The opening of HS2 will be delayed beyond the target date of 2033, the BBC understands.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander is expected to tell Parliament on Wednesday that there is “no reasonable way to deliver” the railway line on schedule and within budget – but is not expected to say how long the delay will be.
She is set to outline the findings of two reviews into HS2, one of which a “litany of failure” has been blamed for ballooning costs.
It is the latest setback for the high-speed rail project, which has been scaled back and delayed repeatedly.
Alexander is expected to say that Conservative governments presided over the cost of HS2 rising by £37bn between 2012, when the line was first approved, and the general election last year.
Under the original plans, HS2 was intended to create high-speed rail links between London and major cities in the Midlands and North of England.
It was designed to cut journey times and expand capacity on the railways, but has faced myriad challenges and soaring costs.
It has already been pared down to a high-speed link between Birmingham and London, with the Birmingham to Manchester leg cancelled in 2023 due to costs getting “totally out of control”, the then-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said.
That was two years after a planned eastern leg between Birmingham and Leeds was also axed.
Alexander is to release the two reports into HS2 in a bid to “draw a line in the sand” and mark a government reset in how major infrastructure is delivered.
One report will detail the findings of a review conducted by the former chief executive of Crossrail, James Stewart, which was commissioned last year to “investigate the oversight of major transport infrastructure projects”.
It is expected to set out what has gone wrong with the HS2 to date and what ministers can learn for future projects.
A second review by Mark Wild, the chief executive of HS2 who was put in place as part of efforts to get control of rising costs in October last year, will assess the construction of the project’s phase from London to Birmingham.
Last year, the Department for Transport said the remaining project cost was estimated at between £45bn and £54bn in 2019 prices – but HS2 management has estimated it could be as high as £57bn.
In 2010, it was estimated HS2 would cost £33bn and open in 2026.
Alexander is also expected to announce the appointment of Mike Brown, the former commissioner of Transport for London to become the new chair of HS2 Ltd.
A federal judge on Tuesday extended an order blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a policy requiring identity documents to reflect an individual’s sex “at conception” to all transgender, nonbinary and intersex Americans who want to change the sex designation on their passports.
A previous ruling, handed down in April, had ordered the State Department to allow only six trans and nonbinary plaintiffs named in a federal lawsuit to obtain passports with sex designations matching their gender identity while the case proceeds. The lawsuit, filed in February in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argues the administration’s policy “is motivated by impermissible animus.”
The plaintiffs’ legal team at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Covington & Burling LLP asked the court in April to certify a class of people adversely affected by the passport policy and extend the preliminary injunction to those who are currently impacted or may be impacted in the future.
Judge Julia E. Kobick, an appointee of former President Biden, granted that request on Tuesday. She wrote in her ruling that the six named plaintiffs and the new class of plaintiffs “face the same injury: they cannot obtain a passport with a sex designation that aligns with their gender identity.”
In granting the initial preliminary injunction in April, Kobick wrote that the federal government had failed “to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest.”
The State Department suspended processing applications from Americans seeking to update their passports with a new gender marker in January, shortly after President Trump signed an executive order proclaiming the U.S. recognizes only two sexes, male and female, and that those sexes “are not changeable.”
The order, which Trump signed during his first hours back in office, directs the departments of State and Homeland Security and the Office of Personnel Management to require government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas and Global Entry cards, to reflect an individual’s sex at birth over their gender identity. The State Department previously allowed U.S. passport holders to self-select their sex designations, including an “unspecified” gender marker denoted by the letter X.
Kobick wrote in her ruling on Tuesday that passports are used not just for international travel but also for more common and mundane tasks such as filling out employment paperwork, opening a bank account or renting a car.
“Absent preliminary injunctive relief, these plaintiffs may effectively be forced to out themselves as transgender or non-binary every time they present their passport,” Kobick wrote, making them more vulnerable to discrimination, harassment and violence and increasing their experiences of anxiety and psychological distress.
In a 2022 survey, 22 percent of transgender adults said they were verbally harassed, assaulted, asked to leave an establishment or denied services after they presented an identity document with a name or gender that did not match their gender presentation.
In a statement, Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said Tuesday’s ruling “acknowledges the immediate and profound negative impact” of the Trump administration’s policy.
“This decision is a critical victory against discrimination and for equal justice under the law,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “But it’s also a historic win in the fight against this administration’s efforts to drive transgender people out of public life. The State Department’s policy is a baseless barrier for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans and denies them the dignity we all deserve.”
Even with the ability to take excellent photos with our phones and instantly share them across the world, there’s something magical about the old-school instant camera. With just a click of a button, you can capture a moment in a photo that you can see and touch almost immediately. Images captured by an instant camera aren’t as pristine or perfect as those produced by modern digital cameras, but their soft images and imperfections are often a big part of the allure.
Yet not all instant cameras are the same, and some of them are better suited for different needs and budgets. That’s why we tested some of the most popular instant cameras on the market from brands like Fujifilm, Polaroid, Leica, Canon, and Kodak.
All the models featured in our instant camera buying guide are enjoyable to use, but each offers a distinct set of features at a different price point. As a result, some are more appropriate for a child or budding photographer, while others are more advanced and provide added creative control (for a price). When it comes down to it, though, we consider print quality, ease of use, and affordability to be the hallmarks of a quality shooter. That’s why we picked Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12 as the best instant camera for most people, as it ticks all three boxes wonderfully.
What I’m looking for
Typically, I try to spend at least a couple of weeks — if not months — testing each camera to get an idea of what it would be like to actually own one. I’ll use them to capture photos of loved ones while hanging out, or subjects and scenes I stumble across as I’m exploring Los Angeles and its many beaches. I shoot indoors and outside, with and without the flash, allowing me to compare how each camera performs in both bright and low-light environments.I also ask friends and family — both young and old — for their input on image quality, and I have them take photos with the instant camera to get their thoughts on usability. If the camera comes with extra features, such as filters or support for a companion app, I’ll make sure to put them to the test in real-life situations. I note how easy it is to pull up and navigate the app, apply the effects, and, of course, how the results look.
Instant cameras aren’t known for producing high-quality, sharp photos, and most of them struggle with low-light conditions. However, the photos should at least be clear and bright enough that the subject is discernible and the picture looks relatively true to life.
How easy is it to set the instant camera up and take photos with it? Ease of use is a big part of what makes instant cameras fun and accessible to people of all ages. You shouldn’t need a professional photography background just to enjoy an instant camera. Instant cameras aren’t known for producing high-quality, sharp photos, and most of them struggle with low-light conditions. However, the photos should at least be clear and bright enough that the subject is discernible and the picture looks relatively true to life.
Instant cameras come with different features at various price points. Generally, the more feature-rich cameras tend to be pricier, but do the extra capabilities justify the added cost? Some cameras, for example, pair with a companion app or feature a built-in selfie mirror, while others include the ability to print images from your phone. None of these are essential, though the added niceties may be worth it for some people.
Some instant cameras aren’t as well suited for some situations and / or people as others. For example, there are instant cameras that print old-fashioned Polaroid photos that aren’t very clear. They frustrate me, but retro lovers might find them charming. Other cameras come with advanced creative modes that let you edit photos and even print smartphone pictures, but a young child might find them hard to use.
Each instant camera requires a different kind of film, which means that the sticker price of the camera isn’t the true price. This is something you should take into account before making a purchase, as the cost of film can quickly add up. Depending on the brand, you may have to pay anywhere between 50 cents and $2 a shot.It’s also important to take into account that some film is easier to find. The Instax Mini 12, for example, uses credit card-size Instax Mini film that’s sold at most major retailers. Other types of film, including the film needed for Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Square Retro, are available on Amazon but aren’t sold by as many retailers.Finally, most instant camera brands sell films of varying quality in a range of styles. Some are decorated with colorful frames and patterns, while others are black and white. They also vary in shape and size, from small rectangular prints you can stick in your wallet to square-shaped ones. You can also buy wider prints, and some brands even sell film with an adhesive backing that allows you to use the resulting images as stickers.
If you’re looking for more creative control or features like filters, however, the Instax Mini Evo is our choice, one that boasts great image quality and allows you to choose which photos you’d like to print. Other instant cameras, like the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus and Kodak’s Mini Retro 3, also offer a variety of advanced creative modes for those who desire more.
Take a look at this list of our instant camera recommendations to find the best fit for you.
The best instant camera for most people
$80
The Good
Produces relatively true-to-life photos
Terrific ease of use
Very affordable
The Bad
Instax film can get pricey
Minimal creative control
Flash can be overpowering
Film type: Fujifilm Instax Mini film (sold separately)/ Film size: 2 x 3-inches /Weight: 306 grams / Charging method: AA batteries / Companion app: None / Other features: Built-in selfie mirror, film counter
If all you’re looking to do is just click a button and get a decent print for a reasonable price, we recommend Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12. It’s a basic instant camera that’s similar to our former pick, the Instax Mini 11, but with some minor updates. It still takes less than five minutes to start shooting, but the setup process is easier since all you need to do is twist the lens to either “on” or “off.” Such ease of use, combined with the camera’s thinner build, makes it particularly well suited for those new to photography and kids.
For an instant camera, Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12 produces vivid, relatively true-to-life photos.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
For an instant camera, image quality is also better than most of the other cameras I tested, producing relatively true-to-life photos. Most of the cameras I tested struggled to capture low-light conditions well, and this one is no exception, but the built-in flash does help. Fujifilm claims the Mini 12 optimizes image quality in both dark and bright environments better than its predecessor, but I didn’t notice much of a difference. The flash — which you can’t disable — is also still overpowering in some instances, resulting in a few overexposed images. If anything, the photos actually seemed a little darker and less vivid than before.
However, at least the Instax Mini 12 captured my features and skin color more accurately when I used the included selfie feature — which is really just a small mirror mounted on the front of the camera.
Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12 features a new lens structure that’s fun and more intuitive to play with.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
You can also now zoom in a little easier thanks to a new lens structure, which you can twist to enter the Close-Up Mode in lieu of pressing a button. When in this mode, you can take advantage of the camera’s new “Parallax Correction” feature, which is supposed to result in a more aligned photo. The lens was fun to play with and reminded me of a traditional point-and-shoot, but actually using it to take quality photos takes some time to figure out. As with the Mini 11, it’s still somewhat tricky to center your subject in the frame using this mode, even with the updated lens. Thankfully, it became easier to properly align photos after a couple of attempts (as well as some composition guidance from the manual).
The Mini 12 also offers a number of other niceties. I appreciated the larger-than-average viewfinder and the fact that the camera comes with a small counter that displays the remaining number of shots, which is a feature many of the other instant cameras I tested lacked. It’s easy to lose track of how many photos you’ve taken, especially when out for drinks or while sightseeing on vacation. Yet given each print costs about $1, it’s important to be mindful of how many shots you’ve got left.
All in all, the Instax Mini 12 is a basic camera that caters to all ages and experience levels and gets the job done — and done relatively well. It doesn’t feature Bluetooth or pair with a companion app that allows you to edit photos (only scan them), and it also doesn’t offer advanced features like filters, lens options, or portrait modes. But if you’re looking for an instant camera that offers a great traditional analog experience, this is it.
Best premium instant camera
$199
The Good
Great use of dials and buttons
Lots of printing flexibility
Good battery life
The Bad
Internal storage is limited
Micro USB port is annoying
No viewfinder
Film type: Fujifilm Instax Mini film (sold separately)/ Film size: 2 x 3-inches /Weight: 285 grams / Charging method: USB-C (on newer models) / Companion app: Yes / Other features: LCD screen, smartphone printing
One of Fujifilm’s newest instant cameras, the Instax Mini Evo, was a favorite of my former colleague Becca Farcase — and it’s mine as well. A hybrid camera that bears a resemblance to Fujifilm’s more expensive Fujifilm X100 line of cameras, it looks good and boasts vintage dials and buttons so stylish that they even caught the attention of passersby as I walked around Los Angeles taking photos. I tested the black camera, but Fujifilm also sells a brown version and limited edition models in silver and gold.
It’s easy to balk at its $199 price tag, but this camera offers a level of flexibility that could save you money in the long run if you use it a lot. That’s because the Instax Mini Evo includes a full-color three-inch LCD screen that lets you preview and select which images you want to print, which can help you avoid wasting film on unwanted shots. The added flexibility gave me more room for creative experimentation, too, as I wasn’t worried about running out of film. I also loved using the Instax Mini Evo app to print photos from my smartphone. Plus, unlike the Instax Mini 12, the Evo now uses a USB-C port (though older black models still use the Micro USB port) for charging, so you don’t need to keep buying new batteries.
The Instax Mini Evo comes with a large LCD screen that doubles as a viewfinder and allows you to choose which photos to print.Image: Becca Farsace / The Verge
Unlike Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12, the Mini Evo comes with a few extra features that can help you capture better photos. For example, you can actually turn off the flash on the Mini Evo and use the three-inch LCD screen as a viewfinder. You can also use the menu to adjust how bright you want the film to look when it’s printed out, which was helpful given neither the Evo nor the Mini 12 are particularly great at capturing dark environments.
Additionally, there are dials you can use to apply various lens options and filters, ranging from retro to monochrome shades, as well as a mirror lens, vignette, soft focus, and more. You can take app-based remote shots, too, which adds an extra element of photographic control that can help you take better selfie shots than the selfie mirror in the front.
Being able to adjust the brightness of the prints helped me capture night photos and a low-light immersive exhibit a little more clearly and realistically, which is a feature the Instax Mini 12 doesn’t offer.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
Of course, it’s not a perfect device, and there are some downsides to consider outside the price. For instance, although you can add some filters and make a few edits using Fujifilm’s companion app, it just isn’t as feature-rich as some of the apps available for the other digital and hybrid instant cameras I tested. The Evo’s extensive menu system isn’t particularly easy to navigate, either, and it took me some time to figure out how to turn the flash on and off. Plus, if you rely on internal storage solely, you can only take 45 images before the device is full. Still, all of these are minor issues, and I was very happy overall with how portable the stylish camera is, as well as how easy it is to take good photos quickly.
Film type: Kodak Instant Print 3 x 3-inch cartridge (included) / Film size: 3 x 3-inch square prints / Weight: 467 grams / Charging method: Micro USB / Companion app: Yes / Other features: LCD screen, smartphone printing
Whereas the Instax Mini Evo’s companion app is more functional, Kodak’s hybrid Mini Shot 3 Retro is all about fun. The camera’s accompanying mobile app allows you to apply frames, stickers, filters, and a plethora of customization options to photos, making the camera great for scrapbooking. There’s even a beauty feature within the app to conceal blemishes, as well as a set of Snapchat-like filters you can use to add, say, dog ears, making this a fun instant camera to use as a mini photo booth of sorts at parties.
With its feature-rich app, Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro is more modern than retro. It’s also a ton of fun.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
Like the Instax Mini Evo, Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro comes with an LCD screen (albeit a much smaller one) you can use to decide whether or not you want to print a shot. It also supports Bluetooth, and you can use the Kodak Photo Printer app to upload photos to social media or print decent, relatively crisp photos from your smartphone. Unlike the Mini Evo, however, Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro retails for around $170 and includes a pack of a film (it’s also often on sale for a lot less). It also uses cheaper film; you can currently pick up a 60-sheet cartridge for about $17.99, which equates to roughly $0.33 a shot. The fact that the film is cheaper arguably encourages play and creative experimentation, even if the large 3 x 3-inch square prints feel lower in quality and more flimsy than both Fujifilm’s and Polaroid’s.
Photos taken with the Kodak Mini Shot 3 aren’t particularly sharp and can have an excessive pink tint.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
However, there are notable drawbacks to the Kodak Mini Shot 3. My biggest issue is that the resulting prints of photos taken with the camera aren’t nearly as crisp or clear as those taken with a smartphone. Photo quality wasn’t consistently as good as the Mini Evo’s or Mini 12’s nor, for the most part, as clear and sharp. The photos also sometimes had an excessive pink tint that can interfere with quality. It doesn’t store images the way the Mini Evo does, either, which means you can’t decide whether you’d like to print them later. It’s also noticeably heavier than the Mini Evo and, frankly, nowhere near as stylish.
Nonetheless, if you don’t mind compromising on photo quality and want a relatively affordable hybrid camera with fun app features, the Kodak Mini Shot 3 Retro is a good choice.
The best instant camera for retro fans
$119
The Good
Handsome, retro design
Prints dreamy, vintage-style photos
Several creative modes
USB-C
The Bad
Struggles in low light
Film takes up to 15 minutes to develop
Film type: Polaroid i-Type Color Film (sold separately) / Film size: 4.2 x 3.5-inch prints / Weight: 451.5 grams / Charging method: USB-C / Companion app: Yes / Other features: Lens filter kit, film counter
If you’re looking for an instant camera that offers the most old-fashioned, instant-film experience, the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus is the camera for you. Compared to the other instant cameras on this list, it most closely resembles vintage instant cameras like the Polaroid 600 with its classic, retro-inspired design. Meanwhile, its square I-Type film prints and iconic Polaroid-style frame give photos a more authentically vintage look.
At the same time, the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus comes with a suite of modern features, including support for USB-C charging. It also offers Bluetooth and a companion app that boasts several creative modes, allowing greater photographic control. These include a remote shutter, a self-timer, and the “Polaroid Lab,” which lets you adjust the exposure and various color settings. The app also features a handful of shooting modes — including a manual option — and the camera comes with a set of five colored lenses you can snap onto the front. These were enjoyable to play with and allowed for more artistic expression.
If there’s one thing the Polaroid Now Plus isn’t known for, it’s portability. Given how heavy, large, and awkwardly sized it is, it’s not the kind of instant camera you can easily slip into your purse or carry around. Plus, it takes up to 15 minutes for prints to develop, and you have to ensure it’s not exposed to light while developing. That’s quite an inconvenience if you’re out with friends, say, at the beach on a sunny day.
The photos I took with the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus weren’t that true to life, but they did give off an old-school vibe that I found charming.Photo by Sheena Vasani / The Verge
If you’re looking for an instant camera that can easily print a good, clear photo without much effort on your part, this is not the camera for you. Of all the cameras on this list, the latest Polaroid Now Plus struggles with low-light environments the most. I could barely see images I took indoors, and I could only get the clearest shots when the light was directly behind me during the day — specifically, in the morning. Even these images weren’t as clear in comparison to Instax film, and both contrast and color saturation levels tend to be quite low.
Admittedly, this gave my pictures more of a dreamy vintage look that felt artistic, and you can use the Polaroid Lab to slightly adjust saturation and exposure settings. However, doing so is time-consuming. Given all these issues, I found it was easy to waste film, which proved expensive. After all, you only get eight I-Type sheets for $16.99, and that’s in addition to forking out $149.99 for the camera.
Truth be told, however, you could argue that many of these shortcomings are typical of a retro Polaroid-inspired instant camera and, thus, part of the experience. If that’s what you’re looking for, and you don’t mind the price, the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus is the perfect camera for you.
The second-gen Polaroid Now Plus is a good combination of old-school and modern but was way too big for me to comfortably hold with just one hand.Photo by Sheena Vasani / The Verge
All that being said, it’s worth pointing out that Polaroid recently launched the $139.99 Now Plus Generation 3. The instant camera costs $10 less than its predecessor’s MSRP, though, at the moment, the second-gen model is on sale starting at $119.26.The new camera seems like it’s largely an iterative update, with a built-in tripod and four new colors to choose from instead of just three. It should also offer brighter, more accurate lighting in high-contrast scenes and improved depth perception, courtesy of upgrades to the ranging sensor, light meter position, and autofocus.
The best instant camera for portability
$72
The Good
Tiny and lightweight
Prints vintage-like photos just like the Polaroid Now Plus
USB-C
The Bad
Struggles in low light
Film takes up to 15 minutes to develop
No Bluetooth support or companion app
Film type: Polaroid i-Type Color Film (sold separately) / Film size: 2.6 x 2.1-inch prints / Weight: 239 grams / Charging method: USB-C / Companion app: No / Other features: Self-timer, selfie mirror, film counter
Whereas the Polaroid Now Plus is huge, the second-gen Polaroid Go is tiny. It easily fits into the palm of my hand — which is saying a lot, given I’m petite and a little over five feet tall — making it easily the most portable instant camera on our list. It also produces the smallest prints of all the instant cameras I tested, which could be nice if you’re trying to save some space and want something more compact than Instax Mini prints.
Weighing just over a pound, the latest Polaroid Go is also the lightest instant camera I’ve ever held, and you can easily use it with one hand. That’s actually pretty convenient, given I sometimes struggled to take pictures with the heavier Polaroid Now Plus and, to a lesser extent, some of the other instant cameras I tested. In fact, if the images produced looked more true-to-life and didn’t require you to hide them from light for about 15 minutes while developing, I’d be tempted to call this the best instant camera for travel or small children.
At $79.99, the latest Polaroid Go is the most affordable Polaroid camera on the market, with film that costs just a little more than Fujifilm’s Instax Mini shots (or about $19.99 for a 16-sheet pack). It also sports a small number of upgrades over the last-gen model despite retailing for $20 less. The most significant is USB-C support, which allows for faster charging and prevents you from having to spend money on AA batteries.
Polaroid also claims the camera produces clearer stills than its predecessor, but truthfully, I didn’t see a significant difference from one generation to the next. The photos are a little brighter, but if anything, the original Polaroid Go — like the Now Plus — produced warmer pictures that I thought were truer to life. Still, the photos are charming in the way only a Polaroid photo can be. Contrast and color saturation levels are still low but in a way that exudes the vintage, almost dreamy look of the photos taken with the Now Plus.
The second-gen Polaroid Go produces charming photos but with a cooler tone.Photo by Sheena Vasani / The Verge
Unlike the Now Plus, however, the Go lacks creative modes and more advanced features, although it does offer a helpful self-timer and a larger selfie mirror. There’s also no Bluetooth support and, thus, no fancy app that will allow you to add extra effects. Instead, it’s just a simple point-and-shoot camera, just like the Instax Mini 12, which makes it a little easier to use. In addition, as mentioned, the prints are smaller than those of the Instax Mini, which could be a drawback for those who prefer larger, more traditional Polaroid photos. While it produces similar vintage-style shots, design-wise, it doesn’t look anything like old-school Polaroid cameras, which could also take away from the retro experience some desire.
The Polaroid Go is easy to hold with one hand.Photo by Sheena Vasani / The Verge
That said, none of the older Polaroid cameras came with an app, either. All in all, the Go’s simplicity makes it a suitable candidate for those seeking an easy-to-use camera that provides a more traditional instant film experience — one they can take advantage of just about anywhere for half the price of the Polaroid Now Plus.
Other instant cameras to consider
The Kodak Smile Plus is another hybrid instant camera you can use to print smartphone photos. It’s smaller and less expensive than Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro 3 at $99.99, and it’s available in a variety of vibrant colors that should appeal to children. It also comes with physical filter-changing lens and prints on Zinc paper, allowing you to use your photos as stickers.
However, it lacks a built-in display, so you can’t choose which images you want to print directly on the camera itself. This often results in more wasted shots, especially since image quality is so-so at best, even when compared to those of the Retro 3. Photos are nowhere near as clear as the Instax Mini 12’s, either, especially in areas that are either too bright or too dark.
That being said, the Smile Plus does offer a microSD card slot, so you can store and view photos elsewhere. It pairs with an app that’s similar to the Retro 3’s as well, and although the software is not as snappy or feature-rich, it still allows you to add a variety of filters and frames. Ultimately, I’d recommend the Retro 3 since it can often be found for less than $120, but the Smile Plus is a good, budget-friendly alternative.
From photo quality to the lever you pull to print photos, Leica’s Sofort 2 is a terrific camera that’s remarkably similar to the Instax Mini Evo. In all of my tests, the photos I took with both looked identical. The two hybrid cameras also print smartphone photos via Instax Mini film and offer 10 film and lens effects, along with a macro mode for those who want more creative control. The Sofort 2’s minimalistic look is stylish, too, even if it’s not as charming as the retro-inspired Evo.
The drawback to the Sofort 2 is that it’s twice the price of the Evo. It’s hard to recommend at $389 since most people would likely consider the differences between the two cameras relatively minor. The user interface is easier to navigate on the Leica, though, and I appreciate the included lens cap and extended two-year warranty. I also like that it lets you print photos taken with other Leica cameras via the companion app — a nice perk for Leica fans. Nonetheless, I don’t think those perks are enough to justify spending nearly $200 more.
If you’re looking for an analog instant camera that’s more advanced, Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 99 is one to consider. At around $200, Fujifilm’s latest instant camera is not as affordable as the Instax Mini 12, but it’s certainly a step up from the one-button point-and-click camera given it has multiple brightness settings, focus zones, color effects, and even two shutter buttons for greater creative control. The camera even comes with a tripod socket and an aluminum extension column, as well as a Sports Mode designed to further reduce blur while capturing fast-moving subjects.
Thanks to the added level of customization, I was able to capture higher-quality photos that looked truer to life than those from the Instax Mini 12 and Mini Evo. Granted, the Mini 99 is an analog camera and not a hybrid like the $199.99 Mini Evo, meaning you shouldn’t buy it if you also want to print smartphone photos. The new model also isn’t as simple to use as the Mini 12, so I wouldn’t recommend it for young children. Still, for an advanced analog instant camera, it’s relatively easy to set up and use, rendering it as much fun for budding photographers as more experienced shooters.
While it didn’t make the cut, the Instax Square SQ1 is also worth a brief mention. Like the Mini 12, the Instax Square SQ1 produces good-quality shots, is easy to set up and use, and comes with a built-in selfie mirror. The reason we didn’t include it above, however, is that it costs nearly twice as much as the Mini 12 at $119.95, though we do sometimes see it on sale for $100.
That said, it might be worth a look if you prefer large 2.4 x 2.4-inch square prints and relatively true-to-life photos over vintage-looking stills. After all, the SQ1 is still cheaper than the Polaroid Now Plus and produces higher-quality images than the Kodak Mini Shot 3 Square Retro, which also prints similarly sized square shots.
Fujifilm also sells the newer Instax Square SQ40. It’s similar to the Instax Square SQ1 but with a vintage look that’s more visually striking, yet it’s also more expensive at $149. Given it produces similarly good-quality photos and rarely goes on sale, I’d recommend the Instax Square SQ1 or the more capable Instax Mini Evo for $50 more.
Fujifilm’s forthcoming Instax Wide Evo Hybrid is nearly identical to the Instax Mini Evo You can use it to print photos directly from your smartphone, though the $349 camera also comes with a 15.67mm lens — the widest used on any Instax camera — for taking wide-format pictures. While it’s currently available in Japan and Australia, Fujifilm hasn’t specified a US launch date, other than “soon.”
Ultimately, I preferred the smaller, more travel-friendly Instax Mini Evo, but if you’re into wide prints (and don’t mind spending twice as much), the Wide Evo Hybrid is rather fun. The photo quality is solid and on par with both the Instax Mini Evo and Instax Mini 12. The main difference is that the Wide Evo’s lens captures a broader field of view. It also offers a few additional lens and film effects, giving users a bit more creative control. I especially liked the Degree Control feature, which lets you fine-tune the intensity of each lens effect applied to your image.
Plus, unlike the Wide 400, it’s a hybrid camera with an LCD screen — a helpful perk that can cut down on wasted shots. However, at $349, it’s a whopping $150 more than both the Mini Evo and the Wide 400. My other main complaint is that there’s a slight delay between pressing the shutter and the photo being taken — something I didn’t notice with the Mini Evo. It’s not a dealbreaker, but it can be frustrating when trying to capture fast-moving subjects like a dog or a hyper toddler.
If you’re into wide-format instant cameras but don’t want to spend $349 — or prefer a more traditional analog experience — the Instax $149.95 Wide 400 is a solid pick. The basic point-and-shoot produces similar photos to the Wide Evo, and in some ways, it’s easier to use, thanks to its stripped-down feature set. That simplicity, however, comes at the cost of customization, making it harder to capture the perfect shot. It also swaps an LCD display for a large viewfinder and is noticeably heavier than the Instax Mini Evo. Nonetheless, if you’re after wide prints at a more affordable price, it’s a worthwhile option.
Fujifilm recently announced the $129.95 Instax Mini 41, which is the follow-up to the $99 Instax Mini 40. The updated model retains its retro design but introduces parallax correction, a feature borrowed from the Instax Mini 12 to help users avoid off-center shots when taking close-ups.
The Polaroid Flip is a new, $199.99 instant camera that introduces scene analysis, which helps prevent exposure and focus issues by flashing a red LED warning light through the viewfinder. That’s a handy addition, as Polaroid says the Flip has the most powerful flash of any of its instant cameras (though its intensity can be adjusted to prevent overexposing close-ups). In addition, the Flip features new autofocus capabilities powered by a sonar sensor that automatically selects from one of four lenses.
Polaroid launched the Now Plus Generation 3, a sequel to our current pick for the best retro-inspired camera. The new model is nearly identical to the second-gen Now Plus, only it’s available in six colors and features a built-in tripod. It also benefits from autofocus improvements and a better light meter position, which, according to Polaroid, should result in better photos.
Update, June 17th: Adjusted pricing/availability and added our thoughts on Fujifilm’s Instax Wide Evo.
Every week, we gather a panel of our MLB experts to rank every team based on a combination of what we’ve seen so far and what we knew going into the season. Those power rankings look at teams as a whole — both at the plate and in the field.
But, how different would those rankings be if we were to look only at major league offenses?
We’ve seen a number of offensive explosions so far in the 2025 season — from torpedo bats taking the league by storm on opening weekend thanks to the Yankees’ barrage of home runs to Aaron Judge and Shohei Ohtani each putting together yet another all-time campaign at the plate.
The latest offensive shake-up came in the form of a blockbuster trade, with the Red Sox sending All-Star slugger Rafael Devers to the Giants in a deal that reverberated around the league. How did it impact the two teams’ offensive outlooks?
Our MLB power rankers came together to sort baseball’s lineups based on what they’ve seen so far and where teams currently stand. We also asked ESPN MLB experts Jeff Passan, David Schoenfield and Bradford Doolittle to break down the top 10 offenses in baseball, from each team’s catalyst to the lineup’s biggest weakness.
Top 10 lineups
Why it’s so fearsome: You start with the second-best hitter in the world in Shohei Ohtani, add in the National League’s leading hitter for average in Freddie Freeman and the NL’s OBP leader in Will Smith, mix in Mookie Betts, and finish with power up and down the lineup — and you might have the best lineup in Dodgers history. Indeed, their current wRC+ of 124 would be the highest in franchise history. There is just no room for opposing pitchers to breathe, and the Dodgers have a nice balance of left- and right-handed hitters who make it difficult for opposing managers to optimize their bullpen matchups.
One weakness:Michael Conforto has been a big disappointment as a free agent, hitting .170 with only four home runs while playing nearly every game so far. The bench was weak to start the season, but the Dodgers jettisoned longtime veterans Chris Taylor and Austin Barnes and called up Hyeseong Kim and top prospect Dalton Rushing. Kim has been outstanding, hitting .382 in his first 30 games, while Rushing has played sparingly as the backup catcher.
Player who makes it all click: As the leadoff hitter, Ohtani’s presence sets the tone from the first pitch of the game — and he already has hit seven first-inning home runs in 2025. With 73 runs in the Dodgers’ first 72 games (he sat out two of them), Ohtani is on pace for a remarkable 164 runs scored, which has been topped only twice since 1900 — once each by Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. (They also each have the only other seasons with at least 160 runs scored.) With Ohtani making his 2025 pitching debut Monday, we’ll see if that affects his offense, but it didn’t during his final season with the Angels in 2023 when he posted a 1.066 OPS while pitching. — Schoenfield
Why it’s so fearsome: The Yankees homer more than any team in the American League. They walk more than any team in all of MLB. They don’t strike out excessively. They punish fastballs. Judge, the best hitter in baseball, anchors their lineup. Seven other regulars are slugging at least .428 in an environment where the leaguewide slug is under .400. There are 100 more reasons the Yankees’ lineup induces such anxiety in opposing pitchers, but it can be encapsulated this way: It’s a lineup without a real weak link, filled with professional hitters who take quality at-bats, at a time when so few make that a priority.
One weakness: Calling this a weakness is a stretch, because the most important point about the Yankees’ lineup is that it doesn’t have a weakness, but they have been worse with runners in scoring position than in situations without runners on second or third. The Marlins have more home runs with players in scoring position than the Yankees. New York’s slugging percentage in such situations dips from .451 to .407 — good for 13th in MLB. It’s also 140 points below the Dodgers’ mark. But fear not: Slugger Giancarlo Stanton, who epitomized clutch for the Yankees last postseason, is back after sitting out the season’s first 2½ months. As if the rich need to get any richer.
Player who makes it all click: What, were you expecting J.C. Escarra? The answer, of course, is Judge, the two-time AL MVP whose combination of power and plate discipline is gifting the Yankees another potential all-time season. It’s not simply the .378 batting average — which is 56 points higher than his career best — or the resplendent home runs he hits, to left and center and right, making the whole field his playground. Even after a miserable series against the Red Sox over the weekend, there is an expectation that Judge will rebound because he hits the ball so hard and so consistently makes contact. The Yankees without Judge are good; the Yankees with him are undeniable. — Passan
Why it’s so fearsome: The lineup depth has been ridiculous, and that trait has been even more stark since Matt Shaw returned from an early-season demotion and began contributing. The Cubs’ collective OPS from spots seven through nine in the batting order is more than 50 points better than the second-best team. Some of that stems from Pete Crow-Armstrong hitting seventh early on, but Chicago has maintained its top-to-bottom consistency all season. This keeps the plate full for run-producers Crow-Armstrong, Kyle Tucker and Seiya Suzuki.
One weakness: The Cubs have been good at just about everything that goes with producing runs. They rank in the top 10 in all three slash categories, are fifth in homers and second in steals. You really have to squint to find a weakness. You can point to a big disparity in road production (.808 OPS) compared to what the Cubs have done at Wrigley Field (.702 OPS). But that too might even out as the weather factors in Chicago work more consistently in favor of hitters.
Player who makes it all click: Crow-Armstrong might be the Cubs’ best MVP candidate, but Tucker is the best hitter and the best exemplar of Chicago’s good-at-everything attack. Tucker leads the team in runs created and OPS+, and though he’s not Crow-Armstrong on the bases, he has swiped 18 of 19 bags. None of this is out of scale with Tucker’s track record. This is who he is — except maybe a little better, as he has walked more than he has struck out. If Tucker’s power bat heats up with the summer weather, look out. — Doolittle
Why it’s so fearsome: The Diamondbacks do a little bit of everything. They already have two 20-homer hitters in Corbin Carroll and Eugenio Suarez, plus Ketel Marte, who sat out a month because of injury but could still reach 30 home runs. They are fourth in the majors in walks and fifth in on-base percentage, so they get on base. Geraldo Perdomo has been a solid contributor the past two seasons but has added some power. He has more walks than strikeouts and has already established a career high in RBIs, adding depth. Josh Naylor is hitting around .300 while replacing Christian Walker’s production at first base.
One weakness: Center fielder Alek Thomas is the only regular with a below-average OPS+, and even then, he’s not awful. The bench is a little thin beyond Tim Tawa and Randal Grichuk, as backup catcher Jose Herrera has provided little offense. The Diamondbacks’ biggest potential weakness is their struggle against left-handed pitchers. (They have an OPS more than 100 points lower than against right-handers.) Carroll, Naylor and the switch-hitting Marte have each been significantly better against righties.
Player who makes it all click: As explosive as Carroll has been at the top of the order, Marte is the team’s best all-around hitter. Like Perdomo, he has more walks than strikeouts, making him a tough out with his ability to put the ball in play and also take free passes. He has the power (36 home runs in 2024) to clear the bases, but he also excels as a baserunner and can have Naylor and Suarez drive him in. When the Diamondbacks reached the World Series in 2023, Marte was the offensive leader, hitting .329/.380/.534 that postseason. — Schoenfield
Why it’s so fearsome: The Mets’ lineup runs sneaky deep, boasts a combination of average and power, and has the fourth-lowest strikeout rate in the major leagues. Low strikeouts often equate to decent batting averages, but the Venn diagram with contact orientation and power is sparsely populated. Beyond the overall numbers, the Mets’ lineup is packed with stars: Juan Soto, Francisco Lindor and the team’s best hitter this season, Pete Alonso. A resurgent Jeff McNeil deepens a group that hasn’t received quite the expected output from Soto. He’s starting to find his rhythm, though, and once that happens, the Mets are bound to be even better.
One weakness: Considering the Mets have multiple options at third base, the quest for an internal solution isn’t banking on the fortunes of a single player. It could be Mark Vientos, the postseason star last year who’s set to begin a rehab assignment next week after a disappointing start to the season. It could be Brett Baty, who has shown plenty of power but still sports a .267 on-base percentage. It could be Ronny Mauricio, the rookie whose pop — and allergy to getting on base — is similar to Baty’s. Regardless of who it is, manager Carlos Mendoza has time to figure out how to maneuver his lineup so that other offensive holes at catcher and center field (when Jeff McNeil isn’t playing there) aren’t nearly as glaring.
Player who makes it all click: The Mets have been clicking without the best version of Soto, so it’s no surprise that in the past 16 games — in which Soto has hit .333/.507/.685 with five home runs — they have scored at least four runs 15 times. As good as New York is without Soto performing, he is their double-click — the catalyzer who brings about action. Even at his lowest points this season, he was managing to get on base, and that’s what makes Soto such a transformative player: His floor is extremely high. When he’s feeling his swing and unleashing shots to all fields, he’s capable of reaching a ceiling higher than all but a handful of hitters in the game. — Passan
Why it’s so fearsome: The Phillies have veterans with big names who have all been productive hitters at various points in their careers — although not necessarily in 2025. Kyle Schwarber has been the lynchpin so far, moved out of the leadoff spot and leading the team in home runs, runs scored and RBIs. Trea Turner is having his best season since joining the Phillies in 2023, with a .364 OBP that would be his highest since 2021. Alec Bohm has been on his usual roller coaster — homerless in April but hitting .331 with seven home runs since the beginning of May.
One weakness: Catcher J.T. Realmuto has carried a huge workload through the years but is now 34 years old and showing some signs of age with career lows in batting average, slugging and OPS. Bryson Stott was an above-average hitter in 2023 before dipping last season, and he has been even worse in 2025 with an OPS+ of just 75. Part-time center fielder Johan Rojas provides speed and defense, but not much offense, and as usual, the bench is pretty weak. Yes, that’s more than one weakness.
Player who makes it all click: As important as it is to have Turner getting on base, this lineup will always revolve around Bryce Harper and his ability to go on hot stretches. He hasn’t had one yet this season and is currently on the injured list because of a right wrist injury. His .446 slugging percentage and .814 OPS are his lowest since 2016. Harper has always been an outlier of sorts — he ranks in the second percentile in swing-and-miss rate in 2025 but in the 67th percentile in strikeout rate — so these aren’t necessarily signs of a decline. Philly just needs him to get hot once he returns. — Schoenfield
Why it’s so fearsome: It’s not. That’s the thing about the Tigers. One gander at their lineup cards — manager AJ Hinch has used 60 different variations over 71 games — and it doesn’t exactly strike fear. And yet that’s the beauty of the 2025 Tigers: They’re managing to score oodles of runs without a single hitter sporting a slugging percentage higher than .500. It’s not like the Tigers are particularly good at avoiding the strikeout (24th in MLB) or taking walks (18th). They don’t hit home runs in bunches (10th) or steal bases at all (30th). They’re simply solid, almost from top to bottom, replete with enough hitters who are league average or better to cobble together runs.
One weakness: The strikeouts are problematic — and a third of Detroit’s regulars struggle to counterbalance them with walks. Kerry Carpenter (52 strikeouts, seven walks), super-utility man Javier Baez (48 strikeouts, eight walks) and catcher Dillon Dingler (56 strikeouts, five walks) constitute one-third of players in all of MLB with at least 48 punchouts and fewer than 10 walks. Riley Greene’s 93 strikeouts lead MLB. And in the postseason, where the pitching gets better and every out is valuable, giving away at-bats by swinging and missing too much is a distinct no-no. Even with the strikeouts, the Tigers won’t be an easy out in October. But among the teams with legitimate playoff aspirations, only Boston punches out more, and it’s the sort of thing that could haunt Detroit.
Player who makes it all click: There isn’t one player, per se. One night it might be outfielder Greene, and another one first baseman Spencer Torkelson, and sometimes outfielder Carpenter, and maybe even infielder Zach McKinstry or outfielder Wenceel Perez. But if there’s one player whose skills differ from his teammates’ and set the table, it’s second baseman Gleyber Torres. Operating on a one-year deal, Torres has been the Tigers’ most consistent hitter this season, getting on base at a .377 clip and walking more than he strikes out. He exemplifies Detroit’s lineup — its team, really — in that nothing he does is particularly sexy but it’s unquestionably effective. — Passan
Why it’s so fearsome: “Fearsome” might be a stretch, but after a horrible April (.656 OPS), the Blue Jays did follow up with a strong May (.785 OPS). June has so far split the difference (.709 OPS), so maybe that’s the true level here, which makes this more of a league-average offense — and, indeed, that’s where the Jays currently stand in runs per game. But there is potential for more here, with Vladimir Guerrero Jr., Anthony Santander, Bo Bichette and Andres Gimenez all capable of more offense than they’ve offered so far.
One weakness: Power. George Springer leads the team with 10 home runs, and the Jays have been outhomered by their opponents 99-70. Left field has been a problem all season, as seven different players have started there, combining to hit .223 with only four home runs. Gimenez was acquired for his defense at second base, but he has been a flop at the plate, hitting .212/.291/.327 with four home runs (and that’s after homering three times in the first five games). Lately, he has even been benched against left-handers.
Player who makes it all click: The $500 million man is hitting more like a $50 million man right now (.275/.375/.414, eight home runs) — but when he’s hot, the offense runs through him. Guerrero had a monster season in 2021 — but that was the year the Jays played more than half of their games in minor league parks because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Guerrero had a 1.418 OPS in their spring training park and a 1.180 OPS in Buffalo (and a .935 at Rogers Centre). He was great again last season — thanks to a .342 BABIP. This season, it’s back down to .299, right around his career mark, but even that doesn’t explain the decline in power. The Jays need Guerrero to start mashing. — Schoenfield
9. Athletics
Why it’s so fearsome: They hit home runs and they hit for average, ranking in the top 10 in the majors in both categories. Jacob Wilson has been the breakout star with a .362 average in his rookie season, Brent Rooker is on his way to a third straight 30-homer season, Lawrence Butler is heating up and looking like the hitter he was in the second half of 2024, and rookie first baseman Nick Kurtz has also added another power bat to the lineup (after a slow start, he has hit .286 with six home runs in his past 11 games). What we don’t fully know yet, based on a small sample size, is how Sutter Health Park is helping. The A’s have hit for a higher average at home (.268 to .240) but have hit more home runs on the road (53 in 38 games compared to 39 in 36 games at home).
One weakness:JJ Bleday had a solid 2024 season, with 20 home runs and a 120 OPS+ in 159 games, but struggled out of the gate in 2025, earning a short demotion to Triple-A. Rookie Denzel Clarke replaced him, and though he has been a defensive wunderkind, he has been overmatched at the plate, hitting .209 with 34 strikeouts and one walk. Overall, the A’s rank 29th in the majors in OPS from their center fielders, ahead of only the Guardians.
Player who makes it all click: Wilson has been amazing, showcasing rare bat-to-ball skills with only 18 strikeouts in 289 plate appearances. The big surprise has been the 23 extra-base hits, including eight home runs, after going homerless in 92 at-bats during last season’s call-up. He has also been drawing a few more walks after beginning the season without one in his first 22 games, so his OBP is over .400. Now that he appears entrenched in the No. 2 spot, he’s going to give the middle of the order a lot of RBI opportunities. — Schoenfield
Why it’s so fearsome: In the Cardinals’ case, the fear factor is probably pointed in the wrong direction — as in their own fear of regression. I suspect their ranking is more a product of what they’ve done than what they are likely to do going forward. Ultimately, a team like the Braves, or even the reshuffled Giants or Red Sox, might be better placed here — but you never know. It’s a lineup with batting average and baserunning as the standout traits. The average part of it can be a house of cards — no pun intended — but the underlying expected stats backstop St. Louis’ offense so far.
One weakness: Only six clubs have a lower secondary average than the Cardinals — mostly a who’s who of the worst offenses in the majors. Secondary traits tend to be more stable than BABIP-related indicators, so St. Louis will need to continue to churn out its admirable strikeout and line-drive rates — a good formula for an average-based offense. But if the average falls, the Cardinals don’t draw enough walks or mash enough homers to make up the difference.
Player who makes it all click:Brendan Donovan‘s career year serves as an avatar for what the St. Louis offense is all about. He leads the Redbirds in runs created, and because he’s doing that while mostly playing in the middle of the infield (which boosts positional value), he’s far and away the team leader in offensive bWAR. The question is will it last? On one hand, even though Donovan has a career BABIP of .319, his 2025-to-date figure of .355 is going to be tough to maintain. On the other hand, Donovan’s 31% line drive rate is tied for second in the NL with teammate Willson Contreras. — Doolittle
Happening to catch Gaines’ post misgendering the teen softball player, Simone Biles wasn’t having it.
“You’re truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race,” the seven-time Olympic gold medalist posted on X June 6, tagging Gaines. “Straight up sore loser. You should be uplifting the trans community and perhaps finding a way to make sports inclusive OR creating a new avenue where trans feel safe in sports. Maybe a transgender category IN ALL sports!!”
She continued, “But instead… You bully them… One things for sure is no one in sports is safe with you around!!!!!”
The race Biles was referring to was Gaines’ fifth-place tie in the 200-yard freestyle with University of Pennsylvania athlete Lia Thomas, a trans woman, at the 2022 Women’s NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships.
Gaines publicly slammed the NCAA for allowing Thomas to compete in the women’s field. She later testified before Congress about what, to her, constitutes fairness in women’s sports and joined a dozen other college athletes in filing a 2024 lawsuit against the NCAA, alleging violations of their rights under Title IX.
In February 2025, the NCAA changed its policy to allow only athletes assigned female at birth to compete in women’s sports.
Martina Navratilova, left, tells Amol Rajan, right, that she feels the US has become “totalitarian”
Fifty years ago, Martina Navratilova left everything she knew in communist Czechoslovakia to start a new life in the US.
Then an 18-year-old high school pupil, she was one of the Cold War’s most high-profile defectors – and she would go on to become one of tennis’s most iconic players.
But speaking to the BBC’s Amol Rajan, she says that she fears the US now “wouldn’t let me in”.
“I’m not loyal to [US President] Donald Trump,” she says, adding that she worries the US has become a “totalitarian” state.
“If I were now still in that same position [as in 1975] and I had to go live somewhere, it would not be America, because it’s not a democracy at the moment,” she says.
When she speaks about US politics, Navratilova’s frustration is palpable. She believes people haven’t noticed what she says is a situation that is gradually getting worse.
The US, she adds, is “definitely turning against migrants”.
“I mean, people are getting chucked out by Homeland Security, they’re getting chucked out because they’re not on board completely with Donald Trump’s agenda… because they’re not kissing the ring,” she says.
That decision to defect to the US in 1975 wasn’t an easy one to make, she says. She describes having an “idyllic” childhood growing up in Revnice, in modern-day Czechia, with a loving family that she was leaving behind. “I never knew when I would see my parents again – or if I would see them.”
But doing so changed the course of Navratilova’s life. She told a press conference at the time that she left Czechoslovakia because she wanted to become world number one in tennis – and that she “couldn’t do it under those circumstances at home”.
She did indeed go on to become number one – both in women’s singles for 332 weeks, and women’s doubles for a record 237 weeks. She is now widely considered to be one of the world’s greatest tennis players.
Navratilova defected from communist Czechoslovakia 50 years ago because she had ambitions of becoming world number one
Navratilova is a dual US and Czech citizen, and still lives in the US with her wife, model Julia Lemigova. Does she worry that, in the current political climate, she could lose her own citizenship?
“Everything is up in the air right now, and that’s the whole point. Everybody’s walking on eggshells, not knowing what’s going to happen.”
There is, however, one extremely divisive subject on which she has previously said she agrees with President Trump – transgender women’s participation in sport.
Navratilova is firm in her belief that the inclusion of trans women in women’s tennis is “wrong”.
She says she doesn’t agree with current World Tennis Association (WTA) rules, which state transgender women can participate in women’s games if they provide a written and signed declaration that they are female or non-binary, that their testosterone levels have been below a certain limit for two years, and that they sustain those levels of testosterone.
She says she feels trans women have biological advantages in women’s sports – a belief that is hotly debated.
“There should be no ostracism, there should be no bullying,” she says, “but male bodies need to play in male sports. They can still compete. There is no ban on transwomen in sports. They just need to compete in the proper category which is the male category. It’s that simple.”
She adds: “By including male bodies in the women’s tournament, now somebody is not getting into the tournament – a woman is not getting into the tournament because now a male has taken her place.”
In December last year, Britain’s Lawn Tennis Association changed its rules, meaning transgender women can no longer play in some female domestic tennis tournaments.
And in April, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Asked if she felt tennis should follow the lead of the UK court, she says: “100%”
Pushed on whether we should “spend a bit more time being sympathetic to” trans people, Navratilova replies: “Very sympathetic – but that still doesn’t give them a right to women’s sex-based spaces.”
‘Oh my God, I’m going to die’
Navratilova has been open about her battles with cancer over the last 15 years.
She was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2010, at the age of 52. Then, 13 years later, it returned – along with a second, completely unrelated cancer in her throat.
“The way I found out, I went like this”, Navratilova says, smacking her hands on the sides of her face as if shocked by something. “And I’m like, ‘oh, this lymph node is a little bit bigger’. And a couple of weeks later, it’s still bigger.”
Following a scan, doctors also caught the second cancer in her breast.
“We got the results, and it’s cancer,” she says. “And I’m like, ‘Oh my God, I’m going to die’.”
Although she says the treatment was “hell”, she feels “all good” now.
“Knock on wood, all clear, and no side effects at all – other than red wine still doesn’t taste good, so I’ve gone sideways towards tequila and vodka,” she laughs. “I’m lucky. The cure was hell, but the aftermath has been great.”
Has having cancer changed Navratilova at all?
“Cancer taught me to really appreciate every day, which I was doing pretty much anyway,” she says. “But most of all, to not sweat the small stuff. It’s fixable.”
Amol Rajan Interviews: Martina Navratilova is on BBC 2 at 19:00 on 18 June, and on BBC iPlayer.
President Trump is becoming ever more emphatic in his backing of Israel’s attack on Iran, with the chances rising by the hour that he will green-light direct U.S. involvement.
The president discussed the crisis in the White House Situation Room with his closest advisors on Tuesday afternoon. Afterward, according to the Israeli news organization Haaretz, he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The road ahead is complicated, not least because there are stark differences within Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) support base over the merits of getting involved in foreign conflicts in Iran or anywhere else.
Then there is the vexing question of what, precisely, the goal would be if the U.S. joined military operations – and how it would be achieved.
Would it be limited to destroying the Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, which is literally built inside a mountain? Or would it be regime change in Tehran?
Then there are questions of economics and logistics, such as the effect of an all-out war on oil prices and on crucial mercantile traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
On Tuesday, Trump adopted his most belligerent stance yet on Iran in a series of social media posts.
Most blatant of all was an all-caps posting that demanded “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” It was not clear what exactly Trump meant by surrender.
The message from the president came shortly after one that had warned, “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but he is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!) at least not for now.”
Trump’s words were directed at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and it was notable in part because of media reports in recent days that Trump had kiboshed an Israeli plan to kill Khamenei at the start of the latest phase of the conflict.
Trump’s use of the word “we” in seeming reference to a direct alliance between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to the attack on Iran, was not lost on anyone either.
He had written on social media about an hour before, “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.”
It’s a far cry from the beginning of the Israeli strikes on Iran, just five days previously, which were met by a quick statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio seeking to maintain at least some distance between the U.S. and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
“Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,” Rubio said.
But as Trump seems to be moving closer to a joint U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran, he is encountering pushback even from within his own base.
A range of prominent figures in MAGA World have expressed skepticism, and sometimes outright indignation, at the idea of the U.S. entangling itself in another conflict in the Middle East.
Figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, commentator Tucker Carlson and several online influencers are part of a populist conservative movement that has grown far more dubious of military involvements in the two decades since President George W. Bush and his coterie of neoconservative advisors launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Monday, Greene took aim on social media at “fakes” who were “slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war.”
On Tuesday, she emphasized the need to cater to Americans who want their leaders to work on kitchen-table issues, like “cheap gas, groceries, bills, and housing,” rather than having the government’s energy and resources “going into another foreign war.”
Carlson has become one of the main right-wing media voices expressing opposition to foreign military adventuring, and skepticism about the assumption that the U.S. should back Israel in almost any endeavor.
On Monday, he published a long on-camera interview with Bannon in which the erstwhile strategist began by saying that one of the main pillars of the MAGA coalition from the start of Trump’s rise was to “stop the forever wars.”
“I’m a big supporter of Israel,” Bannon said, “and I’m telling people, hey, if we get sucked into this war…it’s going to not just blow up the [MAGA] coalition, it’s also going to thwart what we’re doing” on the domestic front — specifically in terms of Trump’s hardline policies on immigration.
It bears emphasizing that the risks for Trump in directly joining the Israeli assault are not limited to the split in his political base.
For a start, there is the perennial problem with military operations that the late secretary of State Colin Powell dubbed “mission creep.” Powell was referring to the tendency for objectives to become more and more expansive over time, to a point where it becomes politically difficult to either withdraw troops or declare victory
At the same time, there are voices within the GOP coalition loudly insisting that Trump should give Israel the utmost backing. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said that the U.S. should go “all-in” behind Israel if Iran does not come to an agreement over its uranium enrichment program.
If Trump were to confound current expectations, he would keep the U.S. out of the direct conflict.
But he would also be open to criticism from the most vehement supporters of Israel, within his own party and beyond, that he had blinked at a crucial time, passing up on what they see as a potentially transformative moment.
Either way, the risks and rewards are profound — especially for a president who has previously expressed pride in his ability to keep the U.S. out of new wars.
(Reuters) -Francois-Henri Pinault’s decision to hire Renault boss Luca de Meo is an audacious but necessary move to address the twin challenge of sagging sales and mounting debt at luxury group Kering, investors and industry players say.
De Meo’s turnaround credentials were enhanced by his work at French carmaker Renault, but he has much to do if he is to replicate the successes of cross-sector heavyweights such as Robert Polet and Leena Nair.
Pinault, son of founder Francois and CEO of Paris-listed Kering since 2005, has struggled to contain a deepening rot at star brand Gucci while embarking on a shopping spree that has stretched the French conglomerate’s balance sheet and that of controlling family holding Artemis.
By stepping aside to let de Meo run a luxury sector giant, Pinault has acknowledged the urgent need to address Kering’s problems, including the 75% drop in its value since the summer of 2021, according to Reuters conversations with industry experts and investors.
“It’s a bold move … We now have a CEO (de Meo) who is a great professional,” said Ariane Hayate, European equity fund manager at Edmond de Rothschild.
“There’s now a real willingness by Francois-Henri Pinault to take a step back after years of underperformance.”
Kering confirmed in a statement on Monday it had picked de Meo as CEO and that he would start in his role in September. Pinault, who told analysts he had met de Meo only a few months earlier during the recruitment process, would retain the role of chairman.
“I will be fully involved in the strategic orientation of the group as chairman,” Pinault said. “But I won’t step in and short circuit the new CEO in terms of priorities or key appointments.”
Kering’s share price rose nearly 12%, its best daily performance since 2008.
The group’s swoop for de Meo also suggests that its problems are bigger than perceived from the outside and go beyond Gucci, said one large European investor on condition of anonymity in discussions relating to individual investments.
Despite his lack of experience in the luxury sector, de Meo does bring skills that can help Kering at this critical juncture, industry players say.
Having successfully managed a turnaround at Renault, he is likely to accelerate a Kering cost-cutting push that includes store closures, real estate sales and redundancies to reduce its more than 10 billion euros ($11.6 billion) of net debt, according to two industry players and one person who knows him.
De Meo will also need to address Kering’s planned acquisition of the 70% of fashion brand Valentino that it doesn’t already own. Kering bought 30% in 2023 for $1.9 billion and intends to buy the remainder in 2028.
The purchase from Qatari-backed luxury fund Mayhoola could cost a further 4 billion euros, Kering’s annual report said.
Options included in the original deal might force Kering to buy the other 70% as early as next May, company filings show, which could require partial payment in Kering shares, Kering finance chief Armelle Poulou said in April.
“Coming from outside the industry, de Meo’s learning curve is going to be super steep, but at the negotiating table he could do well,” said one person familiar with Valentino, declining to be named owing to the sensitivity of the matter.
Mayhoola, which does not have a press office, did not respond to a request for comment sent to its corporate email address.
A person close to the fund described de Meo’s expected arrival at Kering as good news.
TOP CHALLENGE
De Meo’s most pressing challenge, however, is Gucci.
The Italian label has struggled since star designer Alessandro Michele left in late 2022 and the company’s recent appointment of creative director Demna from Balenciaga disappointed investors.
Coming with three decades of automaking experience, de Meo may initially focus on costs, said a Kering adviser who declined to be named, while luxury sector adviser Mario Ortelli said it could be difficult for de Meo to come from a different industry and give an opinion on a creative designer.
But the aforementioned cross-sector successes of Polet, Nair, Vigna and Marchionne offer hope for de Meo.
Polet, who joined Gucci as CEO in 2004 after a 26-year career at Unilever, is credited with reviving the label after the departure of famed designer Tom Ford.
Nair switched from Unilever to Chanel in 2022 and lifted sales to $18.7 billion in 2024 from $15.6 billion in 2021.
Other cross-sector success included Ferrari boss Benedetto Vigna, who joined the supercar manufacturer from chipmaker STMicro in 2021 and led a push towards highly profitable personalised offers to clients.
Another was the late Sergio Marchionne, architect of the successful Fiat-Chrysler merger and a former boss of de Meo, who joined Fiat from verification company SGS.
($1 = 0.8626 euros)
(Reporting by Tassilo Hummel and Lisa JuccaAdditional reporting by Giulio Piovaccari and Mimosa SpencerEditing by David Goodman and Tomasz Janowski)
When it comes to finding a device to read ebooks, you have a few options to choose from. You can always buy a tablet or use your phone, but those devices are multipurpose and can be used for a ton of things, like surfing the web or doom-scrolling on X or Bluesky. If you are looking for something to strictly read books, e-readers, while niche, are designed to store all of your books in a virtual library with limited functionality.
Amazon, one of the pioneers of the e-reader, has dominated the space for years with its ever-expanding Kindle lineup, which consists of several unique models with their own pros and cons. The bulk of the devices function as simple ebook readers; however, with the Kindle Scribe, Amazon is moving beyond books and into the realm of writing — something that should make future Kindles function more akin to physical paper.
Below, we’ve listed each model currently available. Sometimes there isn’t a deal for one or even any of the products, but in those cases, we’ve listed the most recent sale price. However, before we dive in, it’s worth noting that Amazon’s annual Prime Day sale will kick off on July 8th. Amazon says it will offer a 25 percent discount on select e-readers like the Kindle Scribe and Kindle Kids — as well as the Kindle Essentials bundle — so it may be worth holding out. But if you’d rather not wait, here are the best deals available now.
The entry-level Kindle remains the smallest e-reader Amazon offers, one that’s available in either black or green.Photo by Sheena Vasani / The Verge
The best Kindle (2024) deals
What does it mean when a Kindle is “ad-supported”?
Amazon Kindle e-readers come in different storage configurations, but there is also an additional option that allows you to buy the e-reader with or without ads. Ad-supported Kindles will display personalized advertisements on the lock screen when it is in sleep mode or at the bottom of the homescreen when the device is connected to Wi-Fi. Typically, you save about $20 by buying the ad-supported version, but if you decide to remove ads later, you can make a one-time payment to cover the difference and remove the ads.
In case you missed it, Amazon announced a new entry-level Kindle in October, one that was designed to replace the outgoing 2022 model. The latest Kindle — which starts at $109.99 — boasts a brighter 94-nit display, improved contrast levels, and slightly faster page turns. It also comes in a “matcha” green instead of “denim,” just in case you’re not a fan of the default black color. Otherwise, though, it’s nearly identical to its predecessor, with the same six-inch 300ppi screen, support for USB-C, and 16GB of base storage.
In the past, Amazon’s newest ad-supported Kindle has dropped to as low as $84.99 ($25 off) with three months of Kindle Unlimited. Right now, however, you can only buy the base Kindle at Amazon, Best Buy, and Target for its full retail price of $109.99.
$110
Amazon’s new entry-level Kindle retains a six-inch, 300ppi display and USB-C. It’s both brighter and faster than its predecessor, however, and features longer battery life.
The best Kindle Kids (2024) deals
Amazon also updated its kid-friendly Kindle in late 2024. The new Kindle Kids is identical to the standard model but comes with several accessories and provides age-appropriate content for younger readers who prefer digital books. Like the last-gen Kindle Kids, the latest model retails for $20 more than the base model, bringing the MSRP to $129.99.
In terms of add-ons, the new Kindle Kids edition consists of four items: the device, a protective case, a two-year extended replacement guarantee (in the event the device breaks), and six months of Amazon Kids Plus. The last feature is the biggest selling point of the device aside from the kid-friendly patterns and lack of ads, as it allows parents to grant their child access to games, videos, and books — including those in the Percy Jackson and Harry Potter series — at no additional cost.
In the past, we’ve seen the latest Kindle Kids sell for as low as $94.99 ($35 off). Right now, however, you can only pick it up at Amazon, Best Buy, and Target at its full price of $129.99.
$130
Amazon’s Kindle Kids is identical to the standard Kindle — meaning it packs a 300ppi display and support for USB-C charging — but comes with a case, an extended two-year warranty, and six months of Amazon Kids Plus.
The Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition is identical to the standard model but features wireless charging and a sensor to automatically adjust the backlight.
The best Kindle Paperwhite (2024) deals
The latest Kindle Paperwhite, which launched last year, is Amazon’s 12th-gen model. Considering it’s one of the company’s higher-end configurations, it offers all the features found in the entry-level Kindle, including USB-C charging and a crisp 300ppi display. It’s noticeably faster than Amazon’s base ebook reader and features IPX8 waterproofing, a larger seven-inch display, and longer battery life.
In the past, we’ve seen the standard Paperwhite drop to as low as $129.99. Unfortunately, the standalone model is currently only available at Amazon, Best Buy, and Target starting at $159.99 (its full retail price). If you’re okay with purchasing a bundle, though, you can grab it at Amazon with a power adapter and either a green, pink, or black fabric cover for $196.97 ($20 off); it’s also available at Amazon with a plant-based leather cover in green, pink, or black for $202.97 (also $20 off).
Amazon’s latest Paperwhite features a larger seven-inch display and noticeably faster performance. It also boasts longer battery life than the previous model, retains IPX8 waterproofing, and includes a USB-C port. Read our review.
$197
The seven-inch Kindle Paperwhite features a larger display and faster performance than Amazon’s entry-level ebook reader. You can also buy it in a bundle with a cover and a USB-C charger.
Like other Kindles, the new Paperwhite is available in a few different configurations — including an ad-free Signature Edition that’s identical to the standard model but comes with 32GB of storage, Qi wireless charging, and a backlight that will automatically adjust when needed. It’s only available at Amazon, Best Buy, and Target right now for its typical retail price of $199.99, though you can pick it up at Amazon with a wireless charging dock and a black, green, or pink fabric cover starting at $251.97 ($25 off). It’s also available at Amazon with a plant-based leather cover in black, green, or pink for $257.97 ($25 off).
$200
The premium Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition offers the same design and performance as the standard model but with more storage and support for wireless charging.
$252
Amazon’s step-up Kindle Paperwhite bundle includes a Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition, a wireless charging dock, and your choice of either a fabric or plant-based cover.
The best Kindle Paperwhite Kids (2024) deals
Amazon also rolled out a Kindle Paperwhite Kids for $179.99 in 2024. It’s identical to the standard Kindle Paperwhite, with the same waterproof design and sharp, seven-inch display. However, like the Kindle Kids, the e-reader is free of ads and offers optional parental controls. It also comes bundled with a kid-friendly cover, a two-year extended replacement guarantee, and six months of Amazon Kids Plus.
The latest Kindle Paperwhite Kids recently dropped to as low as $139.99 ($40 off), but right now, you can only purchase for its full retail price of $179.99 at Amazon, Best Buy, and Target. That being said, you can save $20 when you buy a pair at Amazon.
$180
Amazon’s kid-friendly Paperwhite is the same as the standard Paperwhite, but it’s ad-free and comes with the added benefits of a two-year hardware protection plan, six months of Amazon Kids Plus, and a choice of three kid-friendly covers.
You can write in the Kindle Scribe and use its AI features to clean up the handwriting or summarize your notes.
The best Kindle Scribe (2024) deals
Like its predecessor, the second-gen Kindle Scribe is Amazon’s biggest e-reader. It packs a 10.2-inch display with 300ppi resolution, along with the same great battery life for which Kindles are known. What separates the Scribe from other Kindles, however, is that it comes with a stylus, which can be used to jot down notes or doodle in the ebook reader’s built-in notebook. With the latest Scribe, Amazon also introduced a new Active Canvas feature, so you can scribble notes directly on ebook pages, as well as a suite of AI-powered features that can summarize your notes and refine your handwriting.
Previously, we’ve seen the entry-level Kindle Scribe go for as low as $299.99 ($100 off). However, currently, you can only pick up the base model for its full retail price of $399.99 at Amazon, Best Buy, and Target. Amazon is also offering a $40 discount if you purchase a pair.
If you’re keen on a deal, you can pick up the base Scribe as a part of a bundle with a 9W power adapter, a Premium Pen, and either a plant-based leather cover starting at $444.97 ($55 off) or a “premium” leather cover starting at $459.97 ($60 off). Alternatively, the 64GB version is available with the same accessories and a premium leather cover for $504.97 ($65 off).
The latest Kindle Scribe is a 10.2-inch e-reader with a stylus for taking notes. It’s faster than its predecessor and offers a host of new features, including one that lets you jot notes directly in your book. Read our review.
$445
Amazon’s base Kindle Scribe Essentials Bundle comes with a 16GB Kindle Scribe, a Premium Pen, a power adapter, and a cover in the color of your choice.
The Kindle Colorsoft Signature Edition is Amazon’s only color e-reader.Photos by Andrew Liszewski / The Verge
The best Kindle Colorsoft Signature Edition deals
In October, Amazon announced its first color e-reader, the Kindle Colorsoft Signature Edition. Like the Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition, it boasts a seven-inch display with a crisp 300ppi resolution, IPX8 water resistance, wireless charging, and 32GB of storage. However, unlike the Paperwhite, the e-reader offers a color mode, which cuts the resolution in half. Thankfully, it’s still vibrant for a color E-Ink screen despite the lower resolution, rendering it particularly ideal for reading comic books and manga.
In the past, we’ve seen the Kindle Colorsoft drop to as low as $224.99 ($55 off), but right now there are no discounts available on the standalone e-reader. That said, you can save some money at Amazon if you buy it as a part of a bundle for $327.97 ($53 off), which nets you a wireless charging dock and plant-based leather cover in black, pink, or green. You can also buy it with a premium leather cover in red or black for $349.97 ($35 off).
The Kindle Colorsoft Signature Edition is Amazon’s first color e-reader. It comes with wireless charging, IPX8 water resistance, and 32GB of storage. It retails for $279.99 by itself, but Amazon also sells it as part of a bundle that contains a wireless charging dock and one of two covers.
