These images are uncomfortable to look at. But that's the point. Meet the winning World Press Photos
War. A climate crisis. An attempted assassination. An Olympic athlete. A child in shock. These are just some of the moments represented in the winning images from the 2025 World Press Photo Contest. And yet, despite the wide range of topics covered, despite representing 42 photographers from 30 different countries, the winning images all somehow feel connected.
On March 27, the judges and contest organizers unveiled the 2025 World Press Photo Contest Winners. But while the contest highlights photojournalists and documentary photographers across the globe in some of 2024's most newsworthy moments, the winning images all feel as if they are connected by a common theme, representing a human connection that can be portrayed across language and cultural barriers.
'I think if we look at the winning images collectively rather than as individual images, what we see is that many of them are interconnected and overlapping,' said Finbarr O'Reilly, a photographer and judge for the Europe region and global portion of the contest. 'I think in any picture and as the regional jury and then as the global jury, what you want to feel is human connection, a strong human connection to any image.'
The collection of 42 winning projects includes images that represent some of the biggest moments of 2024. A photo by Washington Post photographer Jabin Botsford of Donald Trump being rushed off stage after an attempted assassination. A viral photograph of a surfer floating in midair with his board during the 2024 Paris Olympics Games by Jerome Brouillet. A protester clearing tear gas from her eyes by Mikhail Tereschenko. A photo of an aircraft surrounded by blue sky and clouds not because it's soaring through the sky but because it is sitting on a completely flooded tarmac reflecting the sky in Brazil by Anselmo Cunha. An image of a child after a double amputation by Samar Abu Elouf.
The images, judges say, are the sort of historic photographs that make viewers stop scrolling. 'The world is not the same as it was in 1955 when World Press Photo was founded,' said Joumana El Zein Khoury, the Executive Director for World Press Photo. 'We live in a time when it is easier than ever to look away, to scroll past, to disengage. But these images do not let us do that. They cut through the noise, forcing us to acknowledge what is unfolding, even when it is uncomfortable, even when it makes us question the world we live in - and our own role within it.'
This year's event is the contest's 70th year and includes a handful of changes from previous contests. Judges recognized three winners in each category for each region whereas the previous three years only recongized one. Those categories include singles, stories, and long-term projects.
While 2025's 42 winning photographers – 30 of whom took photos in the country where they live – have been announced, the organization will announce a single photograph as the World Press Photo of the Year and two finalists on April 17. The following day, the collection of winning images will embark on a worldwide gallery tour.
Browse through some of the winning images from the contest below or view additional images at the World Press Photo website.
Image 1 of 7
Image 2 of 7
Image 3 of 7
Image 4 of 7
Image 5 of 7
Image 6 of 7
Image 7 of 7
Image 1 of 6
Image 2 of 6
Image 3 of 6
Image 4 of 6
Image 5 of 6
Image 6 of 6
Image 1 of 6
Image 2 of 6
Image 3 of 6
Image 4 of 6
Image 5 of 6
Image 6 of 6
Image 1 of 6
Image 2 of 6
Image 3 of 6
Image 4 of 6
Image 5 of 6
Image 6 of 6
Image 1 of 7
Image 2 of 7
Image 3 of 7
Image 4 of 7
Image 5 of 7
Image 6 of 7
Image 7 of 7
Image 1 of 7
Image 2 of 7
Image 3 of 7
Image 4 of 7
Image 5 of 7
Image 6 of 7
Image 7 of 7
Browse the best photography awards and contests for more inspiration, or take a look at the best professional cameras.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Proposed ballot measure could force a citywide vote on L.A. 2028 Olympic venues
L.A.'s plan to host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games was already facing a thorny set of challenges, including the scramble to secure lucrative sponsorships and the search for buses to shuttle athletes and spectators across the region. Now, organizers could soon be faced with yet another threat: a proposed ballot measure that, according to city officials, could force at least five Olympic venues to go before voters for approval. Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel and restaurant workers, filed paperwork in June for a ballot measure requiring L.A. voters to sign off on the development or expansion of major 'event centers' such as sports arenas, concert halls, hotels and convention facilities. The measure takes aim not just at permanent projects but also temporary structures, including those that add more than 50,000 square feet of space or 1,000 seats. Former City Councilmember Paul Krekorian, who heads Mayor Karen Bass' Office of Special Events, identified five Olympic venues that could be subjected to a citywide election, including the Los Angeles Convention Center, the John C. Argue Swim Stadium in Exposition Park and the Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area in the San Fernando Valley, which is set to host skateboarding, 3-on-3 basketball and other competitions. 'The proposed measure would make vital projects essential for our city and these Games potentially impossible to complete,' Krekorian said in a statement to The Times. 'It would also require costly special elections before even relatively small projects could begin.' A representative for LA28, the nonprofit organizing the Games, declined to confirm whether any Olympic venues would be affected by the proposal, saying only that it is monitoring the situation. Unite Here has billed the proposal as one of its responses to a business group that is seeking to overturn the so-called Olympic Wage passed by the City Council in May, which hikes the minimum wage for hotel and airport workers to $30 per hour in 2028. The union has not begun gathering signatures for the proposal, which is under review by the City Clerk's office. If it qualifies, it likely wouldn't appear on a ballot until June 2026. Nevertheless, it has already raised alarms at City Hall, where some elected officials have portrayed it as irresponsible. Councilmember Traci Park, who represents coastal neighborhoods, said she fears the measure will force a citywide vote on an Olympic venue planned at Venice Beach, which is set to host road cycling, the marathon and the triathlon. She said it would also be more difficult for the city to attract new hotels and possibly expand its Convention Center. 'This is an absolute assault on our local economy. It's spiteful and politically motivated,' she said. Park, who voted against the $30 tourism minimum wage, has been at odds with Unite Here for more than a year. Councilmember Tim McOsker, whose 2022 election was backed by Unite Here and who supported the minimum wage hike, also voiced concerns, calling the proposed ballot measure 'an attack on workers.' McOsker, whose district includes the Port of Los Angeles, said he believes the proposal would force a vote on a plan to create a temporary viewing area for Olympic sailing at Berth 46 in San Pedro. He also fears it would trigger a citywide election for a 6,200-seat amphitheater planned in San Pedro's West Harbor, a project that is not connected to the Games. 'This is bad for people who build things, bad for people who operate things, bad for people who work in buildings like these,' he said. '[The proposal] harms real people and it harms the economy.' Ada Briceño, co-president of Unite Here Local 11 and also a candidate for state Assembly, declined to answer questions about the criticism of the proposal. Two other Unite Here representatives did not respond to The Times' inquiries. The union's proposal, titled 'Ordinance to Require Voter Approval of Major Development Projects,' argues that sports arenas and other major event venues 'do not always justify their cost.' Unite Here spokesperson Maria Hernandez told The Times earlier this year that the proposal would apply to Olympic venues that reach a certain size, but declined to give specifics. She said it was not clear whether the ballot proposal would impede efforts to expand the Convention Center, saying in an email that 'it depends on the timing.' The ballot proposal would not apply to athletic venues planned by LA28 in other nearby cities, such as Long Beach, Carson, Inglewood, Anaheim and El Monte. As a result, L.A. could face the potentially humiliating prospect of hosting a Games where only a handful of venues are within city limits. 'If it makes it on the ballot, there are projects and events that will be moved out of the city of Los Angeles rather than trying to win at the ballot box,' said Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., a business group. The city's future economic health could depend on the success or failure of LA28. Under its host agreement, the city would be on the hook for the first $270 million in losses if the Olympics end up in the red. Critics have also voiced concern that the quadrennial athletic event could displace low-income tenants, particularly those who live near Olympic venues. Voters should have been given the opportunity to decide whether L.A. should host the Olympics from the very beginning, said Eric Sheehan, spokesperson for NOlympics, which opposes the 2028 Games. Nevertheless, Sheehan voiced little enthusiasm for the union proposal, saying it doesn't go far enough. 'What would be stronger would be the chance for Angelenos to vote on whether or not we want the Olympics at all,' he said. The proposed ballot measure from Unite Here states that hotels can have harmful effects on a city, impeding the construction of new housing and creating a burden on social services. It goes on to offer similar warnings about large-scale development projects, saying they 'often involve significant expenditures of taxpayer money' — an argument disputed by some city officials. Those projects 'may take the place of other projects that otherwise could have more directly benefited city residents,' the measure states. Times staff writer Thuc Nhi Nguyen contributed to this report.
The Hill
3 days ago
- The Hill
College at center of USA Fencing fight agrees to deal with Trump admin on trans athletes
Wagner College, a small, private liberal arts college in Staten Island, N.Y., has agreed to comply with the Trump administration's restrictions on transgender student-athletes following a federal investigation that stemmed from an incident at a women's fencing competition in March, the Education Department announced on Friday. The department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) launched an investigation into Wagner after USA Fencing officials disqualified a woman from a tournament at the University of Maryland on March 30. Stephanie Turner, 31, had refused to compete against Red Sullivan, a 19-year-old Wagner student, taking a knee to protest Sullivan's participation in violation of the competition's rules. A video of Turner's disqualification quickly went viral, amplified by conservative activists, political figures and Fox News. 'This is heroic on her part,' Rep. Mike Lee (R-Utah) wrote in a post on X, responding to a video of the exchange posted by Riley Gaines, a frequent critic of transgender women in women's sports. In May, the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) held a hearing on the incident and invited Turner to testify. Participation in the University of Maryland's Cherry Blossom Open, hosted annually during springtime, is not limited to college students, according to the school's fencing club, of which Turner, who now lives in suburban Philadelphia, is a former member. Sullivan, a sophomore at Wagner, entered the competition individually. She had competed for the college's women's fencing team until February, when the NCAA said it would comply with President Trump's executive order to ban transgender student-athletes from girls' and women's sports. In an interview with Rolling Stone in April, Sullivan said the exchange with Turner left her bewildered. 'Nothing close to this has ever happened. No one has ever had a problem with me fencing in a women's event,' said Sullivan, who became medically eligible for women's tournaments last year. USA Fencing, the sport's governing body, announced in July that it would amend its transgender and nonbinary participation policy to align with a new U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee policy barring transgender women from competing in Olympic women's sports. As part of its deal with the Trump administration, Wagner will formally amend its athletic policies to reflect 'biology-based' definitions of the words 'male' and 'female,' consistent with an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office proclaiming that the U.S. recognizes only two unchangeable sexes. The college will also issue a public statement pledging to comply with Title IX, the federal civil rights law against sex discrimination in schools that the Trump administration has said prohibits transgender students from competing in girls' and women's sports. The University of Pennsylvania, Trump's alma mater, agreed to a nearly identical resolution in July. In a statement on Friday, Wagner College President Jeffrey Doggett said the school would continue to foster a welcoming and supportive community, but that it has a responsibility to comply with federal laws as the government interprets them. He apologized to any student-athletes who were negatively impacted by the school allowing transgender women to compete. The college's agreement with the administration, Doggett said, is 'markedly different' from those of other universities found to have violated Trump's orders. 'Working cooperatively with the OCR investigators, we were able to negotiate terms that are limited, minimally intrusive and tailored to the particular facts of Wagner's situation,' he said. Doggett added that the college had been following NCAA and USA Fencing rules applicable at the time when it allowed Sullivan, whom the statement does not name directly, to participate on the women's fencing team. The agreement with OCR 'makes clear that there was no admission or finding of any wrongdoing by the College,' he said. 'As we know, higher education is in the midst of great change,' Doggett continued. 'Like many institutions, Wagner College is doing what it must to advance its mission during this period of turbulence. I believe that it is of the utmost importance that Wagner set a course that ensures its long-term success, and part of that is to continue to foster an open and supportive community that follows the laws and regulations with which it must comply. In bringing an end to this investigation I believe we can continue to do both.'
Politico
3 days ago
- Politico
Trump's Bad-to-Worse Options on Epstein
Public polls indicate that roughly 60 percent of the American public disapprove of Trump's handling of the situation. A paltry 16 percent approve, according to a Washington Post poll released this week. Meanwhile, the administration's latest gambit — engaging with Ghislaine Maxwell — is getting messier. Maxwell, the only person convicted in the underlying scheme since Epstein died, has started making demands as a condition for giving testimony before the House Oversight Committee. (This is what happens when you give a criminal like Maxwell leverage: They try to use it.) The committee has declined to give Maxwell congressional immunity, but negotiations over the terms of a deposition are apparently ongoing. The Justice Department and House Republicans could have avoided the embarrassment of publicly negotiating with a convicted child sex trafficker and confirmed liar, but Maxwell's involvement is now dangling until who knows when. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who apparently thought it was a good idea to spend two days interviewing her, has promised to 'share additional information about what we learned at the appropriate time.' The whole thing has unfolded like a lesson in how to mismanage a political crisis. Making matters worse, Trump does not appear to have any good options for moving on from this controversy, in large part because of the legal complexities that surround the case. Below are a few of the potential paths forward, from staying the course to releasing everything to a few options in between. All have conspicuous downsides for the administration, the public or both, but it's worth going through them. Status Quo Right now, the administration has two open lines of pursuit as it seeks to mollify critics who want more insight into the Epstein files: (1) unsealing grand jury transcripts from the criminal prosecutions, and (2) working with Maxwell as a potential government cooperator to obtain new information or leads that might shed further light on Epstein and Maxwell's deeds and the involvement (or lack thereof) of other people. Neither of these efforts is likely to prove particularly fruitful or satisfying to the public writ large. The grand jury transcripts likely represent just a sliver of the information in the government's possession. That is because when prosecutors present testimony to a grand jury in order to obtain an indictment, they focus on the particular defendants and co-conspirators at issue and the evidence that they are likely to introduce at trial. If there was no evidence presented at trial about other particular individuals or subjects, it is fair to assume that they were not the subject of much grand jury testimony. Indeed, in court filings on Tuesday night, the Justice Department disclosed that there were only two witnesses who testified in the grand jury proceedings, an FBI agent and NYPD detective. It is routine for federal prosecutors when charging criminal cases to present grand jury testimony from only one or more of the government agents who worked on the investigation; but as a result, the odds are low that they would have provided materially more information to the grand jury than was presented in the indictment or introduced as evidence in the trial. As for Maxwell, she is a particularly bad candidate to serve as a government cooperator, and it is unlikely that the Justice Department's engagement with her will generate credible information that the government can credibly rely or act upon. Maxwell is in prison on a 20-year sentence on heinous charges. At trial, the government presented evidence from victims who testified — in the government's own words in a sentencing submission just three years ago — that Maxwell and Epstein 'worked together to identify girls, groom them, and then entice them to travel and transport them to Epstein's properties' and that the 'girls — some of whom were as young as 14 years old — were then sexually abused.' On top of that, the DOJ already discredited Maxwell as someone who would speak honestly and charged her with two counts of perjury (later dropped after the trafficking conviction). Prosecutors said that Maxwell was willing to 'brazenly lie under oath about her conduct.' The conduct at issue is also so old — going back more than three decades — that it would be difficult to corroborate Maxwell's claims. Over time, witnesses' memories fade and documents become harder to track down. And of course, Maxwell has an obvious incentive to lie or shade the truth — both by pointing the finger at others and downplaying Epstein's connection to people who are politically aligned with the Trump administration, or Trump himself. Trump, as we now know from the Wall Street Journal 's reporting, was told in May that his name was in the files, though he has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the matter. As a political matter, the exercise also seems highly risky. Maxwell is angling for a pardon or reduction in her sentence. If that were to happen — if the Trump administration were to provide Maxwell with an early release or pardon her altogether — some people could interpret this as confirmation of the very government-backed conspiracy that the administration has been trying to refute, that powerful child sex predators work with and protect one another. Indeed, according to one poll released this week, only 4 percent of respondents — that is not a typo — said that Trump should pardon Maxwell. It is also always possible — perhaps even likely — that the controversy will eventually blow over at some point or be overtaken by some other all-consuming political story. That may not, however, undo whatever political damage has been done in the meantime. Legislation The bipartisan odd couple of Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) have proposed a measure that would effectively force the government to publicly release virtually all of the unclassified material in the government's possession, with redactions for victim-related information, as well as internal DOJ communications. Similar measures could emerge in the coming weeks. If Trump for some reason decided to endorse the bill, it would surely pass. But on the merits, it is not a good idea to dump all of this material in the public domain. The government does not typically release raw investigative material from criminal cases — and with good reason. The government acquired mountains of information in the course of its investigation, including a large amount of material gathered from electronic devices. The government's investigative material would also include FBI summaries of witness interviews that could include false leads and derogatory information that the government was unable to corroborate. Releasing all of this material might offer some short-term relief in the sense that the Epstein files would finally be out. But in fact, it would simply prolong this drama and provide more fodder for more baseless conspiracy theories, potentially for years to come and with no end in sight. Self-Disclosure The Trump administration could also choose to voluntarily release the same material at issue in the Massie-Khanna legislation. That would be unwise for the reasons noted above. On top of that, the Trump administration's haphazard efforts in recent weeks have probably burned its public credibility on this topic among a sizable contingent of Americans. After spending years cultivating and promoting theories about an elaborate and wide-ranging child sex trafficking conspiracy, some of America's most senior law enforcement officials have struggled to debunk their own nonsense while also appearing to suppress information about what they found. There will be many people who do not trust the output if the administration tries to self-disclose and who will believe that government officials are withholding information about political and financial elites, including perhaps Trump himself. Firings Perhaps Trump could try one of his time-tested tactics: Firing people or otherwise forcing them out of their positions. The most obvious candidates for the chopping block would be Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Deputy Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino. It is far from clear what dismissing Bondi would accomplish. Yes, she made some conspicuous missteps — like orchestrating a botched 'Phase 1' release of material to conservative influencers at the White House back in February — but the next attorney general would face even more pressure on the issue and confront the same political minefield that Bondi has attempted to navigate. Patel and Bongino are in a slightly different category because they were instrumental in advancing Epstein conspiracy theories prior to Trump's election. But at this point — even assuming that Trump were inclined to remove one or both of them, which is far from clear — it seems unlikely that removing them would solve the administration's problems. By now, the situation has spiraled way beyond those two men. A Blue-Ribbon Commission What about establishing a bipartisan commission, akin to the one that investigated the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001? They could review the material in the DOJ's possession and report to the public on what is — and isn't — in there. The notion of convening a blue-ribbon panel of respected Washington figures is a political cliché, of course, but in this case, it may be a tempting idea, particularly given the fact that both the Republican and Democratic Parties arguably lack the widespread public credibility that would be necessary to do something similar on their own within Congress. Problems, however, would quickly arise. For one thing, the effort would prolong things even further, at least until the commission completes its work. As we saw with the Jan. 6 committee, there would also likely be serious disputes about who should sit on the committee. Should one or more prominent Epstein conspiracy theorists participate in order to lend some credence to the findings among skeptics, or would that fatally undermine the ability of the commission to do its job? A Major Press Conference Perhaps the best of the bad options is for the most senior law enforcement officials — Bondi, Patel or both — to give a press conference in which they provide a credible and confidently delivered readout of the government's investigative work and answer all of the questions posed by the media. Stay for as many hours as it takes. But for this to work, Bondi and Patel would have to fall on their swords. They would need to explain in detail exactly what they did in recent months to review the investigation, and they would need to describe with greater precision what is in the government's possession and what it does and doesn't reveal about the broader conspiracies alleged by skeptics. They would need to firmly and definitively explain that the conspiracy theories that they cultivated are wrong. Crucially, they would also need admit that they were wrong to promote and indulge those conspiracy theories themselves. And at this point, they would need to disclose — even if it's in generalized form — what the Wall Street Journal has reported is in the government's possession that concerns Trump himself. The overriding problem with this proposal, apart from Bondi and Patel's willingness to do this, is that the public can no longer trust them on this subject. They have burned their credibility on the issue across the political spectrum, and people will be justifiably skeptical about whether they are receiving a complete and accurate account. There is at least one clear takeaway from all of this and from the absence of any clear path forward for the administration: Trump officials never should have promoted or endorsed the Epstein conspiracy theories in the first place, despite whatever political or electoral upside they thought it provided. Doing so was reckless and irresponsible, and it fell far below the professional standards that should apply to our most senior law enforcement officials. In hindsight — if not in real-time itself — their promotional efforts appeared craven, self-interested and highly distasteful. Lest we forgot, there were actual victims here. They should not be political pawns, and they should not have become the subject of a years-long, ongoing political campaign that has, among other things, extended and re-publicized the horror of what they experienced. Still, the original and most significant political liabilities were created by Trump. No one forced Trump to associate with a creep like Epstein for years. No one forced him to tell New York magazine for a story in 2002 that Epstein was a 'terrific guy,' and that 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' And no one forced him to endorse the release of the Epstein files as he was campaigning for reelection in a way that riled up members of his base but also lent further support to conspiracy theorists and grifters. On top of that, no one forced Trump to select a vice president and senior law enforcement officials with their own baggage on this topic and whose comments over the years have practically been playing on a news media loop for the last few weeks. It is not surprising that the sort of people who behaved this way would now struggle to hold the public's confidence on this subject or to portray themselves as credible, sober-minded and responsible public officials. These were all choices that Trump made himself. No amount of baseless finger-pointing or blame-shifting — at Democrats, the media or anyone else — can change that.
