Attorneys for the victims struck deal with the church’s largest insurer, who had refused to join a proposal but then reversed

Roughly 600 survivors of the clergy molestation scandal that drove the New Orleans Catholic archdiocese into bankruptcy have secured the opportunity to collectively be paid $305m after attorneys for the victims and the church’s largest insurer struck a deal Monday, according to some of the lawyers.

The insurer in question, Travelers, had refused to join a proposal officially approved Monday to pay $230m to the abuse survivors to effectively wrap up a bankruptcy protection case that the US’s second-oldest archdiocese filed in May 2020.

Attorneys for the victims struck deal with the church’s largest insurer, who had refused to join a proposal but then reversed

Roughly 600 survivors of the clergy molestation scandal that drove the New Orleans Catholic archdiocese into bankruptcy have secured the opportunity to collectively be paid $305m after attorneys for the victims and the church’s largest insurer struck a deal Monday, according to some of the lawyers.

The insurer in question, Travelers, had refused to join a proposal officially approved Monday to pay $230m to the abuse survivors to effectively wrap up a bankruptcy protection case that the US’s second-oldest archdiocese filed in May 2020.

Attorneys for the victims struck deal with the church’s largest insurer, who had refused to join a proposal but then reversed

Roughly 600 survivors of the clergy molestation scandal that drove the New Orleans Catholic archdiocese into bankruptcy have secured the opportunity to collectively be paid $305m after attorneys for the victims and the church’s largest insurer struck a deal Monday, according to some of the lawyers.

The insurer in question, Travelers, had refused to join a proposal officially approved Monday to pay $230m to the abuse survivors to effectively wrap up a bankruptcy protection case that the US’s second-oldest archdiocese filed in May 2020.

US pressure over Ukraine has revealed Sir Keir Starmer’s limitations and a British state too hollowed out to shape events at home or abroad

The bullying of Ukraine by the Trump White House has exposed Sir Keir Starmer as a prime minister adrift in shifting geopolitics. Unable to describe Britain’s position, he managed only a hope of “lasting” peace. This reveals a British state that has been hollowed out, as well as the diminishing returns of a political order built for another age. For decades, UK leaders assumed that the US would underwrite Europe’s security; that, as Washington’s closest ally, Britain would punch above its weight; and that British institutions would stabilise order, if not justice, in turbulent times. That world has gone.

Monday’s Downing Street summit with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, threw the dilemma that Sir Keir faces into sharp relief. Mr Macron could speak of the cards in Europe’s hand; Germany’s leader could voice scepticism about American proposals. Even Mr Zelenskyy, fighting for national survival, could pithily articulate why he needed both Europe and the US. Each spoke from within a political system that, however imperfect, has begun adapting to a post-American world. Britain has not – and, under its present leadership, shows little inclination to even envision one.

US pressure over Ukraine has revealed Sir Keir Starmer’s limitations and a British state too hollowed out to shape events at home or abroad

The bullying of Ukraine by the Trump White House has exposed Sir Keir Starmer as a prime minister adrift in shifting geopolitics. Unable to describe Britain’s position, he managed only a hope of “lasting” peace. This reveals a British state that has been hollowed out, as well as the diminishing returns of a political order built for another age. For decades, UK leaders assumed that the US would underwrite Europe’s security; that, as Washington’s closest ally, Britain would punch above its weight; and that British institutions would stabilise order, if not justice, in turbulent times. That world has gone.

Monday’s Downing Street summit with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, threw the dilemma that Sir Keir faces into sharp relief. Mr Macron could speak of the cards in Europe’s hand; Germany’s leader could voice scepticism about American proposals. Even Mr Zelenskyy, fighting for national survival, could pithily articulate why he needed both Europe and the US. Each spoke from within a political system that, however imperfect, has begun adapting to a post-American world. Britain has not – and, under its present leadership, shows little inclination to even envision one.

US pressure over Ukraine has revealed Sir Keir Starmer’s limitations and a British state too hollowed out to shape events at home or abroad

The bullying of Ukraine by the Trump White House has exposed Sir Keir Starmer as a prime minister adrift in shifting geopolitics. Unable to describe Britain’s position, he managed only a hope of “lasting” peace. This reveals a British state that has been hollowed out, as well as the diminishing returns of a political order built for another age. For decades, UK leaders assumed that the US would underwrite Europe’s security; that, as Washington’s closest ally, Britain would punch above its weight; and that British institutions would stabilise order, if not justice, in turbulent times. That world has gone.

Monday’s Downing Street summit with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, threw the dilemma that Sir Keir faces into sharp relief. Mr Macron could speak of the cards in Europe’s hand; Germany’s leader could voice scepticism about American proposals. Even Mr Zelenskyy, fighting for national survival, could pithily articulate why he needed both Europe and the US. Each spoke from within a political system that, however imperfect, has begun adapting to a post-American world. Britain has not – and, under its present leadership, shows little inclination to even envision one.

Sun-dimming risks putting the planet’s thermostat under Donald Trump’s control. Better to adopt the precautionary principle with high-stakes science

It is fitting that this week’s UN environment talks are in Nairobi, with Africa shaping the global climate conversation. The continent’s diplomats are dealing with the vexed question of whether it is wise to try to cool the planet by dimming the sun’s rays. While not on the formal summit agenda, on the sidelines they are arguing that it’s time to stop promoting solar geoengineering technology as a solution to global heating. It’s hard to disagree.

African nations have acted because they don’t want their continent to become a test bed for unproven schemes to spray particles into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth for a small, uncertain cooling gain. They point to environmental, ethical and geopolitical risks . That’s why the continent is pushing for a global “ non-use ” agreement that would rule out public funding, outdoor experiments, patenting and official promotion of these technologies.

Sun-dimming risks putting the planet’s thermostat under Donald Trump’s control. Better to adopt the precautionary principle with high-stakes science

It is fitting that this week’s UN environment talks are in Nairobi, with Africa shaping the global climate conversation. The continent’s diplomats are dealing with the vexed question of whether it is wise to try to cool the planet by dimming the sun’s rays. While not on the formal summit agenda, on the sidelines they are arguing that it’s time to stop promoting solar geoengineering technology as a solution to global heating. It’s hard to disagree.

African nations have acted because they don’t want their continent to become a test bed for unproven schemes to spray particles into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth for a small, uncertain cooling gain. They point to environmental, ethical and geopolitical risks . That’s why the continent is pushing for a global “ non-use ” agreement that would rule out public funding, outdoor experiments, patenting and official promotion of these technologies.

Sun-dimming risks putting the planet’s thermostat under Donald Trump’s control. Better to adopt the precautionary principle with high-stakes science

It is fitting that this week’s UN environment talks are in Nairobi, with Africa shaping the global climate conversation. The continent’s diplomats are dealing with the vexed question of whether it is wise to try to cool the planet by dimming the sun’s rays. While not on the formal summit agenda, on the sidelines they are arguing that it’s time to stop promoting solar geoengineering technology as a solution to global heating. It’s hard to disagree.

African nations have acted because they don’t want their continent to become a test bed for unproven schemes to spray particles into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth for a small, uncertain cooling gain. They point to environmental, ethical and geopolitical risks . That’s why the continent is pushing for a global “ non-use ” agreement that would rule out public funding, outdoor experiments, patenting and official promotion of these technologies.