travel back and forth word

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day

Synonym of the Day

• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Grammar Coach ™
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

• go back and forth

verb as in commute

Strong match

• take the bus/subway/train

verb as in shuttle

Strongest match

Weak matches

• drive back and forth
• transport to and fro

Discover More

Related words.

Words related to go back and forth are not direct synonyms, but are associated with the word go back and forth . Browse related words to learn more about word associations.

verb as in travel to work

verb as in travel back and forth

Start each day with the Synonym of the Day in your inbox!

By clicking "Sign Up", you are accepting Dictionary.com Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policies.

On this page you'll find 12 synonyms, antonyms, and words related to go back and forth, such as: drive, and take the bus/subway/train.

From Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Copyright © 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.

• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

back-and-forth

Definition of back-and-forth

 (Entry 1 of 2)

back and forth

Definition of back and forth  (Entry 2 of 2)

• commutation
• quid pro quo

Examples of back-and-forth in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'back-and-forth.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

1941, in the meaning defined above

1613, in the meaning defined above

Dictionary Entries Near back-and-forth

back-and-forthing

Cite this Entry

“Back-and-forth.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/back-and-forth. Accessed 23 Apr. 2024.

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, on 'biweekly' and 'bimonthly', popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 19, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), a great big list of bread words, 9 superb owl words, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, games & quizzes.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of back and forth in English

Back and forth.

• anticlockwise
• back to front phrase
• take someone aside
• there and back idiom

back and forth | American Dictionary

Translations of back and forth.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

rescue centre

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

a place where animals who are ill, injured, not cared for, or badly treated can be taken and given treatment and care

Binding, nailing, and gluing: talking about fastening things together

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Idiom
• American    Idiom
• Translations
• All translations

Add back and forth to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH Crossword clue

Crossword answers for travel back and forth, top answers for: travel back and forth, travel back and forth crossword puzzle solutions.

2 Solutions - 0 Top suggestions & 2 further suggestions. We have 2 solutions for the frequently searched for crossword lexicon term TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH. Furthermore and additionally we have 2 Further solutions for this paraphrase.

For the puzzel question TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH we have solutions for the following word lenghts 7.

Your user suggestion for TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH

Find for us the 3rd solution for TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH and send it to our e-mail (crossword-at-the-crossword-solver com) with the subject "New solution suggestion for TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH". Do you have an improvement for our crossword puzzle solutions for TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH, please send us an e-mail with the subject: "Suggestion for improvement on solution to TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH".

Frequently asked questions for Travel back and forth:

How many solutions do we have for the crossword puzzle travel back and forth.

We have 2 solutions to the crossword puzzle TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH. The longest solution is COMMUTE with 7 letters and the shortest solution is COMMUTE with 7 letters.

How can I find the solution for the term TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH?

With help from our search you can look for words of a certain length. Our intelligent search sorts between the most frequent solutions and the most searched for questions. You can completely free of charge search through several million solutions to hundreds of thousands of crossword puzzle questions.

How many letters long are the solutions for TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH?

The lenght of the solutions is between 7 and 7 letters. In total we have solutions for 1 word lengths.

More clues you might be interested in

• southernmost continent
• bone doctor
• speech or writing praising someone
• magnificient
• open fabric
• absorbent paper
• first game in series
• men's public lavatory
• mice catchers
• makes brown
• term of office
• in a chilling way
• greyhound driver
• Legal Notice
• Missing Link
• Made with love from Mark & Crosswordsolver.com

TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH

Pronunciation (us):    (gb): .

  Dictionary entry overview: What does travel back and forth mean?  

• TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH (verb)   The verb TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH has 1 sense:

1. travel back and forth regularly, as between one's place of work and home

  Familiarity information: TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH used as a verb is very rare.

  Dictionary entry details  

• TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH (verb)

Sense 1

Travel back and forth regularly, as between one's place of work and home

Classified under:

Verbs of walking, flying, swimming

travel back and forth; commute

Hypernyms (to "travel back and forth" is one way to...):

jaunt ; travel ; trip (make a trip for pleasure)

Troponyms (each of the following is one way to "travel back and forth"):

live out ; sleep out (work in a house where one does not live)

Sentence frames:

Somebody ----s Somebody ----s PP

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness

Can cities make it illegal to live on the streets.

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Katrin Bennhold. This is “The Daily.”

This morning, we’re taking a much closer look at homelessness in the United States as it reaches a level not seen in the modern era. California —

As the number of homeless people has surged in the US —

More than 653,000, a 12 percent population increase since last year.

The debate over homeless encampments across the country has intensified.

It is not humane to let people live on our streets in tents, use drugs. We are not standing for it anymore.

People have had it. They’re fed up. I’m fed up. People want to see these tents and encampments removed in a compassionate, thoughtful way. And we agree.

With public officials saying they need more tools to address the crisis.

We move from block to block. And every block they say, can’t be here, can’t be here, can’t be here. I don’t know where we’re supposed to go, you know?

And homeless people and their advocates saying those tools are intended to unfairly punish them.

They come and they sweep and they take everything from me, and I can’t get out of the hole I’m in because they keep putting me back in square one.

That debate is now reaching the Supreme Court, which is about to hear arguments in the most significant case on homelessness in decades, about whether cities can make it illegal to be homeless. My colleague Abbie VanSickle on the backstory of that case and its far-reaching implications for cities across the US.

[THEME MUSIC]

It’s Friday, April 19.

So Abbie, you’ve been reporting on this case that has been making waves, Grants Pass versus Johnson, which the Supreme Court is taking up next week. What’s this case about?

So this case is about a small town in Oregon where three homeless people sued the city after they received tickets for sleeping and camping outside. And this case is the latest case that shows this growing tension, especially in states in the West, between people who are homeless and cities who are trying to figure out what to do about this. These cities have seen a sharp increase in homeless encampments in public spaces, especially with people on sidewalks and in parks. And they’ve raised questions about public drug use and other safety issues in these spaces.

And so the question before the justices is really how far a city can go to police homelessness. Can city officials and police use local laws to ban people from laying down outside and sleeping in a public space? Can a city essentially make it illegal to be homeless?

So three homeless people sued the city of Grants Pass, saying it’s not illegal to be homeless, and therefore it’s not illegal to sleep in a public space.

Yes, that’s right. And they weren’t the first people to make this argument. The issue actually started years ago with a case about 500 miles to the East, in Boise, Idaho. And in that case, which is called Martin v. Boise, this man, Robert Martin, who is homeless in Boise, he was charged with a misdemeanor for sleeping in some bushes. And the city of Boise had laws on the books to prohibit public camping.

And Robert Martin and a group of other people who are homeless in the city, they sued the city. And they claimed that the city’s laws violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

And what makes it cruel and unusual?

So their argument was that the city did not have enough sufficient shelter beds for everyone who was homeless in the city. And so they were forced to sleep outside. They said, we have no place to go and that an essential human need is to sleep and we want to be able to lay down on the sidewalk or in an alley or someplace to rest and that their local laws were a violation of Robert Martin and the others’ constitutional rights, that the city is violating the Eighth Amendment by criminalizing the human need to sleep.

And the courts who heard the case agreed with that argument. The courts ruled that the city had violated the Constitution and that the city could not punish people for being involuntarily homeless. And what that meant, the court laid out, is that someone is involuntarily homeless if a city does not have enough adequate shelter beds for the number of people who are homeless in the city.

It does seem like a very important distinction. They’re saying, basically, if you have nowhere else to go, you can’t be punished for sleeping on the street.

Right. That’s what the court was saying in the Martin v. Boise case. And the city of Boise then appealed the case. They asked the Supreme Court to step in and take it on. But the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So since then, the Martin v. Boise case controls all over the Western parts of the US in what’s called the Ninth Circuit, which includes Oregon where the Grants Pass case originated.

OK. So tell us about Grants Pass, this city at the center of the case and now in front of the Supreme Court. What’s the story there?

Grants Pass is a town in rural Southwestern Oregon. It’s a town of about 38,000 people. It’s a former timber town that now really relies a lot on tourists to go rafting through the river and go wine tasting in the countryside. And it’s a pretty conservative town.

When I did interviews, people talked about having a very strong libertarian streak. And when I talked with people in the town, people said when they were growing up there, it was very rare to see someone who was homeless. It just was not an issue that was talked a lot about in the community. But it did become a big issue about 10 years ago.

People in the community started to get worried about what they saw as an increase in the number of homeless people that they were noticing around town. And it’s unclear whether the problem was growing or whether local officials and residents were worried that it might, whether they were fearing that it might.

But in any case, in 2013, the city council decided to start stepping up enforcement of local ordinances that did things like outlaw camping in public parks or sleeping outside, this series of overlapping local laws that would make it impossible for people to sleep in public spaces in Grants Pass. And at one meeting, one of the former city council members, she said, “the point is to make it uncomfortable enough for them in our city so they will want to move on down the road.”

So it sounds like, at least in Grants Pass, that this is not really about reducing homelessness. It’s about reducing the number of visible homeless people in the town.

Well, I would say that city officials and many local residents would say that the homeless encampments are actually creating real concerns about public safety, that it’s actually creating all kinds of issues for everyone else who lives in Grants Pass. And there are drug issues and mental health issues, and that this is actually bringing a lot of chaos to the city.

OK. So in order to deal with these concerns, you said that they decided to start enforcing these local measures. What does that actually look like on the ground?

So police started handing out tickets in Grants Pass. These were civil tickets, where people would get fines. And if police noticed people doing this enough times, then they could issue them a trespass from a park. And then that would give — for a certain number of days, somebody would be banned from the park. And if police caught them in the park before that time period was up, then the person could face criminal time. They could go to jail.

And homeless people started racking up fines, hundreds of dollars of fines. I talked to a lot of people who were camping in the parks who had racked up these fines over the years. And each one would have multiple tickets they had no way to pay. I talked to people who tried to challenge the tickets, and they had to leave their belongings back in the park. And they would come back to find someone had taken their stuff or their things had been impounded.

So it just seemed to be this cycle that actually was entrenching people more into homelessness. And yet at the same time, none of these people had left Grants Pass.

So they did make it very uncomfortable for homeless people, but it doesn’t seem to be working. People are not leaving.

Right. People are not leaving. And these tickets and fines, it’s something that people have been dealing with for years in Grants Pass. But in 2018, the Martin v. Boise case happens. And not long after that, a group of people in Grants Pass challenged these ordinances, and they used the Boise case to make their argument that just like in Boise, Grants Pass was punishing people for being involuntarily homeless, that this overlapping group of local ordinances in Grants Pass had made it so there is nowhere to put a pillow and blanket on the ground and sleep without being in some kind of violation of a rule. And this group of local homeless people make the argument that everyone in Grants Pass who is homeless is involuntarily homeless.

And you told us earlier that it was basically the lack of available shelter that makes a homeless person involuntarily homeless. So is there a homeless shelter in Grants Pass?

Well, it sort of depends on the standard that you’re using. So there is no public low-barrier shelter that is easy for somebody to just walk in and stay for a night if they need someplace to go. Grants Pass does not have a shelter like that.

There is one shelter in Grants Pass, but it’s a religious shelter, and there are lots of restrictions. I spoke with the head of the shelter who explained the purpose is really to get people back into the workforce. And so they have a 30-day program that’s really designed for that purpose.

And as part of that, people can’t have pets. People are not allowed to smoke. They’re required to attend Christian religious services. And some of the people who I interviewed, who had chronic mental health and physical disabilities, said that they had been turned away or weren’t able to stay there because of the level of needs that they have. And so if you come in with any kind of issue like that, it can be a problem.

That’s a very long list of restrictions. And of course, people are homeless for a lot of very different reasons. It sounds like a lot of these reasons might actually disqualify them from this particular shelter. So when they say they have nowhere else to go, if they’re in Grants Pass, they kind of have a point.

So that’s what the court decided. In 2022, when the courts heard this case, they agreed with the homeless plaintiffs that there’s no low-barrier shelter in Grants Pass and that the religious shelter did not meet the court’s requirements. But the city, who are actually now represented by the same lawyers who argued for Boise, keeps appealing the case. And they appeal up to the Ninth Circuit just as in the Boise case, and the judges there find in favor of the homeless plaintiffs, and they find that Grants Pass’s ordinances are so restrictive that there is no place where someone can lay down and sleep in Grants Pass and that therefore the city has violated the Eighth Amendment and they cannot enforce these ordinances in the way that they have been for years.

So at that point, the court upholds the Boise precedent, and we’re where we were when it all started. But as we know, that’s not the end of the story. Because this case stays in the court system. What happened?

So by this point, the homelessness problem is really exploding throughout the Western part of the US with more visible encampments, and it really becomes a politically divisive issue. And leaders across the political spectrum point to Boise as a root cause of the problem. So when Grants Pass comes along, people saw that case as a way potentially to undo Boise if only they could get it before the Supreme Court.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

We’ll be right back.

Abbie, you just told us that as homeless numbers went up and these homeless encampments really started spreading, it’s no longer just conservatives who want the Supreme Court to revisit the Boise ruling. It’s liberals too.

That’s right. So there’s a really broad group of people who all started pushing for the Supreme Court to take up the Grants Pass case. And they did this by filing briefs to the Supreme Court, laying out their reasoning. And it’s everyone from the liberal governor of California and many progressive liberal cities to some of the most conservative legal groups. And they disagree about their reasoning, but they all are asking the court to clarify how to interpret the Boise decision.

They are saying, essentially, that the Boise decision has been understood in different ways in all different parts of the West and that that is causing confusion and creating all sorts of problems. And they’re blaming that on the Boise case.

It’s interesting, because after everything you told us about these very extreme measures, really, that the city of Grants Pass took against homeless people, it is surprising that these liberal bastions that you’re mentioning are siding with the town in this case.

Just to be clear, they are not saying that they support necessarily the way that Grants Pass or Boise had enforced their laws. But they are saying that the court rulings have tied their hands with this ambiguous decision on how to act.

And what exactly is so ambiguous about the Boise decision? Which if I remember correctly, simply said that if someone is involuntarily homeless, if they’re on the streets because there’s no adequate shelter space available, they can’t be punished for that.

Yeah. So there are a couple of things that are common threads in the cities and the groups that are asking for clarity from the court. And the first thing is that they’re saying, what is adequate shelter? That every homeless person situation is different, so what are cities or places required to provide for people who are homeless? What is the standard that they need to meet?

In order not to sleep on the street.

That’s right. So if the standard is that a city has to have enough beds for everyone who is homeless but certain kinds of shelters or beds wouldn’t qualify, then what are the rules around that? And the second thing is that they’re asking for clarity around what “involuntarily homeless” means. And so in the Boise decision, that meant that someone is involuntarily homeless if there is not enough bed space for them to go to.

But a lot of cities are saying, what about people who don’t want to go into a shelter even if there’s a shelter bed available? If they have a pet or if they are a smoker or if something might prohibit them from going to a shelter, how is the city supposed to weigh that and at what point would they cross a line for the court?

It’s almost a philosophical question. Like, if somebody doesn’t want to be in a shelter, are they still allowed to sleep in a public space?

Yeah. I mean, these are complicated questions that go beyond the Eighth Amendment argument but that a lot of the organizations that have reached out to the court through these friend of the court briefs are asking.

OK. I can see that the unifying element here is that in all these briefs various people from across the spectrum are saying, hello, Supreme Court. We basically need some clarity here. Give us some clarity.

The question that I have is why did the Supreme Court agree to weigh in on Grants Pass after declining to take up Boise?

Well, it’s not possible for us to say for certain because the Supreme Court does not give reasons why it has agreed to hear or to not hear a case. They get thousands of cases a year, and they take up just a few of those, and their deliberations are secret. But we can point to a few things.

One is that the makeup of the court has changed. The court has gained conservative justices in the last few years. This court has not been shy about taking up hot button issues across the spectrum of American society. In this case, the court hasn’t heard a major homelessness case like this.

But I would really point to the sheer number and the range of the people who are petitioning the court to take a look at this case. These are major players in the country who are asking the court for guidance, and the Supreme Court does weigh in on issues of national importance. And the people who are asking for help clearly believe that this is one of those issues.

So let’s start digging into the actual arguments. And maybe let’s start with the city of Grants Pass. What are the central arguments that they’re expected to make before the Supreme Court?

So the city’s arguments turn on this narrow legal issue of whether the Eighth Amendment applies or doesn’t. And they say that it doesn’t. But I actually think that in some ways, that’s not the most helpful way to understanding what Grants Pass is arguing.

What is really at the heart of their argument is that if the court upholds Grants Pass and Boise, that they are tying the hands of Grants Pass and hundreds of other towns and cities to actually act to solve and respond to homelessness. And by that, I mean to solve issues of people camping in the parks but also more broadly of public safety issues, of being able to address problems as they arise in a fluid and flexible way in the varied ways that they’re going to show up in all these different places.

And their argument is if the court accepts the Grants Pass and Boise holdings, that they will be constitutionalizing or freezing in place and limiting all of these governments from acting.

Right. This is essentially the argument being repeated again and again in those briefs that you mentioned earlier, that unless the Supreme Court overturns these decisions, it’s almost impossible for these cities to get the encampments under control.

Yes, that’s right. And they also argue they need to have flexibility in dealing actually with people who are homeless and being able to figure out using a local ordinance to try to convince someone to go to treatment, that they say they need carrots and sticks. They need to be able to use every tool that they can to be able to try to solve this problem.

And how do we make sense of that argument when Grants Pass is clearly not using that many tools to deal with homeless people? For example, it didn’t have shelters, as you mentioned.

So the city’s argument is that this just should not be an Eighth Amendment issue, that this is the wrong way to think about this case, that issues around homelessness and how a city handles it is a policy question. So things like shelter beds or the way that the city is handling their ordinances should really be left up to policymakers and city officials, not to this really broad constitutional argument. And so therefore, the city is likely to focus their argument entirely on this very narrow question.

And how does the other side counter this argument?

The homeless plaintiffs are going to argue that there’s nothing in the lower courts’ decisions that say that cities can’t enforce their laws that, they can’t stop people from littering, that they can’t stop drug use, that they can’t clear encampments if there becomes public safety problems. They’re just saying that a city cannot not provide shelter and then make it illegal for people to lay down and sleep.

So both sides are saying that a city should be able to take action when there’s public disorder as a result of these homeless encampments. But they’re pointing at each other and saying, the way you want to handle homelessness is wrong.

I think everyone in this case agrees that homelessness and the increase in homelessness is bad for everyone. It’s bad for people who are camping in the park. It is bad for the community, that nobody is saying that the current situation is tenable. Everyone is saying there need to be solutions. We need to be able to figure out what to do about homelessness and how to care for people who are homeless.

How do we wrestle with all these problems? It’s just that the way that they think about it couldn’t be further apart.

And what can you tell me about how the Supreme Court is actually expected to rule in this?

There are a number of ways that the justices could decide on this case. They could take a really narrow approach and just focus on Grants Pass and the arguments about those local ordinances. I think that’s somewhat unlikely because they’ve decided to take up this case of national importance.

A ruling in favor of the homeless plaintiffs would mean that they’ve accepted this Eighth Amendment argument, that you cannot criminalize being homeless. And a ruling for the city, every legal expert I’ve talked to has said that would mean an end to Boise and that it would break apart the current state that we’ve been living in for these last several years.

I’m struck by how much this case and our conversation has been about policing homelessness rather than actually addressing the root causes of homelessness. We’re not really talking about, say, the right to shelter or the right to treatment for people who are mentally ill and sleeping on the streets as a result, which is quite a big proportion. And at the end of the day, whatever way the ruling goes, it will be about the visibility of homelessness and not the root causes.

Yeah, I think that’s right. That’s really what’s looming in the background of this case is what impact is it going to have. Will it make things better or worse and for who? And these court cases have really become this talking point for cities and for their leaders, blaming the spike in encampments and the visibility of homelessness on these court decisions. But homelessness, everyone acknowledges, is such a complicated issue.

People have told me in interviews for the story, they’ve blamed increases in homelessness on everything from the pandemic to forest fires to skyrocketing housing costs in the West Coast, and that the role that Boise and now Grants Pass play in this has always been a little hard to pin down. And if the Supreme Court overturns those cases, then we’ll really see whether they were the obstacle that political leaders said that they were. And if these cases fall, it remains to be seen whether cities do try to find all these creative solutions with housing and services to try to help people who are homeless or whether they once again fall back on just sending people to jail.

Abbie, thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Here’s what else you need to know today. Early on Friday, Israel attacked a military base in Central Iran. The explosion came less than a week after Iran’s attack on Israel last weekend and was part of a cycle of retaliation that has brought the shadow war between the two countries out in the open. The scale and method of Friday’s attack remained unclear, and the initial reaction in both Israel and Iran was to downplay its significance. World leaders have urged both sides to exercise restraint in order to avoid sparking a broader war in the region.

And 12 New Yorkers have been selected to decide Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, clearing the way for opening statements to begin as early as Monday. Seven new jurors were added in short order on Thursday afternoon, hours after two others who had already been picked were abruptly excused.

Trump is accused of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign. If the jury convicts him, he faces up to four years in prison. Finally —

This is the New York Police Department.

The New York Police Department said it took at least 108 protesters into custody at Columbia University after University officials called the police to respond to a pro-Palestinian demonstration and dismantle a tent encampment.

We’re supporting Palestine. We’re supporting Palestine. 1, 2, 3, 4.

The crackdown prompted more students to vow that demonstrations would continue, expressing outrage at both the roundup of the student protesters and the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.

Free, free Palestine.

Today’s episode was produced by Olivia Natt, Stella Tan, and Eric Krupke with help from Rachelle Bonja. It was edited by Liz Baylen, fact checked by Susan Lee, contains original music by Will Reid Pat McCusker Dan Powell and Diane Wong and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Katrin Bennhold. See you on Monday.

• April 22, 2024   •   24:30 The Evolving Danger of the New Bird Flu
• April 19, 2024   •   30:42 The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness
• April 18, 2024   •   30:07 The Opening Days of Trump’s First Criminal Trial
• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?
• April 16, 2024   •   29:29 A.I.’s Original Sin
• April 15, 2024   •   24:07 Iran’s Unprecedented Attack on Israel
• April 14, 2024   •   46:17 The Sunday Read: ‘What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise’
• April 12, 2024   •   34:23 How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam
• April 11, 2024   •   28:39 The Staggering Success of Trump’s Trial Delay Tactics
• April 10, 2024   •   22:49 Trump’s Abortion Dilemma
• April 9, 2024   •   30:48 How Tesla Planted the Seeds for Its Own Potential Downfall
• April 8, 2024   •   30:28 The Eclipse Chaser

Hosted by Katrin Bennhold

Featuring Abbie VanSickle

Produced by Olivia Natt ,  Stella Tan ,  Eric Krupke and Rachelle Bonja

Edited by Liz O. Baylen

Original music by Will Reid ,  Pat McCusker ,  Dan Powell and Diane Wong

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

Debates over homeless encampments in the United States have intensified as their number has surged. To tackle the problem, some cities have enforced bans on public camping.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments about whether such actions are legal, Abbie VanSickle, who covers the court for The Times, discusses the case and its far-reaching implications.

On today’s episode

Abbie VanSickle , a Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times.

Background reading

A ruling in the case could help determine how states, particularly those in the West, grapple with a rising homelessness crisis .

In a rare alliance, Democrats and Republicans are seeking legal power to clear homeless camps .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Fact-checking by Susan Lee .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Katrin Bennhold is the Berlin bureau chief. A former Nieman fellow at Harvard University, she previously reported from London and Paris, covering a range of topics from the rise of populism to gender. More about Katrin Bennhold

Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting. More about Abbie VanSickle

Advertisement

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player
• Official Biz
• Behind The Stories
• Station Stories
• I Heart NPR

From NPR President and CEO Katherine Maher: Thoughts on our mission and our work

The message below was sent by NPR's President and CEO to all staff:

This has been a long week. I'll apologize in advance for the length of this note, and for it being the first way so many of you hear from me on more substantive issues. Thanks for bearing with me, as there's a lot that should be said.

I joined this organization because public media is essential for an informed public. At its best, our work can help shape and illuminate the very sense of what it means to have a shared public identity as fellow Americans in this sprawling and enduringly complex nation.

NPR's service to this aspirational mission was called in question this week, in two distinct ways. The first was a critique of the quality of our editorial process and the integrity of our journalists. The second was a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are.

Asking a question about whether we're living up to our mission should always be fair game: after all, journalism is nothing if not hard questions. Questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity, based on little more than the recognition of their identity, is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.

It is deeply simplistic to assert that the diversity of America can be reduced to any particular set of beliefs, and faulty reasoning to infer that identity is determinative of one's thoughts or political leanings. Each of our colleagues are here because they are excellent, accomplished professionals with an intense commitment to our work: we are stronger because of the work we do together, and we owe each other our utmost respect. We fulfill our mission best when we look and sound like the country we serve.

NPR has some of the finest reporters, editors, and producers in journalism. Our reporting and programming is not only consistently recognized and rewarded for its quality, depth, and nuance; but at its best, it makes a profound difference in people's lives. Parents, patients, veterans, students, and so many more have directly benefited from the impact of our journalism. People come to work here because they want to report, and report deeply, in service to an informed public, and to do work that makes a difference.

This is the work of our people, and our people represent America, our irreducibly complex nation. Given the very real challenges of covering the myriad perspectives, motivations, and interests of a nation of more than 330 million very different people, we succeed through our diversity. This is a bedrock institutional commitment, hard-won, and hard-protected.

We recognize that this work is a public trust, one established by Congress more than 50 years ago with the creation of the public broadcasting system. In order to hold that trust, we owe it our continued, rigorous accountability. When we are asked questions about who we serve and how that influences our editorial choices, we should be prepared to respond. It takes great strength to be comfortable with turning the eye of journalistic accountability inwards, but we are a news organization built on a foundation of robust editorial standards and practices, well-constructed to withstand the hardest of gazes.

It is true that our audiences have unquestionably changed over the course of the past two decades. There is much to be proud of here: through difficult, focused work, we have earned new trust from younger, more diverse audiences, particularly in our digital experiences. These audiences constitute new generations of listeners, are more representative of America, and our changing patterns of listening, viewing, and reading.

At the same time, we've seen some concerning changes: the diffusion of drivetime, an audience skewing further away in age from the general population, and significant changes in political affiliations have all been reflected in the changing composition of our broadcast radio audiences. Of course, some of these changes are representative of trends outside our control — but we owe it to our mission and public interest mandate to ask, what levers do we hold?

A common quality of exceptional organizations is humility and the ability to learn. We owe it to our public interest mandate to ask ourselves: could we serve more people, from broader audiences across America? Years ago we began asking this question as part of our North Star work to earn the trust of new audiences. And more recently, this is why the organization has taken up the call of audience data, awareness, and research: so we can better understand who we are serving, and who we are not.

Our initial research has shown that curiosity is the unifying throughline for people who enjoy NPR's journalism and programming. Curiosity to know more, to learn, to experience, to change. This is a compelling insight, as curiosity only further expands the universe of who we might serve. It's a cross-cutting trait, pretty universal to all people, and found in just about every demographic in every part of the nation.

As an organization, we must invest in the resources that will allow us to be as curious as the audiences we serve, and expand our efforts to understand how to serve our nation better. We recently completed in-depth qualitative research with a wide range of listeners across the country, learning in detail what they think about NPR and how they view our journalism. Over the next two years we plan to conduct audience research across our entire portfolio of programming, in order to give ourselves the insight we need to extend the depth and breadth of our service to the American public.

It is also essential that we listen closely to the insights and experiences of our colleagues at our 248 Member organizations. Their presence across America is foundational to our mission: serving and engaging audiences that are as diverse as our nation: urban and rural, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, often together in one community.

We will begin by implementing an idea that has been proposed for some time: establishing quarterly NPR Network-wide editorial planning and review meetings, as a complement to our other channels for Member station engagement. These will serve as a venue for NPR newsroom leadership to hear directly from Member organization editorial leaders on how our journalism serves the needs of audiences in their communities, and a coordination mechanism for Network-wide editorial planning and newsgathering. We're starting right away: next week we plan to invite Members to join us for an initial scoping conversation.

And in the spirit of learning from our own work, we will introduce regular opportunities to connect what our research is telling us about our audiences to the practical application of how we're serving them. As part of the ongoing unification of our Content division, Interim Chief Content Officer, Edith Chapin, will establish a broad-based, rotating group that will meet monthly to review our coverage across all platforms. Some professions call this a retro, a braintrust, a 'crit,' or tuning session — this is an opportunity to take a break from the relentless pressure of the clock in order to reflect on how we're meeting our mandate, what we're catching and what we're missing, and learn from our colleagues in a climate of respectful, open-minded discussion.

The spirit of our founding newsroom and network was one of experimentation, creativity, and direct connection with our listeners across America. Our values are a direct outgrowth of this moment: the independence of a public trust, the responsibility to capture the voice and spirit of a nation, a willingness to push boundaries to tell the stories that matter. We're no strangers to change, continuously evolving as our network has grown, our programming has expanded, and our audiences have diversified — and as we look to a strategy that captures these values and opportunities, the future holds more change yet.

Two final thoughts on our mission:

I once heard missions like ours described as asymptotic — we can see our destination and we strive for it, but may never fully meet it. The value is in the continued effort: the challenge stretches on toward infinity and we follow, ever closer. Some people might find that exhausting. I suspect they don't work here. I suspect that you do because you find that challenge a means to constantly renew your work, and to reinfuse our mission with meaning as our audiences and world continues to change.

The strongest, most effective, and enduring missions are those that are owned far beyond the walls of their institution. Our staff, our Member stations, our donors, our listeners and readers, our ardent fans, even our loyal opposition all have a part to play: each of us come to the work because we believe in it, even as we each may have different perspectives on how we succeed. Every person I have met so far in my three weeks here has shown me how they live our mission every day, in their work and in their contributions to the community.

Continuing to uphold our excellence with confidence, having inclusive conversations that bridge perspectives, and learning more about the audiences we serve in order to continue to grow and thrive, adding more light to the illumination of who we are as a shared body public: I look forward to how we will do this work together.

Class of 2024 BYU engineering graduates go forth to serve

Hear some favorite memories, future plans, and words of wisdom from this year's byu engineering graduates..

On Friday, April 26, 2024, the senior class of BYU engineering students will graduate from their programs. Read these spotlights of eleven outstanding seniors to learn about some of their achievements and aspirations. With their diverse experiences, talents, and contributions, the College of Engineering class of 2024 is sure to make the world a better place as they go forth to serve.

Cassie Larimer, chemical engineering

• Best part of chemical engineering: Working with people in the program, learning from them, and seeing their examples
• Extracurricular experiences: Research groups and a study abroad in Europe
• Most influential person: Hillary Bingham, a grad student research mentor. “She was just really inspiring to me because she had gone through some of the same challenges that I had faced earlier.”
• What’s next: Working for the energy practice of Boston Consulting Group. Someday, graduate school and making a difference in sustainability issues
• Words of wisdom: “Don't be afraid of getting involved in something that seems like a lot of work, whether it's a leadership position or a project or an activity. Because a lot of times those really time-consuming or laborious activities end up being the ones that are the most memorable and impactful in the long run.”

Joey McConkie, mechanical engineering and animation

• Favorite memory: Going on walks around campus with his wife and two young sons
• Extracurricular experiences: Rocketry club and personally building a three-axis robot arm
• Greatest triumph: Graduating with a double major
• What’s next: Interviewing for a few different work opportunities
• Words of wisdom: “It's okay to not have everything figured out. …Engineering wasn't even on my radar when I came to BYU. I just thought, ‘Animation is what I'm here to do.’ And eventually it wasn't, and that was okay. ... It's so important to be seeking the Lord's guidance. I really trust that the Lord is guiding me and my family.”

Annika Green, construction management

• Favorite memory: Spending long Friday nights in the Snell Building with her classmates
• Extracurricular experiences: Construction management competition teams and serving as Construction Management Student Association president
• Most influential person: Professor Justin Weidman. “He was my professor when I took the intro class, and it was kind of stressful … but he made me feel super comfortable.”
• What’s next: Seeking an interior design certification. Someday, designing and building residential remodels or custom homes
• Words of wisdom: “If you look at traits of someone, and you're like, ‘I wish I was like that,’ you can! People went through stuff that got them there. I look at who I am now and who I was freshman year, and it's completely different. I have so much more confidence, so much more ability to communicate with other people. … If you have a goal, you can take the steps that you need to get there. It’s not instant, but looking back, it’s amazing.”

Christoper Akiki, chemical engineering

• Favorite memory: Getting his first “yes” to an internship opportunity after many applications
• Greatest triumph: Knocking on a professor’s door as a freshman to ask to join a research group
• Most influential person: Professor Doug Tree. “I think he's the smartest guy I've ever met. … I want to have that depth of knowledge and that passion that he has.”
• What’s next: Deciding between different work opportunities. Someday, contributing to more sustainable energy solutions
• Words of wisdom: “It's easy to just follow the classic path, but my advice would be just be aware of what is happening in the world around you. Be aware of how technology is evolving, and don't be afraid to take the non-classic path and align yourself with the change.”

Jonathan Tshibanda, civil engineering

• Best part of civil engineering: Solving complex problems, puzzles, and riddles
• Favorite memory: Taking a leadership class and learning a lot
• Greatest triumph: Adjusting to the language and culture here after moving from his home country, the Republic of the Congo
• What’s next: Civil engineering master’s program at BYU. Someday, working in the steel construction industry
• Words of wisdom: “When I came to BYU, I was already expecting a lot. But I feel like I've really got even more than what I expected, especially when it comes to building character. … I worked and collaborated with a lot of professors and other students that had really great character, so you not only learn from what you read from books, but also just from examples that are around you.”

Anna Pratt, cybersecurity

• Best part of cybersecurity: Helping people out on their worst day
• Favorite memory: Winning her first cybersecurity team competition as a sophomore
• Extracurricular experiences: Serving in the cybersecurity club presidency and as a cybersecurity competition team captain
• What’s next: Working as a full-time cybersecurity analyst for BYU. Someday, graduate school and perhaps teaching in a high school or university
• Words of wisdom: “At the end of the day, we don't win to win. We win so that when people look at BYU, they're like, ‘What makes BYU different? Why do these people care so much and why do they help others so much?’ It's so that when people look at us, they can see God and they can see Christlike people who try to help others with their skills.”

Camilla Cave, manufacturing engineering

• Best part of manufacturing engineering: All of the resources and machines available for working on cool projects, like a carbon fiber violin bow
• Most influential people: Her boss and coworkers in the Engineering Building prototyping lab
• Extracurricular experiences: Intramural sports, research groups, and a study abroad in Peru
• What’s next: Working on a process engineering team for Owens Corning in Nephi, Utah
• Words of wisdom: “The stuff we're learning here and the stuff we're developing or trying to understand really could have an impact in different businesses and people's lives. The whole point of engineering is learning something new that could benefit someone.”

Sadie McGinn, mechanical engineering

• Favorite memory: Going on an energy and environment study abroad in Europe
• Greatest triumph: Learning how to work effectively on teams with other people
• Most influential person: Professor Troy Munro. “I did research with Dr. Monroe on molten salts and friction stir welding. … that was a very good learning experience.”
• What’s next: Exploring lots of possibilities to find what feels good
• Words of wisdom: “Throughout my education, I've learned just enough to know how clueless I am about a lot of things. Because you definitely learn a huge variety of stuff at an introductory level. That’s kind of sobering and humbling to realize how much you don't know. But I also think my education has helped provide me a framework to take these really complicated, messy problems out there in the world and break them down and simplify them in a way to make them solvable.”

Elise Larson Kinghorn, electrical engineering

• Favorite memories: Getting married and having a baby girl
• Greatest triumph: Passing her junior core classes while pregnant
• Extracurricular experiences: Serving as president of the electrical and computer engineering Ambassador Program, a mentorship club for underclassmen
• What’s next: Working for APCO in Salt Lake City, Utah
• Words of wisdom: “School is important, but keep it in perspective. It's important to have balance in everything. School is a means to gain an education and start your career, but you do that so that you can support your family. Also, it's important to have balance with your religion and have balance in everything. … There's a lot of people around to help you balance your life and succeed.”

Ivy Stout, civil engineering

• Extracurricular experiences: Intramural sports, research groups, and Women in Civil Engineering Club
• Greatest triumph: Learning to make friends and form relationships after the isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic
• Most influential person: Professor Spencer Guthrie. “If you have questions, he says, ‘Come into my office. We'll sit, and we'll chat about a problem and help you understand it.’”
• What’s next: Civil engineering master’s program at BYU. Someday, facilitating better communication between clients and engineers
• Words of wisdom: “Get some really good friends so that when you're not in school, you have some people to just go relax with and go on crazy adventures. Provo’s filled with rock climbing, hiking … drive three hours, you’re in Moab! There's a lot to do to get away from school, and then a lot of help to get in school.”

Ben Boyack, electrical engineering

• Favorite memory: Getting married and having a son
• Extracurricular experiences: Researching integrated circuits with Professor Wood Chiang
• Greatest triumph: Learning to understand abstract and invisible concepts
• What’s next: Graduate school studying robotics. Someday, developing medical equipment (and having a big family)
• Words of wisdom: “I really like the model of enter to learn, go forth to serve. I feel like a lot of professors embody that—to take what you learn in electrical engineering and go to help the world and serve those around us.”

TechCrunch Space: Engineering the future

Hello and welcome back to TechCrunch Space. Don’t worry — we’ll be diving into the Mars Sample Return news shortly.

Want to reach out with a tip? Email Aria at [email protected] or send me a message on Signal at 512-937-3988. You also can send a note to the whole TechCrunch crew at [email protected] .  For more secure communications ,  click here to contact us , which includes SecureDrop instructions and links to encrypted messaging apps.

Story of the week

This week’s SOTW segment is dedicated to Mars Sample Return, NASA’s troubled and ambitious plan to bring Martian rock and dust back to Earth.

From my colleague Devin Coldewey :

NASA administrator Bill Nelson has pronounced the agency’s $11 billion, 15-year plan to collect and return samples from Mars insufficient . But the strategy shift could be a huge boon to space startups, to which much of that planned funding will almost certainly be redirected. “The bottom line is, an $11 billion budget is too expensive, and a 2040 return date is too far away,” Nelson said at a press conference. “We need to look outside the box to find a way ahead that is both affordable and returns samples in a reasonable timeframe.” In other words, clear the decks and start over — with commercial providers on board from the get-go.

Concept image of a Mars sample return helicopter. Image Credits:  NASA/JPL-Caltech

Scoop of the week

Former senior SpaceX executive Tom Ochinero is teaming up with SpaceX alum-turned-VC Achal Upadhyaya and one of Sequoia’s top finance leaders, Spencer Hemphill, on a new venture called Interlagos Capital, TechCrunch has learned.

There is little public information available about Interlagos, and the trio did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment. The company was formally incorporated in the state of Delaware on March 7, and it was registered as an out-of-state company with California only days ago, on April 11. Ochinero, Upadhyaya and Hemphill are all listed on the documents. The principal address is in El Segundo, California.

Image Credits: SpaceX

What we’re reading

Jake Robins has some really good takes on the Mars Sample Return, which you can find on the link above. I read his work after appearing on his podcast with Anthony Colangelo, Off-Nominal ( check out the link here ).

Illustration of Mars. Image Credits: Getty Images

This week in space history 

On April 23, 1972, Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charles Duke departed the lunar surface and rejoined Thomas Mattingly in lunar orbit. Young and Duke were returning after spending three days exploring the lunar surface. Then, the trio started heading home.

Young, Commander of the Apollo 16 mission, with the Lunar Roving Vehicle at the Descartes landing site. The photo was captured by Duke. Image Credits: NASA

Zendaya, Josh O'Connor and Mike Faist discuss Challengers's love triangle between tennis stars

In love triangle dramedy Challengers, the main love of Zendaya's character Tashi isn't her husband Art (Mike Faist) nor is it her ex-boyfriend and Art's former friend/doubles partner Patrick (Josh O'Connor).

It's tennis – and she'll do anything to get a good rally going, especially after a college injury college dashes her chances at going pro.

"[Tennis] got taken away from her way too early," Zendaya tells ABC Entertainment.

"And she never really got to mourn the loss of her life, and career, everything that she didn't get to have. And I think it's taking a bigger toll on her than she really expected."

Gesturing towards co-stars O'Connor and Faist, she adds, "These men are her avenues to keep herself above water and to keep her life, so she won't have to deal with the fact that she's kind of miserable and sad about a lot of things and should probably go to therapy. It's much easier to use them."

Challengers's tense love triangle jumps back and forth over 13 years, seeing an injured Tashi take on Art as both husband and protégée, coaching him to success and brand deals while Patrick's potential fizzles out.

"What she ended up doing is finding someone, or choosing someone, that she thinks is malleable enough to get her close to her true want – tennis," adds Zendaya.

"It's sad and it's painful, because it's someone she cares about and loves."

As Art's interest and world-ranking falls, Tashi signs him up for a low-stakes ATP Challenger Tour as a wildcard, so he'll regain confidence by besting easy targets. No surprises for guessing who he ends up against, in a match more meaningful than any Grand Slam win.

"There's this envy-jealousy thing with Patrick at the beginning, where [Art] wishes he could have his skill set and ability," says Faist. "And same with Tashi, as well."

Blurred lines on and off court

Fitting snugly within director Luca Guadagnino's ( Call Me By Your Name , A Bigger Splash, Bones and All ) filmography, the film's through-line is sinewy, relentless desire, where affection and antagonism blur together.

Patrick and Art's attraction to each other only becomes explicit once — with the two preferring to express their feelings via their mutual obsessive desires, tennis and Tashi. When a teenage Tashi invites them both into bed, she leans back from their three-way kisses with a smile, letting them have at each other.

Patrick continually peacocks for attention, whether approaching Art nude in a sauna or suggestively eating a banana side-court, a moment O'Connor says was inspired by Australia's Nick Kyrgios, who was fined in 2018 for stimulating masturbation on his water bottle and squirting water during a match break.

Patrick and Art's tension has no interest in subtext, and neither does the film, which sees Tashi compare tennis to sex.

While Challengers bursts with energy across its 131-minute run time, the matches are frenetic highlights – a series of grunts and groans and extreme close-ups of the actor's sweat-soaked faces with slow motion drips, before the camera takes the place of the ball, fired back-and-forth furiously.

All the while, throbbing techno pulses in and out from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, rendering Art and Patrick's leaps, lobs and whacks into a depraved late-night dance, a courtship for each other.

It's hyper-erotic to the point of parody, as the film is enveloped by the trio's seductive, intense dynamic, with Zendaya joking Challengers's tagline should be "Co-dependency: The Movie".

This dynamic leads all three to some contemptuous behaviour that's very fun to watch, provided audiences don't get caught on their moral compasses. At the world premiere in Sydney, attended by the three leads, Zendaya asked audiences to not judge Tashi too much – an impulse O'Connor says he understands.

"You don't just play a villain – when you're playing [one], you have to believe they're doing the right thing," he says.

"There are times when I felt for Patrick. He just really wants his best friend back, and he really is in love with this person. And he wants to be a successful tennis player. All those things, all those wants."

The Zendaya effect

Zendaya's star power only seems to be accumulating, as she moves from her days as a Disney star to top-billed roles in Spider-Man, HBO series Euphoria and Dune.

Challengers also marks the 27-year-old's first producer credit for a cinematic release. Without existing IP to bring in audiences, the film is banking on audiences being drawn in by Zendaya's name, something the star is happy to leverage if it means interesting work gets made.

"I want more stories like this, things that are dynamic and entertaining, but also emotional and complicated," she says.

"With complicated, fascinating, kind of terrifying characters that are nuanced – and with great filmmakers, and great actors and people that I enjoy working with."

Challengers is now in cinemas.

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Kirsten dunst says 'there's never been a movie' like civil war.

The Crown's Josh O'Connor stars as a grave-robbing archaeologist in this dreamy Italian movie

'I don't think we celebrate that enough': How Aussie horror is tapping into a global audience

Dev Patel goes for broke as a vicious underdog filled with righteous fury in his directorial debut

• Arts, Culture and Entertainment
• Romance Films
• United States

bottom_desktop desktop:[300x250]