‘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.
Mark Zuckerberg (R), CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Mark Zuckerberg took the stand on Wednesday in a landmark Los Angeles trial alleging that major social media platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive for children and teens.
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 lawsuit was brought by a now-20-year-old woman identified as “Kaley” and her mother, who allege she was exposed to addictive design features as a child. Her lawyers claim she got hooked on social media apps starting as young as age 6. She says features like auto-scrolling got her addicted to the platforms — ultimately leading to anxiety, depression and body image issues.
In opening statements, the plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier told the jury the case was “as easy as ABC,” which he said stood for “addicting the brains of children.”
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 are held liable for product design.
Zuckerberg has appeared before Congress multiple times to address concerns over youth safety and online harms, but Wednesday marks the first time he will testify before a jury on these claims.
Several parents of children who died by suicide or accidental harm linked to online trends are expected to attend the proceedings. Some previously watched Zuckerberg apologize during a 2024 Capitol Hill hearing, where he acknowledged families who said social media contributed to their children’s deaths.
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.
Zuckerberg’s appearance follows testimony last week from Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who disputed characterizing Instagram use as an “addiction,” while acknowledging what he described as “problematic use.”
Mosseri testified that there’s always a tradeoff between “safety and speech,” saying users don’t like it when they remove options from Instagram.
The Los Angeles trial is part of a broader wave of litigation targeting social media companies. Meta is also facing a separate child safety lawsuit in New Mexico, while lawsuits brought by school districts — modeled after tobacco litigation in the 1990s — are expected to head to trial later this year.
Social platforms Snapchat and TikTok were previously named in the lawsuit but reached settlements with the plaintiffs last month.
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.
