Category: Full Text Articles – Audio Posts

As a mom, it’s so important to be able to be there for my son – whether it’s taking him to school, baseball or soccer practice, or being home with him when he’s sick. It’s this ability to be present in his life every day that led me to explore food delivery work. 

When I was laid off from my full-time job a few years ago, my husband and I had a long discussion about what’s next. We agreed it was important for me to find work that provided the flexibility to be there for our son while still earning additional income to support our family.

But in the past few years, the City Council has put that flexibility in jeopardy. Now, yet another threat to my livelihood is emerging from the Council, and on behalf of thousands of delivery workers, I’m asking them to stop before they make it any harder for me to make a living. 

When I first started working on the apps, I – like many delivery workers – took advantage of multiple platforms, including restaurant delivery. But that was short-lived. When the City Council passed a law that forced restaurant delivery companies to create a nightmarish scheduling system, one that required workers to book full shifts just for the chance to make deliveries. Even if you were lucky enough to get the shift you wanted, you may not be lucky enough to get any orders. 

For me, eventually it wasn’t worth taking extra time out of my day to fight over limited shifts with fellow delivery workers. And I’m not alone. 

On top of that, when food costs started to rise because of the changes being made to the apps, tips went down considerably. Ultimately, I became one of the 12,000 delivery workers who were no longer able to get work through restaurant delivery apps. 

Fortunately, that law only affected restaurant delivery platforms. Which is why now, I only deliver groceries, as I still have the flexibility to choose my own hours.
But that could soon change.

The City Council is considering another bill that would put grocery delivery work at risk too, once again threatening to jeopardize the income I’m able to bring home to my family. If passed, it would mean grocery delivery platforms will likely need to put in place the same disastrous shift-based schedules that restaurant delivery was forced to do – jeopardizing the essential service shoppers like me provide and eliminating the flexibility we want that comes with app based work.

I lived through what happened when restaurant delivery platforms had to comply with similar rules. If the Council goes through with this latest bill, they will be doubling down on that mistake. 

If this new bill passes, fewer workers will be available when demand spikes, delivery prices will go up, and more New Yorkers will struggle to access fresh food and afford the services they count on to get everyday essentials –all while grocery prices continue to rise. 

If City lawmakers truly want to improve conditions for grocery delivery workers, they should talk directly to grocery delivery workers like me and listen to what’s important to us – the people this would affect the most. We should have a say in the decisions that affect our livelihoods, and the City Council should pass legislation that doesn’t put this work at risk.

Jean-Marie Padilla is a Brooklyn-based food delivery worker and advocate.

President Donald Trump confirmed Friday that the United States was fully aware of Israel’s plans to launch airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites and top officials, dismissing the suggestion that Israel had only given him a “heads-up.”

“Heads-up? It wasn’t a heads-up. It was, we know what’s going on,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal in an interview, adding that he talked with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday and will speak with Netanyahu again on Friday. Trump administration officials said the United States was not directly involved in the Israeli offensive.

Early Friday morning, around 200 Israeli jets struck dozens of military and nuclear targets across Iran. The Israel Defense Forces described the attack as a “preemptive, precise, combined offensive,” citing “high-quality intelligence” and the Islamic Republic’s “ongoing aggression against Israel.”

Israeli officials said the IDF eliminated multiple senior Iranian generals, including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander in chief Hossein Salami and Iranian Armed Forces chief of staff Mohammad Bagheri. The operation also killed six top nuclear scientists and more than a dozen senior commanders tied to Iran’s ballistic missile and drone programs, according to Israeli officials.

Trump, who has repeatedly urged Tehran to return to the negotiating table, said the “very successful” attack came 61 days after he warned Iranian leaders to make a deal within 60 days or face consequences. “They should have made a deal and they still can make a deal while they have something left—they still can,” Trump told the Journal.

“We of course support Israel, obviously, and supported it like nobody has ever supported it,” Trump said during a phone call with CNN’s Dana Bash.

Netanyahu said Friday that the operation will “continue for as many days as it takes to remove” Iran’s threat to “Israel’s very survival.”

The post Trump on Whether Israel Gave a ‘Heads-Up’ Ahead of Attack: ‘Heads-Up? It Wasn’t a Heads-Up. It Was, We Know What’s Going On.’ appeared first on .

Eight people were displaced by a two-alarm fire at an East New York home on Thursday evening.

Firefighters arrived on the scene on Chestnut Street near Pitkin Avenue just before 5:30 p.m. on June 12,  according to the FDNY, as heavy flames and smoke engulfed the second floor of a wood-frame home. The blaze was quickly upgraded in severity as more than 100 firefighters from two dozen units were called in.

The fire was extinguished shortly after 6 p.m., per the FDNY. Though no injuries were reported, the blaze left two buildings badly damaged and forced eight people out of their homes.

According to Department of Buildings records, the home where the fire started suffered “significant fire damage.” Several windows were broken and the home’s structural supports burned, per a violation issued on June 12. The department issued a full vacate order on the property.

A neighboring home was left with a large hole in the wall from firefighting efforts, records show, as firefighters attempted to find and extinguish “hot spots” in the wall. That home was also declared “noncompliant” with safety standards.

The American Red Cross was on the scene and received requests for assistance — including temporary housing and financial assistance — from five households comprising five adults. 

The Israeli strike this morning on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure marks a clear turning point—not just for Iran, but for the Trump administration. This is the first major geopolitical escalation of the administration’s second term, and while Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted the United States was not involved, the region won’t see it that way. The United States repositioned forces, evacuated diplomatic staff, and was engaged in nuclear negotiations with Iran in the days leading up to the attack, including planned talks in Oman this Sunday that Iran has now cancelled. 

This is Trump’s first war, even if he tries to pretend otherwise. At the end of his first term, Trump boasted that he had started “no new wars.” That narrative may no longer hold—even if U.S. assets did not drop the bombs, the strategic implications and regional fallout will still land squarely on Washington.

What this moment reveals isn’t failure so much as contradiction. The national security system functioned just enough to warn and reposition—but not to clarify objectives, align messaging, or shape outcomes. This isn’t just a regional crisis—it’s a test of how the United States manages cascading threats under a president whose instincts often override planning.

The Intelligence Community (IC) appears to have anticipated Israeli action and supported precautionary moves. But there’s no sign that insight translated into coordinated strategy. That gap—between knowing and managing—now defines the stakes.

Iran’s Blind Spot

The Israeli strikes exposed a stunning failure of Iranian intelligence—or perhaps more precisely, a dangerous dose of overconfidence. For months, Israeli officials signaled their readiness to act despite ongoing diplomacy efforts by the Trump administration. Iran, meanwhile, appeared to misjudge the likelihood that such a sweeping attack could occur without U.S. involvement.

Whether due to an inflated sense of deterrence, faith in their deep fortifications, or flawed assumptions about Israeli political calculations, Iran was caught off guard—despite weeks of visible indicators: IAEA censure, U.S. military repositioning, and increased Israeli air activity.

The tempo and scale of the strike suggest Israel had deeper intelligence access and operational latitude than Tehran accounted for. Past Israeli sabotage operations—against Natanz, Karaj, and other sensitive facilities—and external strikes, such as the April 2024 missile attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus that killed IRGC commander Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi, should have served as a warning. Yet Iran appears once again to have underestimated both Israel’s persistence and its capacity to adapt.

Tehran may have also assumed that facilities like Fordow were too hardened to be worth targeting or that political constraints and U.S. restraint would buy them more time. Early portrayals of a close Trump–Netanyahu alignment may have contributed to that perception, reinforcing a belief that Israel would not act without U.S. backing. But the relationship had grown increasingly uneven by the time of the strikes, with visible policy differences on Iran and Gaza. Tehran’s failure may have stemmed not just from misreading U.S. resolve, but from overestimating its own deterrent effect amid shifting political calculations in both capitals.

Washington Wasn’t Ready Either

Despite warnings, the response revealed improvisation, not preparation. The clearest signal was Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s vague and defensive statement shortly after the attack: a rushed declaration of U.S. non-involvement paired with an appeal for Iranian restraint. 

The brevity of the statement suggests it was hastily drafted—less strategic positioning than risk containment. Trump’s public posture leading up to the strike fluctuated markedly—at one point dismissing imminent Israeli action, then warning it could “very well happen,” and even conceding it “might help” nuclear diplomacy Yet in the final 48 hours, the United States quietly repositioned military assets and began evacuating personnel, indicating that intelligence had clearly warned of an impending strike.

The U.S. national security team may have had advance warning and acted accordingly, but the gap between those operational steps and the president’s public statements points to a breakdown in coordination. Recent reporting on National Security Advisor Michael Waltz’s removal and the consolidation of roles under Secretary Rubio suggest that the White House national security structure remains unsettled.

A Test for the Intelligence Community’s Leadership

This moment will also serve as the first true global crisis test for the intelligence leadership team now serving under Trump. The events set in motion by the Israeli strike will not remain localized—they will shape regional alliances, expose U.S. vulnerabilities, and demand sustained, adaptive decision-making. The IC must be ready. 

The IC has spent years warning of and responding to escalation scenarios involving Iran and its proxies, supported by deep, long-standing partnerships with Israeli intelligence—not just among senior officials, but across operational and analytic teams. What remains uncertain is whether the current leadership will let that machinery operate at full capacity, particularly given reports of increasing politicization and procedural delays.

Trump’s relationship with intelligence has long been conditional. He accepts it when it aligns with his instincts, rejects it when it does not, and often treats it as optional background rather than a tool for bounding uncertainty. The IC leaders now in place—DNI Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—were selected for their loyalty and alignment. But with that alignment comes responsibility. If they are not prepared to deliver hard truths or insist on analytic rigor, they will be complicit in any missteps that follow.

The infrastructure exists. The test is political. Will this administration allow the IC to play its role in shaping and moderating U.S. response, or will it fall back into its familiar habit of tuning out the briefings and improvising from the headlines? The stakes now go beyond the Israeli strikes and Iranian response. What happens in the next 72 hours could determine the trajectory of a broader regional war—and the relevance of U.S. intelligence in shaping its course.

The Houthis and the Cease-Fire Gamble

The most immediate risk of escalation lies in Yemen. Earlier this week, the Houthis explicitly threatened retaliation if Iran were attacked. That warning now looms large, as the group weighs whether—and how—to respond on Iran’s behalf.

The Israeli strikes may unravel the fragile ceasefire the United States secured just weeks ago. While the Trump administration insists Israel acted unilaterally, the Houthis—like other Iranian proxies—rarely distinguish between American and Israeli actions. For years, Iran has invested in the Houthis as both a regional spoiler and a strategic hedge.

Renewed confrontation offers the Houthis a chance to reaffirm their frontline status. That role brings expectations. Retaliation could come through resumed Red Sea strikes, direct attacks on U.S. or allied military assets, or even efforts to pull Saudi Arabia and the UAE back into active hostilities.

“Operation Rough Rider”—the U.S. campaign against the Houthis from March to May 2025—demonstrated that the group can survive and adapt under sustained pressure. They may now view escalation as both inevitable and advantageous: the price of leadership, and a test of American resilience in the face of the latest regional crisis.

The post The Israeli Strike on Iran the U.S. Saw Coming, but Couldn’t Stop appeared first on Just Security.

The Israeli strike this morning on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure marks a clear turning point—not just for Iran, but for the Trump administration. This is the first major geopolitical escalation of the administration’s second term, and while Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted the United States was not involved, the region won’t see it that way. The United States repositioned forces, evacuated diplomatic staff, and was engaged in nuclear negotiations with Iran in the days leading up to the attack, including planned talks in Oman this Sunday that Iran has now cancelled. 

This is Trump’s first war, even if he tries to pretend otherwise. At the end of his first term, Trump boasted that he had started “no new wars.” That narrative may no longer hold—even if U.S. assets did not drop the bombs, the strategic implications and regional fallout will still land squarely on Washington.

What this moment reveals isn’t failure so much as contradiction. The national security system functioned just enough to warn and reposition—but not to clarify objectives, align messaging, or shape outcomes. This isn’t just a regional crisis—it’s a test of how the United States manages cascading threats under a president whose instincts often override planning.

The Intelligence Community (IC) appears to have anticipated Israeli action and supported precautionary moves. But there’s no sign that insight translated into coordinated strategy. That gap—between knowing and managing—now defines the stakes.

Iran’s Blind Spot

The Israeli strikes exposed a stunning failure of Iranian intelligence—or perhaps more precisely, a dangerous dose of overconfidence. For months, Israeli officials signaled their readiness to act despite ongoing diplomacy efforts by the Trump administration. Iran, meanwhile, appeared to misjudge the likelihood that such a sweeping attack could occur without U.S. involvement.

Whether due to an inflated sense of deterrence, faith in their deep fortifications, or flawed assumptions about Israeli political calculations, Iran was caught off guard—despite weeks of visible indicators: IAEA censure, U.S. military repositioning, and increased Israeli air activity.

The tempo and scale of the strike suggest Israel had deeper intelligence access and operational latitude than Tehran accounted for. Past Israeli sabotage operations—against Natanz, Karaj, and other sensitive facilities—and external strikes, such as the April 2024 missile attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus that killed IRGC commander Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi, should have served as a warning. Yet Iran appears once again to have underestimated both Israel’s persistence and its capacity to adapt.

Tehran may have also assumed that facilities like Fordow were too hardened to be worth targeting or that political constraints and U.S. restraint would buy them more time. Early portrayals of a close Trump–Netanyahu alignment may have contributed to that perception, reinforcing a belief that Israel would not act without U.S. backing. But the relationship had grown increasingly uneven by the time of the strikes, with visible policy differences on Iran and Gaza. Tehran’s failure may have stemmed not just from misreading U.S. resolve, but from overestimating its own deterrent effect amid shifting political calculations in both capitals.

Washington Wasn’t Ready Either

Despite warnings, the response revealed improvisation, not preparation. The clearest signal was Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s vague and defensive statement shortly after the attack: a rushed declaration of U.S. non-involvement paired with an appeal for Iranian restraint. 

The brevity of the statement suggests it was hastily drafted—less strategic positioning than risk containment. Trump’s public posture leading up to the strike fluctuated markedly—at one point dismissing imminent Israeli action, then warning it could “very well happen,” and even conceding it “might help” nuclear diplomacy Yet in the final 48 hours, the United States quietly repositioned military assets and began evacuating personnel, indicating that intelligence had clearly warned of an impending strike.

The U.S. national security team may have had advance warning and acted accordingly, but the gap between those operational steps and the president’s public statements points to a breakdown in coordination. Recent reporting on National Security Advisor Michael Waltz’s removal and the consolidation of roles under Secretary Rubio suggest that the White House national security structure remains unsettled.

A Test for the Intelligence Community’s Leadership

This moment will also serve as the first true global crisis test for the intelligence leadership team now serving under Trump. The events set in motion by the Israeli strike will not remain localized—they will shape regional alliances, expose U.S. vulnerabilities, and demand sustained, adaptive decision-making. The IC must be ready. 

The IC has spent years warning of and responding to escalation scenarios involving Iran and its proxies, supported by deep, long-standing partnerships with Israeli intelligence—not just among senior officials, but across operational and analytic teams. What remains uncertain is whether the current leadership will let that machinery operate at full capacity, particularly given reports of increasing politicization and procedural delays.

Trump’s relationship with intelligence has long been conditional. He accepts it when it aligns with his instincts, rejects it when it does not, and often treats it as optional background rather than a tool for bounding uncertainty. The IC leaders now in place—DNI Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—were selected for their loyalty and alignment. But with that alignment comes responsibility. If they are not prepared to deliver hard truths or insist on analytic rigor, they will be complicit in any missteps that follow.

The infrastructure exists. The test is political. Will this administration allow the IC to play its role in shaping and moderating U.S. response, or will it fall back into its familiar habit of tuning out the briefings and improvising from the headlines? The stakes now go beyond the Israeli strikes and Iranian response. What happens in the next 72 hours could determine the trajectory of a broader regional war—and the relevance of U.S. intelligence in shaping its course.

The Houthis and the Cease-Fire Gamble

The most immediate risk of escalation lies in Yemen. Earlier this week, the Houthis explicitly threatened retaliation if Iran were attacked. That warning now looms large, as the group weighs whether—and how—to respond on Iran’s behalf.

The Israeli strikes may unravel the fragile ceasefire the United States secured just weeks ago. While the Trump administration insists Israel acted unilaterally, the Houthis—like other Iranian proxies—rarely distinguish between American and Israeli actions. For years, Iran has invested in the Houthis as both a regional spoiler and a strategic hedge.

Renewed confrontation offers the Houthis a chance to reaffirm their frontline status. That role brings expectations. Retaliation could come through resumed Red Sea strikes, direct attacks on U.S. or allied military assets, or even efforts to pull Saudi Arabia and the UAE back into active hostilities.

“Operation Rough Rider”—the U.S. campaign against the Houthis from March to May 2025—demonstrated that the group can survive and adapt under sustained pressure. They may now view escalation as both inevitable and advantageous: the price of leadership, and a test of American resilience in the face of the latest regional crisis.

The post The Israeli Strike on Iran the U.S. Saw Coming, but Couldn’t Stop appeared first on Just Security.

President Donald Trump said he was in good spirits following Israel’s punishing strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities Thursday evening.

“I feel good, I feel very good,” Trump told the Washington Free Beacon during a brief phone interview Friday morning. “Doing well.”

After months of negotiations between the United States and the Iranian regime, Israel launched preemptive strikes against the Islamic Republic, killing a slew of top generals and nuclear scientists and damaging Iran’s main nuclear facility. The strikes are the beginning of what is expected to be a multi-day bombardment of the country. Trump said Iran was close to settling on a deal ahead of the strikes but didn’t “quite” agree to one.

“I told Iran they should settle, and they almost got there, but not quite,” he said. “They should still settle.”

Trump was tight-lipped on whether the United States offered any kind of coordination to the Israelis. He said it was still not too late for the Iranians to come to the table.

“There’s time but it would have been a lot easier if they did it early,” Trump said. “Well, if I were them, I would want to settle. I can tell you that.”

Iran appears to be done with nuclear talks for now, canceling a planned round of negotiations with special envoy Steve Witkoff that had been scheduled to take place in Oman on Sunday. Trump told Bret Baier of Fox News that he is “hoping to get back to the negotiating table” but there are “several people” in Iranian leadership “that will not be coming back.”

Trump said he would be providing additional information about the strike in a statement later today.

The post After Israeli Strikes on Iran, Trump Tells Free Beacon: ‘I Feel Very Good’ appeared first on .

The odds were in your favor if you were one of the 242 people who boarded Air India flight 171 in Ahmedabad, India, bound for London on June 12. The plane you were flying was a Boeing 787 Dreamliner which has been in service since 2011 without a fatal crash. More than 1,100 Dreamliners are in use worldwide, carrying more than 875 million passengers over the last decade, according to Boeing. Your particular 787, delivered to Air India in 2014, had amassed 41,000 hours of flying time and just under 8,000 takeoffs and landings, according to Cirium, an aviation industry analytics firm.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

But none of that would have helped you. Just after takeoff, when the plane was barely 625 ft. in the air, it lost altitude and plunged into a residential area, killing all but one of the passengers and crew on board. The cause of the crash is as yet unknown. 

“Our deepest condolences go out to the loved ones of the passengers and crew on board Air India Flight 171, as well as everyone affected in Ahmedabad,” said Boeing president and CEO Kelly Ortberg in a statement. “I have spoken with Air India Chairman N. Chandrasekaran to offer our full support, and a Boeing team stands ready to support the investigation led by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.”

That investigation is likely to go deeper than just Flight 171, ranging back over the 14 years the 787s have been flying—years that, it turns out, have seen numerous complaints, concerns, and whistleblower reports over the safety of the widebody jet. All of them are getting a second look today.

The problems began in early 2013, when fires broke out aboard two Dreamliners owned by Japanese airlines. One plane had just landed at Boston’s Logan Airport, the other was just leaving Japan and had to turn around and land. Both blazes were traced to overheating of the planes’ lithium-ion batteries that power the electrical system. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) quickly stepped in, grounding the worldwide fleet of Dreamliners and temporarily halting the delivery of new ones to airlines that had placed orders for them. In April of 2013, the FAA accepted Boeing’s fixes, which involved better insulation for the batteries and a stainless steel box that would house the batteries and prevent smoke or flames from escaping into the plane if a fire did start. The Dreamliners were cleared to fly and the company was cleared to resume deliveries within weeks of the FAA’s decision.

The next incident occurred in 2019 when, as The New York Times reported in an exposé at the time, John Barnett, a former quality manager who retired in 2017, revealed that he had filed a whistleblower complaint, alleging sloppy work around the wires that connect the planes’ flight control systems, with metal shavings being left behind when bolts were fastened. The risk existed that the shavings would penetrate the wires’ insulation, leading to consequences that Barnett called “catastrophic.” 

Barnett also alleged that damaged or substandard parts were being installed in 787s, including a dented hydraulic tube that a senior manager retrieved from a bin of what was supposed to contain scrap. The FAA inspected several 787s that were said to be free of the shavings Barnett reported and found that they were indeed there, reported the Times. The FAA then ordered that Boeing correct the problems before the planes were delivered to customers. 

In retirement, Barnett sued Boeing, alleging that the company had denigrated his character and blocked his career advancement during his employment—charges Boeing denies. In March of 2024, he was in North Charleston, S.C., the site of the plant where he was employed, working on his case, when he was found dead in his truck from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

“Boeing may not have pulled the trigger,” Barnett’s family said in a wrongful death lawsuit it filed, “but Boeing’s conduct was the clear cause.”

The company sidestepped the charge: “We are saddened by John Barnett’s death and send our condolences to his family,” Boeing said in a statement.

Last year turned out to be a bad one for Boeing and the Dreamliner for reasons other than Barnett’s death. In January another whistleblower, engineer Sam Salehpour, came forward, reporting that sections of the fuselage of the Dreamliner were improperly connected, with gaps that could cause the plane to break apart during flight. When the sections wouldn’t fit, Salehpour claimed, workers would resort to brute force.

“I literally saw people jumping on the pieces of the airplane to get them to align,” Salehpour said in Capitol Hill testimony. “By jumping up and down, you’re deforming parts so that the holes align temporarily. I called it the Tarzan effect.”

In a statement on its website, Boeing defended the integrity of the Dreamliner: “For the in-service fleet, based on comprehensive analysis no safety issues have been identified related to composite gap management and our engineers are completing exhaustive analysis to determine any long-term inspection and maintenance required, with oversight from the FAA.”

Nonetheless, in May, the FAA acted again, announcing that Boeing had been ordered to reinspect “all 787 airplanes still within the production system and must also create a plan to address the in-service fleet.” That was not the first time the government had taken action on the problem of unacceptable gaps in the Dreamliner’s fuselage. From May 2021 to August 2022, the FAA halted the delivery of new Dreamliners to airline customers while the problem was addressed. Deliveries did resume but, as Salehpour testified, so did the shoddy work on the factory floor.

In March 2024, meantime, a LATAM Airlines flight from Sydney to Auckland suddenly plunged 400 ft. when the pilot’s seat in the 787 lurched forward unexpectedly. The captain recovered but 10 passengers and three members of the cabin crew were injured. 

For now, the 1,100 Dreamliners criss-crossing the skies are still flying. That could change pending the results of the Air India investigation. Even a temporary loss of the plane—which is a workhorse for long-haul flights—could be a hardship for both the airlines and the flying public. But as the grieving families of the passengers aboard the Air India flight could attest, loss of life is much worse.

The Broadway League’s Black to Broadway initiative announced on Thursday, June 12, the performers for the 5th Annual Broadway Celebrates Juneteenth, a free outdoor concert in Times Square, on Thursday, June 19, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (rain or shine).

The Broadway League said Flagstar Bank will be this year’s presenting sponsor.

It said the Broadway Celebrates Juneteenth concert will feature performers from 15 shows, including: & Juliet; Boop! The Musical; Buena Vista Social Club; Chicago; Gypsy; Harry Potter and the Cursed Child; Hell’s Kitchen; The Lion King; MJ; Moulin Rouge! The Musical: Pirates! The Penzance Musical; Ragtime; Real Women Have Curves; Six: The Musical; Wicked; and the return of the kids of Young Gifted and Broadway.

All performances will be accompanied by live music provided with help from The Music Performance Trust Fund and the Film Funds.

The Broadway League said the exciting line-up of Broadway stars set to perform includes Blu Allen, Tia Altinay, Rayven Bailey, Angela Birchett, Ariana Burks, Alejandro Muller Dahlberg, Cicily Daniels, John Edwards, Tré Frazier, Brett Gray, Donnie Hammond, Quincy Hampton, Matthew Fredrick Harris, and Khaila Johnson.

Others are Cameron Amandus Jones, Kecia Lewis, Nichelle Lewis, Tatiana Lofton, Omar Madden, Jenny Mollet, Mason Reeves, Tyrone Robinson, Jasmine Amy Rogers, Ayanna Thomas, NaTasha Yvette Williams, Wesley Wray, Young Gifted and Broadway Members of the Cast of Hell’s Kitchen.

The Broadway League said two-time Tony Award nominee Jon Michael Hill and 2024 and 2025 Tony Award winner Kara Young from the 2025 Tony Award-winning Best Play Purpose will co-host the live concert.

It said the 2025 Juneteenth Legacy Award will be presented to Tony Award®-winning actor/activist, educator, and philanthropist André De Shields. De Shields is being recognized for his trailblazing career spanning over five decades.

Known for originating iconic roles on Broadway in The Wiz, Ain’t Misbehavin’, The Full Monty, and Hadestown, the League said De Shields is “a passionate advocate for both performance and philanthropy, including the establishment of the André De Shields fund at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.”

With a career defined by bold choices, cultural impact, and enduring elegance, The League said De Shields “embodies the spirit of the Juneteenth Legacy Award.”

Presented by The Broadway League’s Black to Broadway initiative, Broadway Celebrates Juneteenth creative and production teams include Director and Writer Steve H. Broadnax III, Music Director Rashad McPherson, Executive Producers Devon Miller and Kendra Whitlock Ingram, Stage Manager Monet Thibou, and General Manager Devon Miller of Foresight Theatrical.

The Broadway League said the goal of Black to Broadway is “to inspire deeper engagement with awareness of and access to Broadway for all Black people.”

Created by The Broadway League in 2019, this initiative is “an industry-wide celebration of the Black community on Broadway — on stage, in the audience, behind the scenes, and as leaders in the Broadway community.”

To learn more about Black to Broadway, visit Blacktobroadway.com.

A bus crashed on a motorway in western France on Friday, killing four people and seriously injuring 11 others, with 34 more sustaining minor injuries, local police said.

When I had lunch with then-Sunnova CEO John Berger in March 2022, things seemed to be looking up for the residential solar company. In his telling, rising energy bills and the growth of work from home had made consumers more conscious of their electricity consumption. The push to address climate change and energy security concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine added momentum at the national level. “A lot of consumers, companies will want more solar and batteries for certainty,” he told me, citing the broader volatility in energy markets. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

That was then. On Sunday, the company filed for bankruptcy as its debts mounted and the market for residential solar faces difficult conditions. It’s a stunning reversal that tells us a lot about the past, present, and future of the clean energy industry. President Donald Trump’s policy rollbacks combined with preexisting market pressure adds up to steep challenges for many clean energy companies.

At the same time, the Sunnova case study shouldn’t be taken as an indicator that renewable energy is over. Other companies with different business models, less reliant on consumers and tax credits, will have better results. 

To understand Sunnova, it’s helpful to go back to the company’s founding in 2012. At the time, the residential solar industry was booming. The cost of home installations had declined substantially in the preceding years, and interest rates were at historic lows making solar panels easier to afford. A key business model innovation for companies like Sunnova was to finance or lease systems to customers rather than asking them to come up with the money to pay upfront on their own. 

Sunnova IPO’D in 2019 and its valuation subsequently soared, as did those of many clean technology companies. In January 2021, its market cap topped out at more than $5 billion. But over time its fortunes began to change. Solar panels are expensive up front but can save money as they reduce electricity purchased from the grid over time. But, because consumers and businesses usually need to borrow money to install them, rising interest rates made the math more challenging. Even before Trump took office, policy developments like a change in the way that California utilities pay consumers for electricity slowed down the industry.

But there’s no question that Trump and the coalition he leads in Washington has been a singular force. He entered office directing federal agencies to implement policies that harm renewable energy, and Congress is working on a budget package that, if passed, would effectively nix the vast majority of clean energy incentives included in the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s landmark climate law. That would hit residential solar hard given the sector’s reliance on tax incentives to make the financials work.

The fate of different segments of the clean energy economy appear increasingly divergent. Followers are quick to cite offshore wind as the most troubled. The sector has struggled in recent years due to supply chain constraints and permitting difficulties. And, for reasons that no one can fully explain, Trump views offshore with particular animus, and the administration has made special efforts to slow the industry. Residential solar, which is heavily dependent on government incentives to make the economics work, also falls in the highly vulnerable bucket. And Sunnova wouldn’t be the only casualty in that space. 

It’s naive to think that any clean technology would be immune, especially if Congress passes the budget package currently under consideration. That bill would aggressively phase out crucial clean energy tax credits and lead to fewer renewable energy additions—though the degree of that drop off is debatable. (I’ve seen figures as low as a 10% decline and as high as a 70% decline).

Nonetheless, some technologies, including and especially utility-scale solar power and battery storage, will remain economic in many places. Electricity demand is rising, and solar is often easier and more economic to build than gas, the primary alternative. And there are other clean power sources like geothermal. While geothermal energy loses out in the current package, some Republicans, including U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, have called for the power source’s tax incentives to remain.

None of this will do any good for Sunnova, or the other companies that focus on consumers and other subsidy dependent distributed solar installations. But, as troubled as the industry may be, not everyone is in dire straits to the same degree. Clean energy installations, including solar, will continue, if more slowly than previously predicted. 

To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter here.