Nature Climate Change, Published online: 21 November 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02486-9

Climate change is expected to lead to higher day-to-day temperature variability in mid- to low latitudes. Here the authors show that extreme day-to-day temperature changes have distinct impacts on human health and become more frequent and intense in mid- to low latitudes with climate change.

In April, MIT senior Josh Randolph will race 26.2 miles across Concord, Massachusetts, and neighboring towns, carrying a 50-lb backpack. The race, called the Tough Ruck, honors America’s fallen military and first responders. For Randolph, it is one of the most rewarding experiences he’s done in his time at MIT, and he’s never missed a race.

“I want to do things that are challenging and push me to learn more about myself,” says Randolph, a Nebraska native. “As soon as I found out about the Tough Ruck, I knew I was going to be a part of it.”

Carrying on tradition and honoring those before him is a priority for Randolph. Both of his grandfathers served in the United States Air Force, and now he’s following in their footsteps through leadership in the U.S. Air Force Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (AFROTC) at MIT. His work with MIT Emergency Medical Services (EMS) has inspired him to aim for medical school so he could join the Air Force as a doctor.

“I always wanted to be in public service, serve my community, and serve my country,” Randolph says.

Getting attached to medicine

Randolph was particularly close with his grandfather, who worked with electronics in the Air Force and later became an engineer.

“I’ve always seen him as a big role model of mine. He’s very proud of his service,” Randolph says. A mechanical engineering major, he shares his grandfather’s interest in the scientific and technical side of the military.

But Randolph hasn’t let his commitment to the Air Force narrow his experiences at MIT.

He signed up for MIT EMS in his sophomore year as a way to push out of his comfort zone. Although he didn’t have a strong interest in medicine at the time, he was excited about being responsible for providing essential services to his community.

“If somebody’s in need on campus, they call 911, and we’re entrusted with the responsibility to help them out and keep them safe. I didn’t even know that was something you could do in college,” Randolph says.

Getting late-night calls and handling high-pressure situations took some getting used to, but he loved that he was helping.

“It feels a little uncomfortable at first, but then the more calls you run, the more experience you get and the more comfortable you feel with it, and then the more you want to do,” Randolph says.

Since joining in his second year, Randolph has responded to more than 100 911 calls and now holds the rank of provincial crew chief, meaning he provides basic life support patient care and coordinates on-scene operations.

His experiences interacting with patients and racing around Cambridge, Massachusetts, to help his community made him realize he would regret not pursuing medicine. In his final year at MIT, he set his sights on medical school. “Even though it was pretty late, I decided to make that switch and put my all into medicine,” Randolph says.

After serving as class officer during his junior year, helping to oversee the EMT certification process, Randolph became the director of professional development in his senior year. In this role, he oversees the training and development of service members as well as the quality of patient care. “It’s great to see how new students integrate and gain bigger roles and become more involved with the services,” Randolph says. “It’s really rewarding to contribute a little bit toward their development within EMS and then also just as people.”

Leadership in the ROTC

Randolph knew he would be a part of Air Force ROTC since early in high school. He later earned the Air Force ROTC Type 1 scholarship that gave him a tuition-free spot at MIT. It was through AFROTC that he became further committed to helping and honoring those around him, including through the Tough Ruck.

“Pretty often there are family members of fallen servicemembers who make tags with their loved one’s name on it and they hand them out for people to carry on their rucks, which is pretty cool, Randolph said of the race. “Overall, it is a really supportive environment, and I try to give as many people high fives and as much encouragement as I can, but at some point I get too tired and need to focus on running.”

His parents come out to watch every year.

In previous semesters, Randolph has served as flight commander and group commander within AFROTC’s Detachment 365, which is based at MIT and also hosts cadets from Harvard University, Tufts University, and Wellesley College. Currently, as squadron commander, he leads one of the 20-cadet units that makes up the detachment. He has co-organized three Leadership Laboratories dedicated to training over 70 cadets.

Randolph has earned the AFROTC Field Training Superior Performance Award, the AFROTC Commendation Award, the AFROTC Achievement Award, and the Military Order of the World Wars Bronze Award. He has also received the AFROTC Academic Honors Award five times, the Physical Fitness Award four times, and the Maximum AFROTC Physical Fitness Assessment Award two times. 

He keeps his activities and schoolwork straight through to-do lists and calendar items, but he admits the workload can still be tough.

“One thing that has helped me is trying to prioritize and figure out what things need my attention immediately or what things will be very important. If it is something that is important and will affect or benefit a lot of people, I try and devote my energy toward that to make the most of my time and implement meaningful things,” Randolph says.

A human-centered direction

For the last two years, Randolph worked in the Pappalardo Laboratory as an apprentice and undergraduate assistant, helping students design, fabricate, and test robots they were building for a class design challenge. He has also conducted linguistics research with Professor Suzanne Flynn and worked in the labs of professor of nuclear science and engineering Michael Short and professor of biological and mechanical engineering Domatilla Del Vecchio.

Randolph has also volunteered his time through English for Speakers of Other Languages, where he worked as a volunteer to help MIT employees improve their English speaking and writing skills.

For now, he is excited to enter a more human-centered field through his studies in medicine. After watching his father survive two bouts of cancer, thanks in part to robotically assisted surgery, he hopes to develop robotic health care applications.

“I want to have a deeper and more tangible connection to people. Compassion and empathy are things that I really want to try and live by,” Randolph says. “I think being the most empathetic and compassionate with the people you take care of is always a good thing.”

It's no secret that 2025 has given Americans plenty to protest about. But as news cameras showed protesters filling streets of cities across the country, law enforcement officers—including U.S. Border Patrol agents—were quietly watching those same streets through different lenses: Flock Safety automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that tracked every passing car. 

Through an analysis of 10 months of nationwide searches on Flock Safety's servers, we discovered that more than 50 federal, state, and local agencies ran hundreds of searches through Flock's national network of surveillance data in connection with protest activity. In some cases, law enforcement specifically targeted known activist groups, demonstrating how mass surveillance technology increasingly threatens our freedom to demonstrate. 

Flock Safety provides ALPR technology to thousands of law enforcement agencies. The company installs cameras throughout their jurisdictions, and these cameras photograph every car that passes, documenting the license plate, color, make, model and other distinguishing characteristics. This data is paired with time and location, and uploaded to a massive searchable database. Flock Safety encourages agencies to share the data they collect broadly with other agencies across the country. It is common for an agency to search thousands of networks nationwide even when they don't have reason to believe a targeted vehicle left the region. 

Via public records requests, EFF obtained datasets representing more than 12 million searches logged by more than 3,900 agencies between December 2024 and October 2025. The data shows that agencies logged hundreds of searches related to the 50501 protests in February, the Hands Off protests in April, the No Kings protests in June and October, and other protests in between. 

The Tulsa Police Department in Oklahoma was one of the most consistent users of Flock Safety's ALPR system for investigating protests, logging at least 38 such searches. This included running searches that corresponded to a protest against deportation raids in February, a protest at Tulsa City Hall in support of pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil in March, and the No Kings protest in June. During the most recent No Kings protests in mid-October, agencies such as the Lisle Police Department in Illinois, the Oro Valley Police Department in Arizona, and the Putnam County (Tenn.) Sheriff's Office all ran protest-related searches. 

While EFF and other civil liberties groups argue the law should require a search warrant for such searches, police are simply prompted to enter text into a "reason" field in the Flock Safety system. Usually this is only a few words–or even just one.

In these cases, that word was often just “protest.” 

Crime does sometimes occur at protests, whether that's property damage, pick-pocketing, or clashes between groups on opposite sides of a protest. Some of these searches may have been tied to an actual crime that occurred, even though in most cases officers did not articulate a criminal offense when running the search. But the truth is, the only reason an officer is able to even search for a suspect at a protest is because ALPRs collected data on every single person who attended the protest. 

Search and Dissent 

2025 was an unprecedented year of street action. In June and again in October, thousands across the country mobilized under the banner of the “No Kings” movement—marches against government overreach, surveillance, and corporate power. By some estimates, the October demonstrations ranked among the largest single-day protests in U.S. history, filling the streets from Washington, D.C., to Portland, OR. 

EFF identified 19 agencies that logged dozens of searches associated with the No Kings protests in June and October 2025. In some cases the "No Kings" was explicitly used, while in others the term "protest" was used but coincided with the massive protests.

Law Enforcement Agencies that Ran Searches Corresponding with "No Kings" Rallies

• Anaheim Police Department, Calif.
• Arizona Department of Public Safety
• Beaumont Police Department, Texas
• Charleston Police Department, SC
• Flagler County Sheriff's Office, Fla.
• Georgia State Patrol
• Lisle Police Department, Ill.
• Little Rock Police Department, Ark.
• Marion Police Department, Ohio
• Morristown Police Department, Tenn.
• Oro Valley Police Department, Ariz.
• Putnam County Sheriff's Office, Tenn.
• Richmond Police Department, Va.
• Riverside County Sheriff's Office, Calif.
• Salinas Police Department, Calif.
• San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office, Calif.
• Spartanburg Police Department, SC
• Tempe Police Department, Ariz.
• Tulsa Police Department, Okla.
• US Border Patrol

For example: 

• In Washington state, the Spokane County Sheriff's Office listed "no kings" as the reason for three searches on June 13, 2025. The agency queried 95 camera networks, looking for vehicles matching the description of "work van," "bus" or "box truck." 
• In Texas, the Beaumont Police Department ran six searches related to two vehicles on June 14, 2025, listing "KINGS DAY PROTEST" as the reason. The queries reached across 1,774 networks. 
• In California, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office ran a single search for a vehicle across 711 networks, logging "no king" as the reason. 
• In Arizona, the Tempe Police Department made three searches for "ATL No Kings Protest" on June 15, 2025 searching through 425 networks. "ATL" is police code for "attempt to locate." The agency appears to not have been looking for a particular plate, but for any red vehicle on the road during a certain time window.

But the No Kings protests weren't the only demonstrations drawing law enforcement's digital dragnet in 2025. 

For example:

• In Nevada's state capital, the Carson City Sheriff's Office ran three searches that correspond to the February 50501 Protests against DOGE and the Trump administration. The agency searched for two vehicles across 178 networks with "protest" as the reason.
• In Florida, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office logged "protest" for five searches that correspond to a local May Day rally.
• In Alabama, the Homewood Police Department logged four searches in early July 2025 for three vehicles with "PROTEST CASE" and "PROTEST INV." in the reason field. The searches, which probed 1,308 networks, correspond to protests against the police shooting of Jabari Peoples.
• In Texas, the Lubbock Police Department ran two searches for a Tennessee license plate on March 15 that corresponds to a rally to highlight the mental health impact of immigration policies. The searches hit 5,966 networks, with the logged reason "protest veh."
• In Michigan, Grand Rapids Police Department ran five searches that corresponded with the Stand Up and Fight Back Rally in February. The searches hit roughly 650 networks, with the reason logged as "Protest."

Some agencies have adopted policies that prohibit using ALPRs for monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment. Yet many officers probed the nationwide network with terms like "protest" without articulating an actual crime under investigation.

In a few cases, police were using Flock’s ALPR network to investigate threats made against attendees or incidents where motorists opposed to the protests drove their vehicle into crowds. For example, throughout June 2025, an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer logged three searches for “no kings rock threat,” and a Wichita (Kan.) Police Department officer logged 22 searches for various license plates under the reason “Crime Stoppers Tip of causing harm during protests.”

Even when law enforcement is specifically looking for vehicles engaged in potentially criminal behavior such as threatening protesters, it cannot be ignored that mass surveillance systems work by collecting data on everyone driving to or near a protest—not just those under suspicion.

Border Patrol's Expanding Reach 

As U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), ICE, and other federal agencies tasked with immigration enforcement have massively expanded operations into major cities, advocates for immigrants have responded through organized rallies, rapid-response confrontations, and extended presences at federal facilities. 

USBP has made extensive use of Flock Safety's system for immigration enforcement, but also to target those who object to its tactics. In June, a few days after the No Kings Protest, USBP ran three searches for a vehicle using the descriptor “Portland Riots.” 

USBP has made extensive use of Flock Safety's system for immigration enforcement, but also to target those who object to its tactics.

USBP also used the Flock Safety network to investigate a motorist who had “extended his middle finger” at Border Patrol vehicles that were transporting detainees. The motorist then allegedly drove in front of one of the vehicles and slowed down, forcing the Border Patrol vehicle to brake hard. An officer ran seven searches for his plate, citing "assault on agent" and "18 usc 111," the federal criminal statute for assaulting, resisting or impeding a federal officer. The individual was charged in federal court in early August. 

USBP had access to the Flock system during a trial period in the first half of 2025, but the company says it has since paused the agency's access to the system. However, Border Patrol and other federal immigration authorities have been able to access the system’s data through local agencies who have run searches on their behalf or even lent them logins. 

Targeting Animal Rights Activists

Law enforcement's use of Flock's ALPR network to surveil protesters isn't limited to large-scale political demonstrations. Three agencies also used the system dozens of times to specifically target activists from Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), an animal-rights organization known for using civil disobedience tactics to expose conditions at factory farms.

Delaware State Police queried the Flock national network nine times in March 2025 related to DxE actions, logging reasons such as "DxE Protest Suspect Vehicle." DxE advocates told EFF that these searches correspond to an investigation the organization undertook of a Mountaire Farms facility. 

Additionally, the California Highway Patrol logged dozens of searches related to a "DXE Operation" throughout the day on May 27, 2025. The organization says this corresponds with an annual convening in California that typically ends in a direct action. Participants leave the event early in the morning, then drive across the state to a predetermined but previously undisclosed protest site. Also in May, the Merced County Sheriff's Office in California logged two searches related to "DXE activity." 

As an organization engaged in direct activism, DxE has experienced criminal prosecution for its activities, and so the organization told EFF they were not surprised to learn they are under scrutiny from law enforcement, particularly considering how industrial farmers have collected and distributed their own intelligence to police.

The targeting of DxE activists reveals how ALPR surveillance extends beyond conventional and large-scale political protests to target groups engaged in activism that challenges powerful industries. For animal-rights activists, the knowledge that their vehicles are being tracked through a national surveillance network undeniably creates a chilling effect on their ability to organize and demonstrate.

Fighting Back Against ALPR 

ALPR systems are designed to capture information on every vehicle that passes within view. That means they don't just capture data on "criminals" but on everyone, all the time—and that includes people engaged in their First Amendment right to publicly dissent. Police are sitting on massive troves of data that can reveal who attended a protest, and this data shows they are not afraid to use it. 

Our analysis only includes data where agencies explicitly mentioned protests or related terms in the "reason" field when documenting their search. It's likely that scores more were conducted under less obvious pretexts and search reasons. According to our analysis, approximately 20 percent of all searches we reviewed listed vague language like "investigation," "suspect," and "query" in the reason field. Those terms could well be cover for spying on a protest, an abortion prosecution, or an officer stalking a spouse, and no one would be the wiser–including the agencies whose data was searched. Flock has said it will now require officers to select a specific crime under investigation, but that can and will also be used to obfuscate dubious searches. 

For protestors, this data should serve as confirmation that ALPR surveillance has been and will be used to target activities protected by the First Amendment. Depending on your threat model, this means you should think carefully about how you arrive at protests, and explore options such as by biking, walking, carpooling, taking public transportation, or simply parking a little further away from the action. Our Surveillance Self-Defense project has more information on steps you could take to protect your privacy when traveling to and attending a protest.

For local officials, this should serve as another example of how systems marketed as protecting your community may actually threaten the values your communities hold most dear. The best way to protect people is to shut down these camera networks.  

Everyone should have the right to speak up against injustice without ending up in a database. 

Brian Hanna, operations manager of MIT Venture Mentoring Service (VMS), connects skilled volunteer mentors with MIT entrepreneurs looking to launch, expand, and enhance their vision.  

MIT VMS is a free service, supporting innovation across the Institute, available to all current MIT students, staff members, faculty members, or alums of a degree-granting program living in the Greater Boston area. If a community member has an idea that they’d like help developing, Hanna and his team will match them with a team of mentors who can provide practical, as-needed expertise and knowledge to guide your venture. 

VMS is part of the MIT ecosystem for entrepreneurs. VMS mentors are selected for their experience in areas relevant to entrepreneurs’ needs and assist with a range of business challenges, including marketing, finance, and product development. As the program celebrates its 25th anniversary of serving MIT’s entrepreneurial community, it has supported more than 3,500 ventures and mentored over 4,800 participants. 

When Hanna began working at VMS in 2023, he was new to the program but not to the Institute. Prior to joining VMS, he served as the employer relations coordinator in Career Advising and Professional Development (CAPD), where he worked with companies interested in recruiting MIT talent. His responsibilities included organizing career fairs, scheduling interviews, and building relationships with various local employers. After two years at CAPD, Hanna transitioned to the role of center coordinator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research. While Hanna does not claim to be a neuroscientist, his organizational skills proved valuable as he supported six different research centers at McGovern, with research ranging from autism to bionics.  

As the VMS operations manager, Hanna supervises staff members who run events and boot camps and schedule an average of 50 mentoring sessions a month. Whether it’s a first-time entrepreneur who comes up with an idea on their morning commute or an industry veteran with licensing and a patent in place, Hanna strategically matches them with mentors who can help them build their skill set and grow their business. Hanna also provides oversight to over 200 volunteer VMS mentors, half of which are MIT alumni. 

In addition to processing all incoming applications (about 25 per month), Hanna also oversees a monthly mentor meeting centered around strengthening the VMS mentor community. During the meeting, the VMS team shares announcements, discusses upcoming events, hosts guest speakers, and invites a group of current ventures to give four-minute pitches for additional advice. These pitches allow mentees to receive input from the entire mentor network, rather than just their mentor team.   

The relationship between mentees, mentors, and VMS does not have an expiration date. Hanna notes that a saying in the office is, “we are VMS for life.” This rings true, as some ventures and mentors have been a part of the program for most of its 25-year existence. 

When a mentee is ready to meet with their mentors for the first time, VMS aims to schedule an in-person meeting to create a strong relationship. After that, the program embraces the flexibility of meeting via Zoom to help make scheduling easier. One of the most valuable resources outside of the mentoring sessions is the theme-specific boot camps sprinkled throughout the year. These sessions are four- or five-hour events led by mentors who cover topics such as marketing, business-to-business sales, or building an IP portfolio. They serve as crash courses where mentees can learn the basics of important aspects of entrepreneurship. Another resource offered to active mentees is office hours with experts in areas such as human resources, legal, and accounting. 

In December, VMS will celebrate its 25th anniversary with an event honoring current and former mentors. The event will look back on 25 years of impact and look ahead to the future of the program. 

Soundbytes 

Q: Do you have an MIT memory or project that brings you pride? 

Hanna: At the McGovern Institute, I was part of a team that worked on the first board meeting and launch event for the K. Lisa Yang Center for Bionics, which was an incredible experience. It was a brand-new research center led by world-class researchers and innovators. Since it was the first board meeting it was a big deal, so we planned to host a celebration tied to the meeting. There were a lot of moving parts and collaboration between faculty, researchers, staff, board members, and vendors. It took place at the tail end of Covid, which was an added challenge. With such an important event you don’t want to let anyone down. In the end, it worked out really well, was a fun event to be a part of, and something I never thought I would be able to do.

Q: How would you describe the community at MIT? 

Hanna: Very welcoming. I was intimidated when I first interviewed at MIT because, as someone who isn’t a STEM person, MIT was never on my radar. Then a job came up, and I thought, I'll apply for that. When I started working here, there was always someone available to provide assistance and point me in the right direction. Everyone is incredibly talented and innovative — not just in creating things, but also in problem-solving and finding ways to collaborate. Each time I changed roles, everyone I met was down-to-earth, kind, and extremely helpful during onboarding. It was never sink or swim — it was always nurturing. 

Q: What advice would you give to a new staff member at MIT? 

Hanna: Make connections with people outside of your immediate network. Get involved in the community by attending events or reaching out to people. For both jobs which I held after working at CAPD, I reached out to the hiring manager when I saw the job posting and asked a couple clarifying questions. Also, it’s important to know that everything is numbered; the buildings, the majors, everything.  

Widespread news reports indicate that President Donald Trump’s administration has prepared an executive order to punish states that have passed laws attempting to address harms from artificial intelligence (AI) systems. According to a draft published by news outlets, this order would direct federal agencies to bring legal challenges to state AI regulations that the administration deems “onerous,”  to restrict funding to those states that have these laws, and to adopt new federal law that overrides state AI laws.

This approach is deeply misguided.

As we’ve said before, the fact that states are regulating AI is often a good thing. Left unchecked, company and government use of automated decision-making systems in areas such as housing, health care, law enforcement, and employment have already caused discriminatory outcomes based on gender, race, and other protected statuses.

While state AI laws have not been perfect, they are genuine attempts to address harms that people across the country face from certain uses of AI systems right now. Given the tone of the Trump Administration’s draft order, it seems clear that the preemptive federal legislation backed by this administration will not stop ways that automated decision making systems can result in discriminatory decisions.

For example, a copy of the draft order published by Politico specifically names the Colorado AI Act as an example of supposedly “onerous” legislation. As we said in our analysis of Colorado’s law, it is a limited but crucial step—one that needs to be strengthened to protect people more meaningfully from AI harms. It is possible to guard against harms and support innovation and expression. Ignoring the harms that these systems can cause when used in discriminatory ways is not the way to do that.

Again: stopping states from acting on AI will stop progress. Proposals such as the executive order, or efforts to put a broad moratorium on state AI laws into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), will hurt us all. Companies that produce AI and automated decision-making software have spent millions in state capitals and in Congress to slow or roll back legal protections regulating artificial intelligence. If reports about the Trump administration’s executive order are true, those efforts are about to get a supercharged ally in the federal government.

And all of us will pay the price.

Potential Government Coercion Raises First Amendment Concerns

SAN FRANCISCO – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued the departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) today to uncover information about the federal government demanding that tech companies remove apps that document immigration enforcement activities in communities throughout the country. 

Tech platforms took down several such apps (including ICE Block, Red Dot, and DeICER) and webpages (including ICE Sighting-Chicagoland) following communications with federal officials this year, raising important questions about government coercion to restrict protected First Amendment activity.

"We're filing this lawsuit to find out just what the government told tech companies," said EFF Staff Attorney F. Mario Trujillo. "Getting these records will be critical to determining whether federal officials crossed the line into unconstitutional coercion and censorship of protected speech."

In October, Apple removed ICEBlock, an app that allows users to report Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in their area, from its App Store. Attorney General Pamela Bondi publicly took credit for the takedown, telling reporters, “We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store—and Apple did so.” In the days that followed, Apple removed several similar apps from the App Store. Google and Meta removed similar apps and webpages from platforms they own as well. Bondi vowed to “continue engaging tech companies” on the issue. 

People have a protected First Amendment right to document and share information about law enforcement activities performed in public. If government officials coerce third parties into suppressing protected activity, this can be unconstitutional, as the government cannot do indirectly what it is barred from doing directly.

Last month, EFF submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the DOJ, DHS and its component agencies ICE and Customs and Border Protection. The requests sought records and communications about agency demands that technology companies remove apps and pages that document immigration enforcement activities. So far, none of the agencies have provided these records. EFF's FOIA lawsuit demands their release.

For the complaint: https://www.eff.org/document/complaint-eff-v-doj-dhs-ice-tracking-apps

For more about the litigation: https://www.eff.org/cases/eff-v-doj-dhs-ice-tracking-apps

Tags: ICEContact:  F. Mario TrujilloStaff Attorneymario@eff.org

Google has filed a complaint in court that details the scam:

In a complaint filed Wednesday, the tech giant accused “a cybercriminal group in China” of selling “phishing for dummies” kits. The kits help unsavvy fraudsters easily “execute a large-scale phishing campaign,” tricking hordes of unsuspecting people into “disclosing sensitive information like passwords, credit card numbers, or banking information, often by impersonating well-known brands, government agencies, or even people the victim knows.”

These branded “Lighthouse” kits offer two versions of software, depending on whether bad actors want to launch SMS and e-commerce scams. “Members may subscribe to weekly, monthly, seasonal, annual, or permanent licenses,” Google alleged. Kits include “hundreds of templates for fake websites, domain set-up tools for those fake websites, and other features designed to dupe victims into believing they are entering sensitive information on a legitimate website.”...

The rule to end most climate regulations is not expected until January, slipping from a planned December deadline.

Rich nations and international funding agencies need to make it easier to obtain money for adapting to the ills of a warming planet, advocates for poorer governments say at COP30.

The report comes as the Trump administration pushes to expand LNG sales abroad and Democrats ramp up affordability messaging.

Most of the at-risk sites are clustered in just seven states: Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California, New York and Massachusetts.

Progressive groups say Supreme Court justices need a more transparent ethics policy.

Two Democrats sought to challenge the rule under the Congressional Review Act.

As Gov. Kathy Hochul considers changes to the state's 2019 climate targets, Democratic lawmakers are split amid affordability concerns.

But Australia will hold the summit's presidency — and therefore control the diplomacy, Climate Minister Chris Bowen told reporters.

The EU did not join 82 countries calling for a phase-out of oil, coal and natural gas.

India, China and other countries are challenging CBAM in climate talks.

Protesters, including potentially affected Indigenous populations, took to streets and rivers this month to oppose the project.

Hosting the bloc's first summit in Africa, South Africa wants to prioritize issues affecting poor countries, including responses to disasters made worse by climate change.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 20 November 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02505-9

Objective assessments indicate that extreme heat is increasing health risks; however, many of the most exposed populations do not perceive extreme heat as risky. This misperception may undermine public awareness of the need for effective cooling strategies, leaving a dangerous blind spot in adaptation and protection.