News
Yomif Kejelcha broke the 2-hour marathon but got 2nd place. He’s still happy
Yomif Kejelcha of Team Ethiopia crosses the line and finishes second during the Men’s 2026 TCS London Marathon on April 26, 2026 in London, England.
Alex Davidson/Getty Images Europe
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Davidson/Getty Images Europe
After Yomif Kejelcha crossed the finish line at the London Marathon on Sunday, he was shocked by what he’d accomplished.
Kejelcha, 28, ran a 1:59:41, crushing the elusive two-hour marathon goal. Athletes have been striving to break through that barrier for years. To make the story even sweeter, Kejelcha beat it in his first-ever competitive marathon.
“This is so crazy,” he told NPR in an interview on Tuesday from Frankfurt, Germany, where he was still stunned by the accomplishment. “It’s too hard to believe… I don’t have words for it really.”
Before the race, Kejelcha said in an interview that it was “not possible” for him to beat two-hours in his first marathon. He even proved himself wrong.
But, here comes the twist.
Kejelcha finished 11 seconds after Kenya’s Sabastian Sawe. Sawe was hailed as the first man to run an official marathon in under two hours. Kejelcha accepted the title of second-fastest.

“I’m not upset,” he told NPR. “I’m not angry. I’m very, very happy because I broke two hours.”
“It’s… an 11 second difference, so I think it’s not too far for me to break again,” Kejelcha continued.
He and Sawe have a “friendly competition,” he said, and he does consider the fastest marathon runner a close friend.
Uganda’s Jacob Kiplimo also beat the previous world record set by the late Kenyan, Kelvin Kiptum, in Chicago in 2023, but he placed third with a time of 2:00:28.
If it was a normal year, Kejelcha or Kiplimo’s time would have been extraordinary headlines. But this year was anything but normal.
Of course, this is not Kejelcha’s first competitive race. He is a versatile runner and a track and road specialist. He set the world indoor mile record in 2019, broke the half-marathon world record in Valencia in 2024, and received a silver medal in the 10,000 meters at last year’s world championships in Tokyo.
Regardless of what may seem to some as an inconceivable loss, Kejelcha said he was feeling “great.”
“To beat two hours, it’s not easy,” he said, and “every athlete who does a marathon” strives to achieve it.
Ahead of the race, Kejelcha told reporters that he was going to run in the first group, but by no means did he think that meant running the race in under two hours.
Sometimes, a “special thing” happens in races, he said, but Kejelcha decided to be more reasonable with himself, guessing he would finish at 2:03 or 2:02.
He’d been dreaming of the London Marathon for a long time. His coach finally agreed to give him a shot in 2026, Kejelcha said.
“My training is really great, as far as tomorrow, I don’t know what [is going to] happen,” Kejelcha remembers thinking to himself.
Throughout the race, Kejelcha said “100%” he and Sawe pushed each other. The runners ran side by side and they dropped Kiplimo between 18 and 21 miles. But with one mile remaining, Sawe took a commanding lead. Sawe’s finish time shaved 65 seconds off the previous world record.
Kejelcha said after 25 miles he lost his pace, and he didn’t think he was going to make it.
But close to the finish line, he looked down at his watch and saw he was significantly under two hours. Only then did he think it was possible to do the “impossible.”
After the race, he told Sawe congratulations.
1st placed Sabastian Sawe of Team Kenya (C), 2nd placed Yomif Kejelcha of Team Ethiopia (L) and 3rd placed Jacob Kiplimo of Team Uganda (R) pose for a photo after the Men’s 2026 TCS London Marathon on April 26, 2026 in London, England.
Alex Davidson/Getty Images Europe
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Davidson/Getty Images Europe
Still, he “of course” wants to beat his own record and then Sawe’s record. His next marathon will be 1:58, he hopes.
“It’s competition… I need to beat it,” he said.
Kejelcha said he and Sawe set a “big example” to fuel the next cohort of runners. He believes more athletes will beat the sub-two hour mark very soon.
“I ran my first (competitive) marathon in under two hours, so I think it’s an inspiration for young athletes,” he said.
Along with sheer willpower, Kejelcha said a few things pushed him to the unfathomable record-breaking pace.
First, the adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 shoes, which weigh barely more than a deck of cards. Kejelcha hailed them as “magical shoes.” He said they felt so light he didn’t even realize he was wearing them.
Second, his coaches, who believed in him even though he didn’t believe in himself.
Now, “I believe in myself,” Kejelcha said. It only took running one of the most coveted marathon times in history.
Third, his 6-month preparation at his training ground in the capital city of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, which boasts a high altitude, along with the “amazing weather” at the London Marathon on Sunday.
And finally, his wife’s cooking. (She helps him stick to his specific food program, he said)
Really, Kejelcha said, as much as people want to believe it, there’s no special sauce.
“I don’t have anything, it’s just hard work. Athletes always need discipline.”
Kejelcha said he doesn’t yet have a plan for his next race. But the half marathon is still his favorite run, despite finding it much harder than a full marathon.
“The marathon is much easier than the… half marathon,” he said, laughing.
Coming in second is not as maddening as the internet has suggested it would be for Kejechla. He still walked away with the title of fastest-ever marathon debut, and he certainly does not feel upset about anything.
“I am very happy,” Kejelcha said.
News
Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
News
Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.
U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.
News
Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation. My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry.
Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components. As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country. We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.
It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.
Sec. 2. Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:
(i) expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;
(ii) establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and
(iii) facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.
(e) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.
(f) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.
Sec. 3. Secure Frontier Model Deployment. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:
(a) develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate. Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.
(b) design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:
(i) engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;
(ii) provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and
(iii) collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.
Sec. 4. Protection Against Criminal Actors. The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime. This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 2, 2026.
-
Indiana34 seconds agoIndiana football has top-rated transfer in ESPN rankings, and 3 in top 20
-
Iowa3 minutes agoZach Lahn projected to win Iowa GOP governor primary, upsetting Trump’s pick in a state Democrats hope to flip
-
Kansas9 minutes agoBat Cats defeat Kansas Cannons, 4-1
-
Kentucky16 minutes ago
UK Healthcare prepares to become Kentucky’s only Level 2 special pathogen treatment center
-
Louisiana19 minutes agoHeart of Louisiana: Civilian Conservation Corps
-
Maine24 minutes agoOpinion: Owen McCarthy offers Maine Republicans real change
-
Maryland31 minutes agoMaryland Dem lawmaker runs taxpayer-funded nonprofit with audit struggles
-
Michigan33 minutes agoResidents in Taylor, Michigan, fight against possible rezoning