The Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling to uphold Governor Tony Evers' use of veto power to extend educational funding for 400 years has ignited a constitutional debate.
The court's decision highlighted the contentious interpretation of the governor's veto authority and its implications for policy and legislation in Wisconsin, as the Washington Examiner reports.
In July 2023, Evers exercised his veto by modifying elements of the state budget to extend a $325 per student funding increase mandated for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, extending this increase to the year 2425. This move stirred controversy, leading to a legal challenge from the Republican Party, which questioned the constitutionality of altering the budget's timeline so drastically.
The Republican-led lawsuit argued that the governor's actions were an overreach, suggesting that changing the budget's text in such a significant way circumvented the legislative process. Despite these assertions, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Evers' veto, with a narrow 4-3 decision. The court's liberal justices formed the majority, underscoring the ideological divide within the state’s high court.
The majority opinion acknowledged the startling nature of a 400-year modification. However, it justified the decision by stating that the state’s constitution does not constrain the extent to which vetoes can influence policy change, regardless of magnitude. This interpretation of the constitution sparked differing opinions among the justices.
The conservative wing of the court expressed strong concerns about the implications of the ruling. They indicated that the decision grants the governor excessive power to reshape policy without proper legislative endorsement. One dissenting opinion painted a picture of legislative process disruption, highlighting that by altering the bill's text, the governor could essentially enact law independently of the legislature. This depiction underscores the tension between different branches of the state government.
Evers celebrated the court's decision as a triumph for the state’s educational system. He highlighted what he said was the benefit for Wisconsin's children and public schools, aligning his actions with historical precedents of veto use by previous governors. His statements emphasized continuity in gubernatorial practice rather than a break from tradition.
The Republican Party of Wisconsin, however, criticized the ruling as an example of "judicial activism." They voiced dissatisfaction with the court's decision, arguing that it prioritizes political outcomes over constitutional fidelity. According to them, residents of Wisconsin expect the Supreme Court to serve as a check on executive power, not as an enabler.
The current decision brings Wisconsin's unique partial veto power into focus, which has been a topic of debate for decades. The governor can modify appropriations by changing text and numbers presented in bills, an authority that has historically been wielded by both parties.
The ruling establishes a precedent that might influence future interpretations of gubernatorial power in Wisconsin. With four liberal justices supporting the veto, the decision reflects the intricate balance between executive authority and legislative intent. It raises questions about the separation of powers and the extent to which one branch can revise the outcomes of another.
Critics of the decision fear that this opens the possibility of more extreme modifications in future budgetary exercises. The tension between ensuring effective governance and maintaining legislative participation remains a crucial issue that the state continues to navigate.
As the dust settles, both supporters and opponents of the decision are likely to examine its implications closely. For proponents, it offers stability for public schools, ensuring consistent long-term funding that aids in educational planning and development. For opponents, it signals a need to reassess the constitutional guidelines governing veto powers.
The legal intricacies of the decision might lead to further legislative attempts to redefine or limit the governor's partial veto power. As both parties interpret the ruling's impact, further dialogue and potential legal reforms could emerge to address concerns raised by the dissenting justices.
President Donald Trump is finalizing an executive order that would significantly impact scientific research in the United States.
According to The Daily Caller, Trump is poised to sign a sweeping executive order by May 6 that would ban gain-of-function research, which involves making viruses more dangerous in laboratory settings.
The order would prohibit experiments that increase the infectivity or pathogenicity of any virulent and replicable pathogen. Gerald Parker, who heads the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy within the National Security Council, is leading the initiative.
The federal agencies that have historically supported gain-of-function research, particularly the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have been excluded from the drafting process.
The anticipated executive order represents a significant shift from previous policies. Parker, who formerly led the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, has advocated for moving oversight of such research away from the National Institutes of Health. Former CDC Director Robert Redfield has supported this position, emphasizing the need for independent commission review.
Several key issues remain unresolved in the draft order. Officials are still determining whether violators should face criminal charges as bioweaponeers. The order's final language must also clearly define what constitutes gain-of-function research to ensure legal enforceability.
Questions persist about potential exemptions for lower-risk research, such as studies using non-replicative pseudoviruses that allow scientists to study viral evolution without creating pandemic risks.
Rutgers University microbiologist Richard Ebright, a longtime critic of high-risk virology research, shared his perspective on the implications:
Gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens caused the COVID-19 pandemic, killing 20 million and costing $25 trillion. If not stopped, gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens likely will cause future lab-generated pandemics.
The push for stricter regulations follows concerning revelations about previous research. Documents obtained through FOIA requests in 2023 showed that EcoHealth Alliance, while seeking Pentagon funding in 2018, downplayed plans to conduct gain-of-function experiments on SARS-like viruses in Wuhan, China. In January 2025, both EcoHealth Alliance and its president Peter Daszak were barred from receiving federal funding, though they avoided criminal charges.
The timing of the executive order coincides with previously planned policy changes. The Biden administration's 2024 guidance on gain-of-function research was set to take effect May 6, but scientific organizations report receiving no implementation directions from NIH, suggesting the new executive order will take precedence.
Some experts argue that current oversight mechanisms create conflicts of interest. The 2024 guidance allowed researchers, universities, and funding agencies like NIH to implement their own reviews, which critics argue discourages proper reporting of potentially dangerous research.
A biosecurity expert, speaking anonymously due to employment concerns, suggested alternative accountability measures: "I don't know that criminal penalties are necessary. But we do need more sticks in biosafety as well as carrots. For instance, biosafety should be a part of tenure review and whether you get funding for future work."
The imminent executive order represents Trump's most significant intervention in scientific research policy. The White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, integrated into the National Security Council, is steering this dramatic shift in how the United States approaches potentially dangerous viral research. The administration aims to implement these changes by early May, establishing new guidelines that would fundamentally alter how scientists conduct pathogen research while addressing longstanding concerns about laboratory safety and pandemic prevention.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent announcement marks a significant shift in the government's approach to handling misinformation and content moderation.
According to Daily Wire, the State Department has officially shut down its propaganda office that funded efforts to label media outlets as sources of misinformation and pressured social media platforms to censor content, marking a decisive victory for conservative critics who have long criticized the agency's role in content suppression.
The Global Engagement Center (GEC), which operated with an annual budget exceeding $50 million, faced mounting criticism for its involvement in domestic content moderation despite its original mandate focusing on countering foreign terrorist propaganda. The agency's closure comes after Congress refused to renew its funding in 2024, following various controversies surrounding its operations.
The agency's transformation from its 2011 inception as the Center for Strategic Counter Terrorism Communications raised significant concerns about government overreach. Initially created to combat terrorist propaganda from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, the organization shifted its focus after the 2016 election when Democrats began treating misinformation as a national security threat.
The center established a presence in Silicon Valley to influence content moderation policies on social media platforms. Despite restrictions preventing State Department programs from targeting Americans, the GEC found ways to extend its reach domestically through third-party partnerships.
Through various initiatives, the agency funded organizations like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard, which developed systems to rate and potentially restrict access to certain media outlets. These partnerships raised serious questions about government involvement in media censorship.
Secretary Rubio expressed strong criticism of the agency's activities, stating:
Under the previous administration, this office, which cost taxpayers more than $50 million per year, spent millions of dollars to actively silence and censor the voices of Americans they were supposed to be serving. This is antithetical to the very principals we should be upholding and inconceivable it was taking place in America. That ends today.
The Daily Wire and The Federalist filed a lawsuit against GEC in December 2023, challenging its practices. The legal action alleged that the agency had developed and promoted over 365 tools and technologies targeting American speech and press, including fact-checking technologies and media intelligence platforms.
The State Department's attempts to maintain secrecy about its operations drew scrutiny from Congress. When questioned about its activities, the department refused to provide information, leading the House Small Business Committee to issue a subpoena.
Before losing control, the Biden administration tried to preserve the agency's functions by rebranding it as the Counter-Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference hub (R/FIMI). However, this attempt to maintain the operation under a different name proved unsuccessful.
The State Department had planned to reassign the center's staff and funding to other departments. However, Rubio's intervention resulted in all 30 full-time staff members being placed on leave, with their positions permanently eliminated.
The closure of the Global Engagement Center represents a significant shift in the government's approach to managing information and media content. Secretary Rubio's decision to completely dismantle the agency and its successor program demonstrates the current administration's commitment to protecting First Amendment rights.
The State Department's propaganda office, which began as a counter-terrorism initiative in 2011, evolved into a controversial agency that attracted criticism for its role in domestic content moderation and media censorship. The complete dismantling of both the GEC and its attempted successor program, R/FIMI, marks a definitive end to a government initiative that raised serious concerns about First Amendment rights and government overreach in media regulation.
A new development unfolds in the ongoing conflict between President Donald Trump and Harvard University over institutional policies and federal funding.
According to Just The News, Trump suggested stripping Harvard University of its tax-exempt status after the institution refused to comply with his administration's demands regarding diversity policies and anti-Semitism concerns.
The escalating tension reached a critical point on Monday when the Trump administration took decisive action by freezing $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts allocated to Harvard University, marking a significant financial impact on the institution.
The administration's requirements for Harvard include substantial modifications to their current institutional framework. These changes focus primarily on implementing merit-based hiring practices, addressing programs allegedly linked to anti-Semitism, and eliminating various diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
Harvard's leadership has maintained a firm stance against these demands, choosing to reject compliance despite the substantial financial consequences. This decision demonstrates the university's commitment to its existing policies and institutional values.
The situation has drawn significant attention from both academic and political spheres. Educational institutions nationwide are closely monitoring the developments, as the outcome could set a precedent for federal oversight of university policies.
Trump took to TRUTH Social to express his views on the matter, specifically targeting Harvard's tax-exempt status. In his statement, he emphasized the connection between tax exemption and public interest obligations.
Trump's message on the platform directly questioned Harvard's position, suggesting that the university's current stance might warrant its reclassification as a political entity for tax purposes. His statement highlighted concerns about what he termed as "political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting 'Sickness.'"
The administration's approach represents a significant shift in federal-academic relations. This development marks one of the most substantial confrontations between a presidential administration and an elite educational institution in recent years.
The frozen federal funding represents a substantial portion of Harvard's research and operational budget. The $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts constitute significant financial resources for the institution's various programs and initiatives.
Despite these considerable financial implications, Harvard's administration has remained steadfast in its position. The university's response indicates a willingness to weather the financial impact rather than alter its institutional policies.
The standoff has created uncertainty about the future of numerous research projects and programs dependent on federal funding. Many of these initiatives may face operational challenges if the funding freeze continues.
President Trump's challenge to Harvard's tax-exempt status and the university's subsequent refusal to comply with federal demands has created a complex situation in American higher education. The confrontation centers on fundamental questions about institutional autonomy, federal oversight, and the role of diversity policies in academic settings. The outcome of this conflict could significantly impact how educational institutions navigate federal requirements while maintaining their institutional values and policies.
Nancy Pelosi's grip on Democratic Party leadership faces mounting challenges from younger members and progressive voices seeking change.
According to the New York Post, the 85-year-old former House Speaker has filed paperwork to run for Congress in 2026 despite growing pressure to step aside following the Democratic Party's devastating losses in the 2024 election cycle.
The veteran politician has already amassed nearly $10 million in campaign donations, signaling her determination to maintain influence within the party. Her refusal to relinquish power comes after she played a crucial role in the controversial decision to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, resulting in defeats across the White House, Senate, and House races.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reportedly wants Pelosi to reduce her involvement in party decisions. Sources close to the situation reveal tension between the two leaders, with Pelosi maintaining significant influence over Jeffries' leadership decisions.
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who has known Pelosi for over 50 years, defends her continued presence in politics. The 91-year-old Democrat considers her an irreplaceable figure in the party.
Willie Brown shared his perspective on Pelosi's leadership:
As long as Nancy takes a breath, she is going to do what she wants to do. She's the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, particularly for Californians.
Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, a former chief of staff to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has announced his bid to challenge Pelosi in the 2026 Democratic primary. The software engineer and progressive advisor criticizes the party's resistance to change following the 2024 election losses.
Jake Rakov, 37, represents another voice of opposition as he campaigns for a Congressional seat in Southern California. The former communications consultant aims to challenge incumbent Brad Sherman, who has served in Congress for nearly three decades.
Chakrabarti expressed his frustration with the current leadership:
She basically made the case for how the Democrats don't really need to change. You know, that they ran a great race, did their best, and nothing needs to change. That was the first warning sign to me.
Nancy Pelosi's estimated net worth of $250 million and her husband's recent stock trading activities have intensified scrutiny of the family's financial dealings. Paul Pelosi executed $38 million worth of stock trades, including significant sales of Apple and Nvidia shares, just before Trump took office in January.
The couple continues to face criticism over potential conflicts of interest related to Paul Pelosi's stock trading activities. Nancy Pelosi maintains that her husband makes investment decisions independently, though she must disclose his trades as required by law.
Campaign finance experts suggest Pelosi might eventually step down mid-term to facilitate her daughter Christine's succession through a special election. Christine Pelosi, 58, has significant experience in Democratic Party politics and previously served in the Clinton administration.
The seasoned politician who made history as the first female House Speaker continues to shape Democratic Party decisions despite calls for new leadership. Her determination to seek reelection at age 85 exemplifies the ongoing struggle between established party figures and those advocating for generational change. The Democratic Party faces crucial decisions about its future direction as younger members push for reforms while veteran leaders like Pelosi maintain their influence.
A harrowing night unfolded at the Pennsylvania governor's residence as Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family were evacuated following a suspected arson attack during their Passover celebration.
According to Fox News, police arrested 38-year-old Cody Balmer after he allegedly jumped a fence and set fire to the governor's mansion while Shapiro and his family were sleeping inside at around 2:00 a.m. on Sunday.
The incident occurred shortly after the Shapiro family celebrated the first night of the Jewish holiday of Passover. State police confirmed that Balmer manufactured homemade incendiary devices before carrying out the attack, which caused significant damage to portions of the residence.
Pennsylvania State Police Lt. Col. George Bivens detailed how Balmer actively evaded troopers who were securing the residence. The suspect managed to break in and start fires while law enforcement conducted their search of the premises.
Authorities have announced multiple charges against Balmer, including attempted murder, terrorism, aggravated arson, and aggravated assault against an enumerated person. The severity of the charges reflects the serious nature of the attack on a government official's residence.
Law enforcement had initially offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible before apprehending Balmer.
Governor Shapiro addressed the incident during an emotional press conference, emphasizing the growing concern over political violence in American society.
Shapiro said:
This kind of violence is becoming far too common in our society. And I don't give a damn if it's coming from one particular side or the other, directed at one particular party or another, or one particular person or another. It is not okay and it has to stop. We have to be better than this.
The Democratic Governors Association, through Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, expressed particular concern about the timing of the attack, which occurred during the Jewish holiday celebration. Other political figures, including Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Greg Rothman, voiced their support for the governor and his family.
Commonwealth Media Services released images showing extensive fire damage to several rooms in the governor's mansion. The photos revealed destroyed furniture, charred debris, and soot-covered walls throughout affected areas of the residence.
Photos from the scene showed various Jewish religious items among the damaged property, including a placard advertising Passover crafts and papers appearing to show Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem. Despite the significant property damage, first responders successfully contained the fire before it could spread further.
The National Governors Association, led by Governor Jared Polis of Colorado and Vice Chair Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, emphasized the challenges faced by government officials and their families while praising the swift action of emergency personnel.
Cody Balmer's arrest marks a significant development in the investigation of the arson attack that threatened the lives of Governor Shapiro, his family, and mansion staff during their Passover celebration. The incident has sparked renewed discussions about the security of public officials and their families, particularly during religious observances and holidays.
The case will proceed through the Pennsylvania judicial system as authorities continue to investigate the suspect's motives and the full extent of the damage caused to the governor's residence. The attack has united political leaders across party lines in condemning violence against public officials and their families.
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds declared on Friday morning that she will not pursue another term in office come 2026, citing personal reasons for her departure, including the desire to be more present with her family at this stage of her life.
Reynolds’ withdrawal from the gubernatorial race could shift the political dynamics in Iowa, a state deeply affected by recent policy decisions and the prevailing influence of President Donald Trump, as Breitbart reports.
The governor has been at the helm of Iowa's leadership for some time, steering the state through a period of significant political and social changes. She acknowledged that serving as governor has been a profound honor and expressed deep gratitude to the residents of Iowa for entrusting her with leadership responsibilities.
Following a thorough consideration process that involved introspection and family discussions, Reynolds ultimately decided against seeking reelection. She confessed that while the choice was far from straightforward, her love for Iowa and its people remains undiminished.
The governor remarked that the personal motivation behind her decision was reinforced by her husband's recent health journey; he was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2023 but has fortunately been in remission since January.
As Iowa prepares for upcoming political contests, eyes turn to potential candidates poised to join the race. Brad Sherman, a pastor and former state representative, has publicly announced his gubernatorial aspirations. Sherman emphasized that his candidacy is driven by a sense of divine guidance rather than a personal vendetta against Reynolds, whom he respects and has enjoyed congenial relations with.
Reynolds' tenure as governor unfolded against the backdrop of a vibrant political landscape in Iowa, with several contentious issues coming to the fore. Notably, the state is on the verge of becoming the first in the country to scale back civil rights protections based on gender identity -- a controversial move that underscores the current political climate.
In the realm of immigration enforcement, tensions flared when Reynolds publicly criticized a local sheriff for failing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The introduction of a collaborative initiative between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and state agencies, aimed at implementing mass deportation policies, marked a significant development in the state's approach to immigration.
Amidst these ongoing challenges, Trump continues to wield considerable influence in Iowa's political arena. Trump achieved a decisive victory in Iowa during the 2024 presidential election, securing his third consecutive win since first triumphing over Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 9.5 points. His victory margin slightly narrowed in 2020 when he prevailed over Joe Biden by 8.2 points, but his hold on the state remains undiminished.
As the state braces for a potentially contentious gubernatorial race, Reynolds’ departure opens the field to a broader spectrum of voices and perspectives. The implications of her withdrawal, coupled with the likely policy shifts, could reverberate beyond the state’s borders and influence national discussions.
Reynolds’ decision is a reminder of the delicate balance between public service dedication and personal life commitments. As she prepares to transition out of political office, Iowans reflect on the profound respect Reynolds has garnered during her time as governor.
The evolving political and social climate in Iowa ensures that the coming months and years will be critical in determining the state's trajectory. While much remains uncertain, it is clear that the path forward will demand thoughtful consideration and engagement from stakeholders across the spectrum.
Ultimately, the story unfolds in real-time, inviting observers and participants alike to ponder the next chapter in Iowa's political saga, shaped by both its storied past and the unforeseen contours of its future.
A controversial change in the White House's display of presidential portraits has taken place, whereby an artwork capturing President Donald Trump shortly after last July's assassination attempt now hangs in the position once occupied by a portrait of former President Barack Obama.
A new painting, said to showcase Trump’s resilience, has replaced Obama’s portrait, signaling a fresh page in White House decor dynamics, as the New York Post reports.
On Friday, a gripping painting of Trump, based on a photograph taken during a turbulent moment last summer in Butler, Pennsylvania, was unveiled in the White House. The photo, snapped by New York Times photographer Doug Mills, depicted Trump emerging from an assassination attempt bloodied but steadfast. During the chaotic scene, Secret Service agents surrounded him as Trump raised a defiant fist. An ever-symbolic American flag loomed in the background.
The artwork, with its vivid details and historical weight, was crafted by artist Marc Lipp. It was graciously gifted to the White House by Andrew Pollack, an influential figure recognized for his advocacy in school safety. Pollack's dedication stems from a personal tragedy -- the loss of his daughter Meadow in the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
Pollack's choice to present the painting reflects both his personal admiration and a significant part of recent American narrative, echoing the weight of emotional and political landscapes. Through this gesture, an undoubtedly complex emotional spectrum had been immortalized.
Meanwhile, the former portrait of Obama, a piece by artist Robert McCurdy, was repositioned to another distinguished spot within the presidential abode. It now graces the Entrance Hall of the White House State Floor. From its new vantage point, it overlooks the historically revered Steinway grand piano once owned by former President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
This careful transition ensures that the respect and historical relevance of Obama’s legacy are maintained, subtly illustrating the evolving narrative that each president contributes to while in office.
Since his assumption of office in January, Trump has undertaken several aesthetic revamps within the West Wing. His penchant for gilded embellishments aligns with his personal taste and his aim to commemorate his political feats. Front-page newspaper stories chronicling his achievements are now prominently displayed, aligning with his approach to highlighting milestones of his presidency.
The decision to replace Obama's portrait with the Trump-centric piece arguably emphasizes a personalized narrative, revealing insight into the current administration’s artistic and ideological leanings.
Amidst the shifts, Harrison Fields, a spokesperson for the White House, reassured that "Obama remains in the Entrance Hall of the White House State Floor," evidently addressing concerns regarding dignity and continuity of past presidencies within the White House.
Fields' statement serves to mitigate any perceived dismissal of the Obama era, underscoring a balance between historical continuity and the accommodation of new narratives.
The repositioning of artworks inevitably stirs discourse, reflecting broader discussions in society about leadership, remembrance, and legacy. The choice of exhibition within such a symbolically potent space as the White House holds more than mere aesthetic value -- it’s a mark of cultural and political statement. Regardless of varied opinions, the expressions conveyed through these artistic decisions remain topics of discourse. As these artworks continue to represent shifting tides, they enkindle discussion and contemplation among those who observe the flow of history and its representations.
In this continual ebb and flow of White House decor, the portraits encapsulate more than just the visages of men who once held office. They embody moments of triumph, processes of healing, and iconic symbolism for shaping national identity, etching into history the emotional and political climate of their respective times.
A sightseeing helicopter carrying a Spanish tech executive, his wife, and their three young children plunged into the Hudson River during what was meant to be a scenic tour of New York City.
According to Daily Mail, the tragic incident occurred at 3:15 pm on Thursday when the aircraft's main rotor blades separated from the body and sliced through its tail, creating an "unrecoverable event" that sent the helicopter crashing into the water.
Siemens executive Agustín Escobar, his wife Merce Camprubi Montal, and their children aged four, five, and eleven had just arrived from Barcelona when they decided to take the ill-fated helicopter tour. The 36-year-old pilot, who remains unidentified, also perished in the crash after radioing the base about running low on fuel.
Former military aviator and attorney Jim Brauchle of Motley Rice LLC shared his analysis of the crash footage:
From the footage, it appears that the main rotor struck the body of the helicopter, cutting off the tail of the helicopter, which created an unrecoverable event. The two main causes of this phenomenon are mechanical failure or excessive maneuvering. Still, a full investigation is needed to understand why this tragedy occurred.
Michael Roth, the 71-year-old owner of New York Helicopter, which operated the tour, confirmed the pilot's distress call about low fuel. He expressed shock at the incident, noting that in his 30 years in the helicopter business, he had never witnessed such a catastrophic rotor blade failure.
The helicopter took off from Wall Street Heliport and flew for approximately 16 minutes, circling the Statue of Liberty before heading up the Hudson River toward the George Washington Bridge at an altitude of about 1,000 feet.
Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft "split in half" before it plummeted into the water near Pier 40. The crash produced what one observer described as a "sonic boom" sound that echoed across the area.
Rashmi Kamkeri, a 30-year-old engineer working from her Newport Park apartment, provided a firsthand account of the crash. She initially mistook the sound for thunder before witnessing the helicopter's final moments roughly 10 feet above the water.
Emergency responders worked through Thursday night to recover the wreckage, with dive teams from the NYPD and New Jersey State Police scheduled to resume their search on Friday for remaining aircraft parts.
The incident has renewed attention to helicopter tour safety in New York City, where at least 32 people have died in helicopter crashes since 1977. The most recent fatal crash occurred in 2018 when five passengers drowned after their helicopter went down in the East River.
At the time of Thursday's crash, weather conditions included cloudy skies with 10-15 mph winds and gusts up to 25 mph. While surface visibility was good at 10 miles, the approaching weather system brought light rain to the area.
The National Transportation Safety Board has launched a "go team" to investigate the precise cause of the crash, which could take several months to determine.
The Escobar family perished during what was meant to be their first day exploring New York City. Heartbreaking photos taken shortly before the crash showed the family posing happily on the helipad and inside the aircraft.
Four victims were pronounced dead at the scene, while two others were transported to nearby hospitals where they later succumbed to their injuries. The water temperature was approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of the crash.
The investigation continues as authorities work to recover all parts of the aircraft and determine the exact sequence of events that led to this devastating loss of life.
The legendary Pete Best, who played drums for The Beatles during their formative years in Liverpool and Hamburg, has made a significant announcement about his musical journey.
According to PEOPLE, Pete Best, the original drummer of The Beatles before Ringo Starr, has officially announced his retirement from live performances and personal appearances at age 83.
The news was first shared by Best's brother Roag Best on X (formerly Twitter) on Saturday, April 5, through a heartfelt post featuring a photo of the siblings together. The announcement cited personal circumstances as the reason behind Best's decision to step away from performing with his group.
Best joined the Beatles in 1960 when they were still known as the Quarrymen, marking the beginning of a significant chapter in rock music history. His connection to the band started through his mother's ownership of the Casbah Coffee Club, a venue that hosted some of the Beatles' earliest performances.
During his two-year tenure with the band from 1960 to 1962, Best performed alongside John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison, making his debut with the group in Hamburg, Germany.
The partnership came to an abrupt end when Parlophone Records executive George Martin's decision to sign the band didn't include Best.
Best reflected on this pivotal moment in his career during a 2020 interview with The Irish Times, sharing:
We were rockers, we were little hardies, we could handle ourselves. But when I got back home and I told my mother what happened, behind the sanctuary of the front door, I cried like a baby.
Following his departure from the band, Best's life took several interesting turns. He married his wife Kathy, whom he met at a Beatles concert, in 1963. His professional journey led him through various careers, including working at a bakery and an employment agency.
Best later returned to music, forming the Pete Best Band with his brother. The group released their album "Haymans Green" in 2008, demonstrating Best's continued passion for music despite his earlier setback.
As of March 2020, Best maintained that he had not spoken to any surviving Beatles since his departure. When discussing Paul McCartney, Best expressed a remarkably mature perspective:
I've no regrets. I think I'm a lucky guy. I'm very proud of what I've achieved as a person, of the examples I've set to people to get on with your life, to pick yourself up. I've been an inspiration. And I'm proud of that.
Pete Best, often referred to as the "fifth Beatle," has concluded his remarkable journey in the music industry after decades of performances and personal appearances.
The announcement came through his brother Roag Best's social media post, with Pete himself confirming the news with a simple yet poignant message: "I had a blast. Thank you."
Best's retirement marks the end of an era for Beatles enthusiasts and music historians alike. While his time with the legendary band was brief, his contributions to their early sound can still be heard on their 1990s compilation album "Anthology 1," serving as a lasting testament to his role in shaping the early days of what would become the world's most influential rock band.