of overdoses in 2000, a fifth of the lives lost by 2021. Part of the problem is the proliferation of dependency, something that began with the over-prescription of opioids starting in the 1990s.But the other problem is the increased potency of the drugs that people are taking.In the mid-2000s, most overdose deaths were from commonly prescribed opioids, the most well-known version of which is OxyContin. People either took too many pills after getting a prescription because of an injury or chronic pain, or those drugs entered into the black market.But by the 2010s, the opioid crisis started to change. Between the high costs associated with prescription opioids and government efforts to begin restricting their supply, heroin started to become the drug of choice. Criminal drug gangs seized on the opportunity to bring that cheaper alternative to America, as was chronicled in Sam Quinones?s 2016 book Dreamland.By the middle of the last decade, commonly prescribed opioids and heroin were almost even in the number of overdose deaths attributed to them. But another culprit was quickly picking up momentum: synthetic opioids, the best known of which is fentanyl. Over the past 10 years, those drugs have become by far the most common cause of overdose death in the US. Reagan-Udall Foundation

We asked four political strategists and pollsters about what could come next. After weeks of speculation, a grand jury reportedly voted Thursday to indict former President Donald Trump in connection to hush money payments to the porn star Stormy Daniels, though the particular criminal charges are not yet known. Trump has spent weeks signaling that he thinks the indictment, the first levied against a former president, will benefit him politically ? so much so that he reportedly wanted to be seen in handcuffs. But it?s not clear he?s right.Trump?s indictment, if confirmed, could strengthen support among the Republican base for his 2024 reelection campaign. But it could also turn off voters who have come to see Trump as a liability given his refusal to accept his 2020 election loss, the resulting fallout of the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol, and the bevy of additional criminal and civil investigations he?s facing. Those include probes into his business dealings, interference in the 2020 election in Georgia, withholding of classified documents after he left office, and his role in inciting the insurrection, which could lead to additional indictments. Even if an indictment earns him votes over his Republican Party challengers in the primary, it?s unclear whether the same would be true in the general election. The news that it might be imminent had already splintered his own party, with some of his political opponents, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, invoking it in their lines of attack; others had rushed to the former president?s defense in the face of what they frame as a politically motivated case. We spoke with pollsters and political strategists from both parties before the news of the indictment dropped about what they think it could mean in the months ahead.The case that an indictment may help Trump Robert Cahaly, senior strategist and pollster at the Trafalgar Group and former Republican political consultant:With all the stuff that?s out there brewing that could turn into some kind of legal action against Trump, this is probably the weakest case. I think it?s very beneficial for Trump that something so superficial and silly is the first example. It?s one thing when OJ [Simpson] is in the headlines, and everybody thinks that what he did was horrible. It?s another thing when somebody?s in the headlines and everybody doesn?t think going after them is fair. Trump?s best role has always been a conservative martyr. And this falls right in that ... Literally, I can see them selling millions of T-shirts with his mug shot as a badge of honor.There are a lot of people who really like Trump, but they just don?t think he can win. They just think they need somebody different. This is taking some of those people off the sidelines and making them consider Trump even now in the primary ... Whoever?s galvanizing your opposition the most is most likely someone that your fans are going to rally behind.Whit Ayres, ??founder and president of the polling firm North Star Opinion Research and adviser to GOP congressional and gubernatorial candidates: Anything I say is rank speculation completely uninformed by data or evidence. We?re talking about something that has never ever occurred before in American history. There is no data on the political implications of indictment of a former president and leading presidential candidate. I am skeptical that a charge about a years-old event that everybody has already known about for years is likely to have much impact on anything, other than it will probably rally Republicans and supporters of Trump around him, at least in the short term. This would be a very easy case to frame as a partisan political indictment. Much easier to frame that way than, say, the Georgia voting case or the classified documents or January 6.It will force every other Republican candidate to react to it, which of course, keeps Trump directly in the spotlight ? as he usually is.The case that an indictment hurts Trump (and his party)Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist among the few who correctly predicted the results of the 2022 midterms:I think it will help [Trump] in the Republican primary, but will continue to degrade him with the broader electorate. MAGA has underperformed in three consecutive elections, and we know it doesn?t work in the battlegrounds. And if the Republicans present themselves as the party all for MAGA in 2024, they?re gonna have a very, very hard time winning the presidency. Trump coming in as the nominee, having been indicted potentially two or three times ? there?s no scenario where that?s helpful to him in a national election. It perhaps will help him crowd out DeSantis and other challengers in the primary. But of course, that would be a disaster for the Republican Party. I?d much rather be us than them heading into this next election.?Matt Dole, an Ohio-based Republican strategist: Trump faced an uphill battle before this for the nomination. I think [his indictment] probably just adds to that. A lot of folks in the Republican coalition want an option that espouses [Trump?s] policies without bringing the antics. Ron DeSantis, obviously, is the model for that. Over the long term, I think this probably helps Trump?s opponents in the Republican primary. There?s certainly a lot to be said for political attacks on President Trump. But I think throughout the entire Republican coalition, this probably hurts him more than it would help.There is a subset of Republicans who are going to support Donald Trump to the very end. And they are loud. And they are well-covered by the media. There will certainly be blowback. But again, all of this is feeding into the fatigue about Donald Trump. So I could personally believe that this is a politically motivated indictment. And I could also believe that it?s just another thing to add to the long list of things that I?m tired of having to defend and deal with as a Republican.?Update March 30, 5:50 pm: This story has been updated with news that the grand jury reportedly voted to indict Trump.

What we know about the first-ever indictment of a US president. A Manhattan grand jury has voted to indict former President Donald Trump for fraud associated with allegedly paying hush money in 2016 to porn actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an affair. Trump?s indictment, the first ever of a former US president, is expected to be announced within days, according to a New York Times report.The Times report, based on five sources familiar with the case, said that an indictment would ?likely be announced in the coming days.? Prosecutors working for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will reportedly soon ask Trump ?to surrender and to face arraignment on charges that remain unknown for now.?According to former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, Cohen paid Daniels $130,000, for which Trump?s business, the Trump Organization, later reimbursed him. Bragg?s case reportedly alleges that the Trump Organization falsely logged the payment to Daniels as a legal expense so it wouldn?t have to be disclosed as money benefiting Trump?s presidential campaign.The former president is in ongoing legal jeopardy, federally and in the state of Georgia. Trump is facing at least four investigations, including into his role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol in 2021, and possible mishandling of classified documents. And that legal jeopardy could have consequences not just for Trump but for American politics more broadly.Follow here for all of Vox?s coverage of the investigations into Trump.

Countersuing an optometrist for a ski slope collision is basically Gwyneth Paltrow?s White Lotus audition. Editors note, March 30, 8 pm ET: On Thursday evening, a jury sided with Gwyneth Paltrow, saying that she was not at fault for the 2016 ski accident.This week marked the return of one of the most riveting shows featuring affluent white people, the limits of their kindness, the destruction they?re capable of, and the power they wield. No, it?s not that one. Or that one.Welcome to the second week of the Gwyneth Paltrow hit-and-run ski trial.Seventy-six-year-old retired optometrist Terry Sanderson is suing Paltrow, the extremely wealthy, Oscar-winning actress/businesswoman/nepotism baby, alleging that a collision with her on a bunny slope in Park City, Utah, on a fateful February day in 2016 ruined his life. Paltrow countersued, claiming that the man actually barreled downhill into her, not seeing her until it was too late. Some of his injuries, she and her lawyers allege, predate the collision. She claims his lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to leverage her fame into a payday. And while the ongoing civil court case will determine who is liable and pays up ? Sanderson is asking for $300,000 in damages while Paltrow is asking for a symbolic $1 and the legal fees ? the judgment has all but been eclipsed by Paltrow?s blistering testimony on the stand.During her cross-examination on March 24, Paltrow took the stand and, under oath, stated that she isn?t friends with Taylor Swift, that she is a shade under 5-foot-10 but shrinking, and that she yelled ?you?re skiing directly into my fucking back? when the septuagenarian was reeling on the snowy ground, flailing after they knocked into one another.The randomness of the questioning combined with Paltrow?s frank answers have given the trial a surreal feel, like a prestige dark comedy on HBO designed to spoof the rich. It could pass as a sharp, dark bit of satire on American wealth and celebrity if it weren?t, you know, actual life.The threshold between satire and reality, the absurd and the logical, the unattainable and the familiar, is apparently Gwyneth Paltrow on a Park City beginner slope. In a world where we?re told that celebrities are just like us and celebrities themselves tell us they?re just like us, Paltrow?s ski trial is a blazing, mesmerizing reminder that, actually, they?re not like us at all.Did Gwyneth Paltrow ski into an aging optometrist? Or did an aging optometrist ski into Gwyneth Paltrow?The Park City trial is attempting to determine who hit whom on the slopes of the Deer Valley ski resort on February 26, 2016. Sanderson and Paltrow both allege that the other skied into their back, and that each was further down the slope from the other skier. Physiologically, humans have one front side and one backside, so it would seem to be close to impossible for this collision to happen as per the details of both Paltrow and Sanderson?s accounts.Sanderson?s lawsuit claims that Paltrow skied ?out of control? and barreled into him, which resulted in four broken ribs, a brain injury, and ?other serious injuries.? His lawyers allege that Paltrow committed a hit-and-run, whooshing away after the incident, and that ski instructor Eric Christiansen, who was teaching Paltrow?s family at the time, filed a false report about the events of the accident. Initially, Sanderson sought $3.1 million in damages but was dismissed. He is now seeking $300,000 in damages.?Before this crash, Terry was a charming, outgoing, gregarious person,? Sanderson?s lawyer, Lawrence D. Buhler, said in his opening statement last week. ?After the crash, he?s no longer charming.? Rick Bowmer/Getty Images

TL;DR: The Ultimate Guide to Taxes Bundle

TL;DR: The Ultimate Advanced Cybersecurity Professional Certification Bundle is on sale for only $59.97 through April 3. That breaks down to only $11.99 per course.As large as the cybersecurity industry could grow, entry-level positions may still be steeply competitive. If you want to stand out from the crowd, you may want to seek out professional certifications that you can study for on your own time. The Ultimate Advanced CyberSecurity Professional Certification Bundle gives you unlimited access to 175 hours of expert instruction on the fundamentals of cybersecurity

If you ever had to pinch-and-zoom your way around a website, trying to press microscopic buttons just to get to the next page, then you probably know how important it is that your website can adapt to the small screen. Squarespace is a website design and hosting platform that ensures that every one of its 90+ templates will resize itself for a legible mobile experience, but some templates offer even more options with customisable features you can play with just for the mobile version of your website.Among these templates, some of the mobile features are pretty basic and come down to adjusting font size. But others, such as any of the 40+ templates within the Brine template family, offer many ways to tweak the mobile version of your website and give your phone-holding viewers a strong first impression.Do Squarespace websites work on mobile?Every Squarespace template is built off the concept of responsive design, which changes the dimensions of your website as viewers adjust the size of their browser or switch devices to read your content from a tablet or phone. On mobile, all of your content will stack vertically, eliminating the need to pinch, zoom, or scroll horizontally. Aside from making your site easier to use, there are many benefits to having a mobile-optimised website, such as having a higher SEO indexing priority and the opportunity to take advantage of some mobile-only customizations.How do you make a Squarespace website look good on mobile?

TL;DR