‘Doomsday Clock’ 2026: This is how close we are to self-annihilation, scientists say
The 2025 Doomsday Clock time is displayed after the time reveal held by The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the United States Institute of Peace on January 28, 2025 in Washington, DC. Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The “Doomsday Clock” — a symbolic clock that represents how close humanity is to global catastrophe — has moved closer to midnight.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced Tuesday that the clock is now 85 seconds to midnight, with midnight representing the apocalypse.
The organization cited nuclear weapons, climate change and biological threats as the three biggest concerns to humanity and the motivation to move the clock closer to midnight.
The new time is four seconds closer to midnight than the 2025 Doomsday Clock.
The clock, set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a nonprofit media organization comprised of world leaders and Nobel laureates.
It is “a design that warns the public about how close we are to destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making,” according to the group.
Intended to be a metaphor and graphic reminder of the perils humans must address, the Doomsday Clock was established in 1947 by Albert Einstein, Manhattan Project director J. Robert Oppenheimer and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons as part of the Manhattan Project.
When it was introduced — two years after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan — it was set to seven minutes before midnight.
Since then, the clock has been adjusted both forward and backward multiple times.
The farthest the clock has been adjusted from midnight was at 17 minutes in 1991, after then-President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev announced reductions in the nuclear arsenals of their respective countries and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty was revived.
In 2025, the clock moved to 89 seconds before midnight. The 2024 and 2023 Doomsday Clock was set to 90 seconds before midnight.
ABC News’ Bill Hutchinson contributed to this report.
A view of the vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz following the two-week temporary ceasefire reached between the United States and Iran on the condition that the strait be reopened, seen in Oman, April 8, 2026. (Anadolu via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Inflation surged in March after an oil shock triggered by the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, government data showed on Friday. The inflation report matched economists’ expectations.
Prices rose 3.3% in March compared to a year earlier, marking a steep rise from a year-over-year inflation rate of 2.4% in the prior month. Annual inflation jumped to its highest level in two years, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data showed.
The jump in prices owed in large part to a sharp rise in costs for products impacted by the oil shortage. Gasoline prices were 25% higher in March than February, the BLS report said. Overall, energy prices jumped almost 12% from a month earlier.
Airline fares increased 3.4% in March from February, the data showed.
The rapid acceleration of price increases could complicate interest rate policy at the Federal Reserve, which may be reluctant to lower borrowing costs as inflation climbs.
The Middle East conflict prompted Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that facilitates the transport of about one-fifth of the global supply of oil and natural gas.
That energy shortage sent oil and gasoline prices surging worldwide. Gasoline prices in the U.S. stood at $4.15 on average per gallon on Friday, marking a leap of $1.17 since the start of the war, AAA data showed.
The BLS collected price data over the entire month of March. The inflation report, in turn, reflected prices for 31 of the first 32 days of war, excluding the outbreak of hostilities on Feb. 28. The ceasefire announced on Tuesday came after 40 days of fighting.
As part of a two-week U.S.-Iran ceasefire announced on Tuesday, Iran says it will allow tankers passage through the Strait of Hormuz as long as they coordinate with the nation’s military.
The resumption of tanker traffic remains uncertain, however. Tanker traffic was suspended on Wednesday after Israeli attacks on Lebanon, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported.
Crude prices fell after the ceasefire announcement but remained highly elevated. U.S. oil prices topped $98 a barrel as of Thursday, standing nearly 50% higher than their pre-war level.
A surge in consumer prices could pose difficulty for the Fed as it weathers a slowdown of economic performance over recent months.
If the Fed opts to lower borrowing costs, it could spur growth but risk higher inflation. On the other hand, the choice to raise interest rates may slow price increases but raises the likelihood of a cooldown in economic performance.
Last month, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that despite rising energy prices and the potential impact on inflation, he doesn’t think the central bank needs to raise interest rates.
Powell noted that central bankers often look past shocks — such as sudden oil-price increases — since the upward pressure on consumer prices usually proves temporary.
“We feel like our policy is in a good place for us to wait and see how that turns out,” Powell said.
The benchmark interest rate stands at a level between 3.5% and 3.75%. That figure marks a significant drop from a recent peak attained in 2023, but borrowing costs remain well above a 0% rate established at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Fed will announce its next rate decision on April 29. Investors overwhelmingly expect the Fed to leave rates unchanged, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.
The tool pegs a roughly 70% chance that the Fed will maintain interest rates at current levels for the remainder of the year.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives to the Los Angeles Superior Court at United States Court House on February 18, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. (Jill Connelly/Getty Images)
(LOS ANGELES) — A landmark trial over social media addiction has drawn fresh scrutiny to a decades-old legal shield: Section 230.
The case, which began last Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on claims against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Plaintiffs argue the companies knowingly built features that encouraged compulsive use among young users, contributing to long-term mental health harm.
The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits nationwide to go before a jury, potentially setting a precedent for how tech companies could be held liable for product design. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is testifying in the case on Wednesday.
The companies deny the allegations, arguing that mental health outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond social media use. They say they have implemented safeguards aimed at protecting young users, including parental controls and accounts designed specifically for teens.
In a statement to ABC News at the start of the trial, a Meta spokesperson said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
Meta said that the company has made “meaningful changes” to its services, such as introducing accounts specifically for teenage users.
The tech giants are expected to challenge the plaintiff’s argument that there is a direct link between social media use and mental health issues. They may also invoke legal protection long-afforded by Section 230.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms and other sites from legal liability that could result from content posted by users because they are not deemed to be publishers.
Plaintiffs have sought to circumvent that legal immunity in part by arguing that the platforms are addictive, which amounts to a defect in a product.
Section 230 grants broad protection for internet platforms, saying: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Some tech giants, like Meta and Google, have supported reform of Section 230 that would raise the standard that platforms would need to meet in order to qualify for immunity. But the companies largely support preserving the law in some form to protect them from legal liability tied to user-generated content.
Section 230 has garnered backing from some free-speech advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The measure “protects internet users’ speech by protecting the online intermediaries we rely on,” EFF said in a blog post last week, praising Section 230 as “the legal support that sustains the internet as we know it.”
In 2023, the Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings that upheld Section 230, rejecting challenges from users alleging that harm had resulted from online posts.
One of the cases, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, concerned a lawsuit brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American woman who was killed in an ISIS terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. The lawsuit against Google, the parent company of YouTube, alleged that YouTube recommended ISIS recruitment videos to users. The high court ruled against the plaintiffs.
Many Democrats argue that Section 230 allows platforms to evade accountability for allegedly permitting harmful or misleading content, claiming the rule lets platforms off the hook for policing too little speech.
Republicans have taken issue with what they consider big tech censorship, saying the legal protection allows the platforms to police too much speech without facing consequences.
In December, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced the Sunset Section 230 Act, which would remove the legal protection from federal law within two years. A bipartisan group of seven senators has signed onto the bill but it remains well short of a majority.
ABC News’ Shafiq Najib contributed to this report.
