Leettaschmidt

As millions of student loan borrowers settle into the school year, many are stressed about how they’ll pay for their degrees. These students may find that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the big tax and spending bill that President Donald Trump signed into law over the summer, could limit how much they can borrow.

Until recently, graduate students could take out two types of federal loans: Direct Unsubsidized Loans, which had a lifetime limit of US$138,500, and Grad PLUS loans, which allowed students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, minus financial aid.

But Grad PLUS loans will be eliminated next summer, with a three-year transitional period for current borrowers. That will leave only the capped loans for new borrowers, and those loans have new lifetime borrowing limits: $200,000 for students pursuing certain professional degrees, and $100,000 for nonprofessional graduate programs.

If you add both undergraduate and graduate loans, there’s a new lifetime limit of $257,500 per person.

That seems modest to me. Consider that the annual average costs for an undergraduate degree range from $24,920 for in-state public universities to $58,000 for private universities. That means we’re looking at up to $224,000 for a bachelor’s degree. If we add three years of law school, we’re looking at an additional $132,000 to $168,000, respectively. Alternatively, completing four years of medical school will set you back another $268,000 to $363,000. It’s not easy to make those numbers add up to less than $257,500.

As I reflect on these numbers and my journey to becoming a college professor, specializing in race and ethnic studies, one thing becomes clear: I would never have been able to earn my bachelor’s degree, two master’s degrees, and Ph.D. under these new rules.

Adjusting for inflation, I took out nearly $300,000 in student loans, and I paid them all off within a decade of starting my college teaching career. For me, the system worked. I wonder how today’s aspiring professionals, especially those from less prosperous backgrounds, will manage.

The future of professionals

Professional students already graduate with a lot of debt – often far more than the new loan caps will allow. In 2020, more than a quarter of graduating medical students and nearly 60% of graduating dental students had borrowed more than the new limits would allow, author Mark Kantrowitz, who is an expert on student loans, has found. In 2024, nearly a quarter of medical school graduates left school with more than $300,000 in debt.

The new borrowing limits will likely hit minority students especially hard. While about 61% of all graduate students take out student loans, the share is much higher for Black students compared with white students, 48% to 17%.

While some might be able to supplement their federal loans with private ones – which tend to have much worse terms for borrowers – I fear that many others will be forced to end their educations prematurely.

That, in turn, would worsen the already severe shortage of doctors serving the Black community. As pointed out in a 2023 report of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the shortage of Black primary care physicians is directly related to overall lower population health and ultimately higher mortality rates within the Black community. As of 2023, fewer than 6% of U.S. doctors were Black, versus 14.4% of the population.

Research has suggested that student loan relief would help diversify the medical workforce. Adding new restrictions would likely have the opposite effect, making the profession more homogeneous and significantly undermining Black public health.

Or consider attorneys. Law school costs have risen more than 600% over the past two decades. The average 2020 law school graduate left with $165,000 in student debt.

Black law students face unique challenges, graduating with approximately 8% more debt on average than white students and facing significant wage disparities once they enter the legal workforce. Making it harder for Black students to afford law school could reduce the number of Black attorneys, which has held steady at about 5% of active lawyers over the past 10 years.

Reducing access to federal student loans risks disproportionately affecting women, since they hold roughly two-thirds of all student debt.

What comes next

Supporters of the change say that capping graduate student borrowing will encourage universities to rein in tuition hikes. They also say private student loan providers will step in to help students. I am skeptical, but the true test will come next year.

In the meantime, professional students might want to familiarize themselves with the many scholarship opportunities available. Many organizations offer a range of medical school scholarships, including those targeting women and minorities. The same is true for students interested in law school. A helpful starting point is this list of scholarships with approaching deadlines and these opportunities for women and people of color.

Rodney Coates does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

American colleges and universities are increasingly firing or punishing professors and other employees for what they say, whether it’s on social media or in the classroom.

After the Sept. 10, 2025, killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, several universities, including Iowa State University, Clemson University, Ball State University and others, fired or suspended employees for making negative online comments about Kirk.

Some of these dismissed professors compared Kirk to a Nazi, described his views as hateful, or said there was no reason to be sorry about his death.

Some professors are now suing their employers for taking disciplinary action against them, claiming they are violating their First Amendment rights.

In one case, the University of South Dakota fired Phillip Michael Cook, a tenured art professor, after he posted on Facebook in September that Kirk was a “hate spreading Nazi.” Cook, who took down his post within a few hours and apologized for it, then sued the school, saying it was violating his First Amendment rights.

A federal judge stated in a Sept. 23 preliminary order that the First Amendment likely protected what Cook posted. The judge ordered the University of South Dakota to reinstate Cook, and the university announced on Oct. 4 that it would reverse Cook’s firing.

Cook’s lawsuit, as well as other lawsuits filed by dismissed professors, is testing how much legal authority colleges have over their employees’ speech – both when they are on the job and when they are not.

For decades, American colleges and universities have traditionally encouraged free speech and open debate as a core part of their academic mission.

As scholars who study college free speech and academic freedom, we recognize that these events raise an important question: When, if ever, can a college legally discipline an employee for what they say?

Limits of public employees’ speech rights

The First Amendment limits the government’s power to censor people’s free speech. People in the United States can, for instance, join protests, criticize the government and say things that others find offensive.

But the First Amendment only applies to the government – which includes public colleges and universities – and not private institutions or companies, including private colleges and universities.

This means private colleges typically have wide authority to discipline employees for their speech.

In contrast, public colleges are considered part of the government. The First Amendment limits the legal authority they have over their employees’ speech. This is especially true when an employee is speaking as a private citizen – such as participating in a political rally outside of work hours, for example.

The Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 1968 case that public employees’ speech rights as private citizens can extend to criticizing their employer, like if they write a letter critical of their employer to a newspaper.

The Supreme Court also ruled in 2006 that the First Amendment does not protect public employees from being disciplined by their employers when they say or write something as part of their official job duties.

Even when a public college employee is speaking outside of their job duties as a private citizen, they might not be guaranteed First Amendment protection. To reach this legal threshold, what they say must be about something of importance to the public, or what courts call a “matter of public concern.”

Talking or writing about news, politics or social matters – Kirk’s murder – often meets the legal test for when speech is about a matter of public concern.

In contrast, courts have ruled that personal workplace complaints or gossip typically does not guarantee freedom of speech protection.

And in some cases, even when a public employee speaks as a private citizen on a topic that a court considers a matter of public concern, their speech may still be unprotected.

A public employer can still convince a court that its reasons for prohibiting an employee’s speech – like preventing conflict among co-workers – are important enough to deny this employee First Amendment protection.

Lawsuits brought by the employees of public colleges and universities who have been fired for their comments about Kirk may likely be decided based on whether what they said or wrote amounts to a matter of public concern. Another important factor is whether a court is convinced that an employee’s speech about Kirk was serious enough to disrupt a college’s operations, thus justifying the employee’s firing.

Academic freedom and professors’ speech

There are also questions over whether professors at public universities, in particular, can cite other legal rights to protect their speech.

Academic freedom refers to a faculty member’s rights connected to their teaching and research expertise.

At both private and public colleges, professors’ work contracts – like the ones typically signed after receiving tenure – potentially provide legal protections for faculty speech connected to academic freedom, such as in the classroom.

However, the First Amendment does not apply to how a private college regulates its professors’ speech or academic freedom.

Professors at public colleges have at least the same First Amendment free speech rights as their fellow employees, like when speaking in a private citizen capacity.

Additionally, the First Amendment might protect a public college professor’s work-related speech when academic freedom concerns arise, like in their teaching and research.

In 2006, the Supreme Court left open the question of whether the First Amendment covers academic freedom, in a case where it found the First Amendment did not cover what public employees say when carrying out their official work.

Since then, the Supreme Court has not dealt with this complicated issue. And lower federal courts have reached conflicting decisions about First Amendment protection for public college professors’ speech in their teaching and research.

Future of free speech for university employees

Some colleges, especially public ones, are testing the legal limits of their authority over their employees’ speech.

These incidents demonstrate a culture of extreme political polarization in higher education.

Beyond legal questions, colleges are also grappling with how to define their commitments to free speech and academic freedom.

In particular, we believe campus leaders should consider the purpose of higher education. Even if legally permitted, restricting employees’ speech could run counter to colleges’ traditional role as places for the open exchange of ideas.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

A new album by Woody Guthrie (1912–1967), perhaps the most influential US folk artist, was released late last summer. Woody at Home, Vol. 1 & 2 contains songs – some already known, others previously unreleased – the artist recorded from 1951 to 1952 on a tape recorder he received from his publisher. A version of the famous “This Land Is Your Land” (1940), with new verses, is among the tracks.

The release reflects the continuing vitality of Woody Guthrie in the United States. There is an ongoing process of updating and redefining his figure and artistic legacy – one that does not always take into account the singer’s radicalism but sometimes accentuates his patriotism.

The story of “This Land Is Your Land” is a case in point. There are versions of the song containing verses critical of private property, and others without them. The first version of “This Land” became almost an unofficial anthem of the US and, over the years, has been used in various political contexts, sometimes resulting in appropriations and reinterpretations. In 1960, it was played at the Republican national convention that nominated Richard Nixon for president, and in 1988, Republican candidate George H. W. Bush used it in his presidential campaign.

However, Guthrie made his contribution by supporting both the Communist Party and, at different times, president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. He borrowed the idea that music could be an important tool of activism from the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) union. In the party, Guthrie saw the ideological cement; in the union, the instrument of mass organization. It was only through union – a term with a double meaning that Guthrie often played upon: union as both labour union and union of the oppressed – that a socialized and unionized world could be achieved.

‘Deportee’

The release of Woody at Home, Vol. 1 & 2 was preceded by the single “Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos),” a song that had long been known, but whose original recording by Guthrie had never been released. The artist wrote it in reference to an event that occurred on January 28, 1948, when a plane carrying Mexican seasonal workers crashed in Los Gatos Canyon, California, killing everyone on board.

This choice was not accidental, as explained by Nora Guthrie – one of the folksinger’s daughters and long-time curator of her father’s political and artistic legacy – in an interview with The Guardian, where she emphasized how his message remains current, given the deportations carried out by the President Donald Trump’s administration.

Woody Guthrie read the account of the tragic plane crash in a newspaper, and was horrified to find that the workers were not referred to by name, but by the pejorative term “deportees”. In their story, he saw parallels with the experiences of the 1930s “Okies” from the state of Oklahoma, impoverished by dust storms and years of socioeconomic crisis, who moved to California in search of a better future. It was a “Goin’ Down The Road,” according to the title of another Guthrie song, in which the word “down” also conveyed the sadness of having to hit the road, with all the uncertainties and hardships that lay ahead, because there was no alternative – indeed, the full title ended with “Feeling Bad”.

The Okies and the Mexican migrant workers faced racism and poverty amid the abundance of the fruit fields. Mexicans found themselves picking fruit that was rotting on the trees – “the crops are all in and the peaches are rotting” – for wages that barely allowed them to survive – “to pay all their money to wade back again”. In “Deportee,” in which these two lyrics appear, Guthrie provocatively asked:

Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil
And be called by no name except “deportees”?

Visions of America and radicalism

“We come with the dust and we go with the wind,” sang Guthrie in “Pastures of Plenty” (1941, and also included in Woody at Home), the anthem he wrote for the migrants of the US southwest, denouncing the indifference and invisibility that enabled the exploitation of workers. In this way, Guthrie measured the gap separating the US’s reality from the fulfillment of its promises and aspirations. For him, tragedies were also a collective issue that allowed him to denounce the way in which a minority (the wealthy capitalists) deprived the majority (the workers) of their rights and well-being.

The artist’s political vision owed much to the fact that he grew up in Oklahoma in the 1920s and 1930s, where the influence of Jeffersonian agrarian populism – the vision of an agrarian republic inspired by president Thomas Jefferson, based on the equitable distribution of land among citizens – remained deeply rooted. It is within this framework that Guthrie’s radicalism, which took shape in the 1930s and 1940s, must be situated. These periods were marked by intense debate over the health of US democracy, when Roosevelt’s New Deal sought to address years of economic crisis and profound social change.

Against racial discrimination

Guthrie’s activism sought to overcome racial discrimination. This was no small feat for the son of a man said to have been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a fervent anti-communist, who may have taken part in a lynching in 1911.

Moreover, Woody himself, upon arriving in California in the latter half of the 1930s, carried with him a racist legacy reflected in certain songs – such as his performance of the racist version of “Run, Nigger, Run”, a popular song in the South, which he sang on his own radio show in 1937. Afterward, the artist received a letter from a Black listener expressing her deep resentment over the singer’s use of the word “nigger”. Guthrie was so moved that he read the letter on the air and apologized.

He then began a process of questioning himself and what he believed the United States to be, going so far as to denounce segregation and the distortions of the judicial system that protected white people while readily imprisoning Black people. These themes appear in “Buoy Bells from Trenton”, also included in Woody at Home. The song refers to the case of the Trenton Six: in 1948, six Black men from Trenton, New Jersey were convicted of murdering a white man by an all-white jury, despite the testimony of several witnesses who had seen other individuals at the scene of the crime.

“Buoy Bells from Trenton” was probably included on the album because of the interpretation it invites concerning abuses of power and the “New Jim Crow”, an expression that echoes the Jim Crow laws (late 19th century to 1965) that imposed racial segregation in the Southern states. These laws were legitimized by the Supreme Court ruling Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which established the principle of “separate but equal”, before being abolished by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965). Popularized by Michelle Alexander in her book, The New Jim Crow (2010), the contemporary term refers to the system of racial control through penal policies and mass incarceration: in 2022, African Americans made up 32% of convicted state and federal prisoners, even though they represent only 12% of the US population, a figure highlighted by several recent studies.

Guthrie’s song can thus be reread as a critique of persistent racism, both in its institutional forms and in its more diffuse manifestations. Once again, this is an example of the enduring vitality of Woody Guthrie and of how art does not end at the moment of its publication, but becomes a long-term historical phenomenon.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Daniele Curci ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

How do computers see the world? It’s not quite the same way humans do.

Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) make it possible to do more things with computer image processing. You might ask an AI tool to describe an image, for example, or to create an image from a description you provide.

As generative AI tools and services become more embedded in day-to-day life, knowing more about how computer vision compares to human vision is becoming essential.

My latest research, published in Visual Communication, uses AI-generated descriptions and images to get a sense of how AI models “see” – and discovered a bright, sensational world of generic images quite different from the human visual realm.

Comparing human and computer vision

Humans see when light waves enter our eyes through the iris, cornea and lens. Light is converted into electrical signals by a light-sensitive surface called the retina inside the eyeball, and then our brains interpret these signals into images we see.

Our vision focuses on key aspects such as colour, shape, movement and depth. Our eyes let us detect changes in the environment and identify potential threats and hazards.

Computers work very differently. They process images by standardising them, inferring the context of an image through metadata (such as time and location information in an image file), and comparing images to other images they have previously learned about. Computers focus on things such as edges, corners or textures present in the image. They also look for patterns and try to classify objects.

You’ve likely helped computers learn how to “see” by completing online CAPTCHA tests.

These are typically used to help computers differentiate between humans and bots. But they’re also used to train and improve machine learning algorithms.

So, when you’re asked to “select all the images with a bus”, you’re helping software learn the difference between different types of vehicles as well as proving you’re human.

Exploring how computers ‘see’ differently

In my new research, I asked a large language model to describe two visually distinct sets of human-created images.

One set contained hand-drawn illustrations while the other was made up of camera-produced photographs.

I fed the descriptions back into an AI tool and asked it to visualise what it had described. I then compared the original human-made images to the computer-generated ones.

The resulting descriptions noted the hand-drawn images were illustrations but didn’t mention the other images as being photographs or having a high level of realism. This suggests AI tools see photorealism as the default visual style, unless specifically prompted otherwise.

Cultural context was largely devoid from the descriptions. The AI tool either couldn’t or wouldn’t infer cultural context by the presence of, for example, Arabic or Hebrew writing in the images. This underscores the dominance of some languages, like English, in AI tools’ training data.

While colour is vital to human vision, it too was largely ignored in the AI tools’ image descriptions. Visual depth and perspective were also largely ignored.

The AI images were more boxy than the hand-drawn illustrations, which used more organic shapes.

The AI images were also much more saturated than the source images: they contained brighter, more vivid colours. This reveals the prevalence of stock photos, which tend to be more “contrasty”, in AI tools’ training data.

The AI images were also more sensationalist. A single car in the original image became one of a long column of cars in the AI version. AI seems to exaggerate details not just in text but also in visual form.

The generic nature of the AI images means they can be used in many contexts and across countries. But the lack of specificity also means audiences might perceive them as less authentic and engaging.

Deciding when to use human or computer vision

This research supports the notion that humans and computers “see” differently. Knowing when to rely on computer or human vision to describe or create images can be a competitive advantage.

While AI-generated images can be eye-catching, they can also come across as hollow upon closer inspection. This can limit their value.

Images are adept at sparking an emotional reaction and audiences might find human-created images that authentically reflect specific conditions as more engaging than computer-generated attempts.

However, the capabilities of AI can make it an attractive option for quickly labelling large data sets and helping humans categorise them.

Ultimately, there’s a role for both human and AI vision. Knowing more about the opportunities and limits of each can help keep you safer, more productive, and better equipped to communicate in the digital age.

T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

Hurricane Idalia blew a flamboyance, or flock, of 300-400 flamingos that was likely migrating between the Yucatan Peninsula and Cuba off course in August 2023 and unceremoniously deposited the birds across a wide swath of the eastern United States, from Florida’s Gulf Coast all the way up to Wisconsin and east to Pennsylvania.

I’m an estuarine scientist. That means I study ecosystems where fresh water flows into the ocean. I’ve spent 35 years with Audubon Florida studying the ecology of American flamingos and other wading birds in Florida Bay, Everglades National Park. So naturally, I was thrilled and intrigued by the sudden arrival of these flamingos.

One of the birds was rescued in the Tampa area after nearly drowning in the Gulf of Mexico. His rescuers named him Peaches.

A colleague and I were able to place a GPS tracking device and a bright blue band around his spindly leg, with the code “US02” engraved in white letters.

We were hoping to track his movements and see whether he ended up settling in Florida. Unfortunately, a few days after Peaches was released back into the wilds of Tampa Bay, the tracking device failed. His last reported sighting was on a beach near Marco Island on Oct. 5, 2023.

Then, in June 2025, I received an email from colleagues at the Rio Lagartos Biosphere Reserve in Yucatan, Mexico, who had photographed Peaches, blue band still in place, nesting in the reserve.

Peaches’ story is the latest piece in the historical puzzle of flamingos in Florida. Though the native population disappeared more than 100 years ago, recent events lead me to believe that flamingos may be coming back to the Sunshine State, and that their return has been facilitated by the concerted effort to restore the Everglades and coastal ecosystems.

Decimation of a population

In 1956, ornithologist and founder of the National Audubon’s Everglades Science Center Robert Porter Allen wrote “The Flamingos: Their Life History and Survival,” which is still considered a seminal document on the history of flamingos in Florida.

In his book, Allen cites several historical and scientific manuscripts from the 1800s that indicate flamboyances of hundreds to thousands were seen in the Everglades, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys.

Allen documents the demise of flamingos in the late 1800s, in Florida and throughout their Caribbean and Bahamian range. Like all wading birds in Florida, they fell victim to the women’s fashion trend of adorning hats with bird feathers. Wading bird feathers were literally worth their weight in gold.

Led by the National Association of Audubon Societies’ vocal opposition, the grassroots environmental movement that followed brought about laws prohibiting the hunting and sale of bird feathers. But enforcement of those laws in sparsely populated Florida was difficult, and on two occasions deputized Audubon wardens were murdered protecting wading bird nesting colonies.

Fortunately, within a few years, societal pressure turned the tide against the practice of wearing feathers. The passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 officially ended the feather trade.

Given legal protection, most species managed to reestablish huge nesting populations in the Everglades by the 1930s-1940s, presumably migrating from remote populations in Central America and the Caribbean.

Flamingos, however, did not.

A long road to recovery

In 1956, 40 years after hunting had ended, Allen estimated flamingo populations were only about 25% of what they had been in the previous century, with numbers plummeting from 168,000 to 43,000 breeding adults. They nested in significant numbers at only four locations, compared to 29 historically.

Flamingos’ unique breeding behaviors and their longevity – they can live up to 50 years in the wild – may account for their struggle to bounce back. Other Florida wading birds can nest multiple times a year at different locations, laying three to five eggs at a time.

Flamingos, on the other hand, nest only once a year, generally returning to the same location year after year, and lay only one egg. Furthermore, they prefer forming huge nesting colonies, with thousands of nests, in part due to their elaborate group courtship rituals.

Reason to hope

As a result of their rarity from the 1950s to 1980s, scientists – including myself – believed that any flamingos sighted intermittently around Florida were not wild birds but rather escapees from captive populations.

The largest flock observed in the state between 1930 and 1976 was 14 birds spotted in Biscayne Bay in 1934, on the day after Hialeah Race Track in Miami imported a group of about 30 flamingos. The track’s owners had failed to pinion the birds, and they simply flew away upon release.

But my opinion began to change in 2002, when a flamingo that was banded as a chick at Rio Lagartos was photographed in Florida Bay. In 2012, a second bird from Rio Lagartos was photographed.

By that time, I had observed flamingos in Florida Bay on several occasions, including larger flamboyances of 24 and 64 individuals. Although I still thought the majority of these flocks were escapees, the banded birds provided some evidence that at least a few wild flamingos were starting to spend time in Florida.

Then in 2015, my colleagues put a tracking device on a flamingo they had captured at the Key West Naval Air Station. Conchy, as we called him, was given the blue band US01 and released in Florida Bay in December 2015.

He lived in Florida Bay for two years, and the fact that he stayed for that long was proof to me that it was possible for flamingos to make a more permanent home in Florida.

In 2018, several colleagues and I published a paper laying out both evidence from historical accounts and also previously overlooked evidence from museums that flamingos were native to Florida. We also presented new data from researchers and citizen science portals that strongly indicated that wild flamingo numbers were increasing in Florida. This suggested that the population might be finally recovering.

Call it a comeback

Fast-forward to today, and it appears that this slow comeback may finally have legs. Six months after Hurricane Idalia, my colleagues at Audubon Florida and I conducted a weeklong online survey of flamingo sightings in Florida.

We received more than 50 reputable observations. After sorting through these observations to remove duplicates, we concluded that at least 100 flamingos were left in the state.

Then in July 2025, a flock of 125 individuals was photographed in Florida Bay. Based on our observations, my colleagues and I believe that the flamingos that arrived with Idalia may be reestablishing a home in Florida.

Progress toward restoration

The question is, why now? The 24 flamingos I saw in 1992 and the 64 I saw in 2004 didn’t take up permanent residence in the state. So what’s changed?

To me, the answer is clear: Efforts to restore the Everglades and Florida’s coastal ecosystems are beginning to show progress.

When I arrived in the Keys in 1989, Florida Bay was undergoing an ecological collapse. A 1993 interagency report by the federal government found that a hundred years of draining, diking and rerouting the flows of the Everglades to create urban and agricultural lands had raised the salt content of the water, making it uninhabitable for many estuarine animals.

The report noted that the bay’s famous seagrass beds were undergoing a massive die-off, accompanied by algal blooms that depleted oxygen levels, thereby killing fish in large numbers. Mangrove trees were dying on its myriad islands, and birds that for decades had nested in them had disappeared.

These events kick-started Everglades restoration efforts, and in 2000 the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan with nearly unanimous bipartisan support. With a cost in the tens of billions of dollars, it was to be the largest and most expensive ecological restoration project the world has ever seen.

Today, the bay’s health is vastly improved from the condition I observe in the 1980s. Water flow has gotten better, and the salinity is back to appropriate levels to support wildlife.

In 2018 and 2021, more than 100,000 pairs of wading birds such as white ibis, wood storks and roseate spoonbills nested in the Everglades. These numbers hadn’t been seen since the 1940s. In the 1980s and 1990s, 20,000 nesting pairs was thought to be a banner year.

While the Everglades and Florida Bay are still a long way from full restoration, I believe that the return of flamingos such as Conchy and Peaches is evidence that these efforts are on the right track.

Jerome Lorenz has received funding from The Lynn and Louis Wolfson II Family Foundation, the Batchelor Foundation and the Ron Magill Conservation Endowment. He is retired from the National Audubon Society but still does some volunteer work for the Everglades Science Center.

Moez Limayem visited all USF campuses on Monday for public forums, where he said he was delighted when the university called to inform him he would be the sole presidential finalist. Limayem has an extensive background in higher education, serving as the current president of the University of North Florida and as the Lynn Pippenger […]

The post OPINION: USF should have had more than one presidential finalist appeared first on The Oracle.

ZooTampa at Lowry Park is inviting the community to take part in an e-waste recycling drive during its World Okapi Day celebration on Saturday, October 18. The event encourages guests […]

The post ZooTampa hosts a big e-waste recycling event this weekend appeared first on That's So Tampa.

One of the wildest and funniest Off Broadway shows is now in Tampa. As part of the Bank of America Broadway at Straz Center season, the hilarious farce ‘Dracula: A […]

The post Fang-tastic: Straz Center brings ‘A Comedy of Terrors’ Dracula show to Tampa appeared first on That's So Tampa.

The state’s sudden accreditor switch isn’t about improving education, but about policing ideology with students caught in the crossfire. In June, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced that Florida would switch to a new accreditor. He framed the move as a strike against “out of control woke ideology” at a June 26 press conference. The new accreditor, […]

The post OPINION: DeSantis’ accreditor switch puts Florida universities at risk appeared first on The Oracle.

Debates about college curriculum have been swinging like a pendulum for decades, from Common Core standards to critical race theory, with each side accusing the other of indoctrination or censorship.  But Florida’s new general education regulations don’t just tilt the pendulum. They cut the rope entirely.  And these changes could be implemented at USF as […]

The post OPINION: Florida’s new gen ed requirements leave out key topics appeared first on The Oracle.

  The USF Herbarium, which contains over 300,000 botanical specimens, found a new home at the Tampa Library under Special Collections over the summer. Todd Chavez, the dean of the USF libraries, said the Herbarium is a “biodiversity library” comprised of specimens from the southeastern U.S. and the Caribbean, but also includes materials from all […]

The post USF Herbarium moves to Tampa Library’s Special Collections appeared first on The Oracle.

When I learned that Florida was ranked No. 1 in higher education once again, my initial reaction wasn’t one of pride, but rather confusion. For the last 9 years, U.S. News & World Report has ranked Florida’s higher education system at the top. The ranking looks at things like tuition costs, graduation rates and how […]

The post OPINION: Florida’s No. 1 in higher ed ranking misses the bigger picture appeared first on The Oracle.

Look at the front gardens in a typical suburban street and you’re unlikely to be surprised by much. Tidy little lawns and hedges, a few prim flowers, perhaps a well-kept wooden fence. You probably barely notice unless it’s in a poor state – or there’s something eccentric like a stone fountain. “Why would anyone have that eyesore?” people probably tut as they walk by.

The other thing you’re very likely to see is the owners out doing the gardening. Many will surely be out as I write, doing some final manicuring before autumn sets in.

This is fun for gardening enthusiasts, but most of us with front gardens make them boring more out of social pressure than personal choice. They may say our homes are supposed to be our castles, but we treat our front gardens more like they belong to someone else.

This applies across cultures. In recent years, it has been demonstrated by several studies in the UK and US, as well as in my research in the Netherlands.

I interviewed 20 older adults for my 2024 study about their relationship with their gardens. They all lived in the small cities of Breda and Tilburg, about halfway between Rotterdam and Antwerp. When I talked to Josje and Kees, a couple living in the suburbs of Breda who had the luxury of a front and back garden, Josje told me:

Our garden was green, but maintaining it was an obligatory thing … What you did is mowing the lawn and other amenities to keep it tidy, but not because you had green fingers.

This image of the “perfect” suburban front garden forces people into gardening even if they dislike it. As many as 70% of Dutch people have access to a front garden, and on average they spend 45 minutes per week looking after it. For many, these 45 minutes are clearly just a weekly necessity.

I also talked to Gerda and Willem, who lived on the same street, and Gerda’s comments gave an insight into the social pressure that gets attached to front gardens:

The street has become more beautiful now that everyone is paying more attention to the garden and trying to keep it tidy – except for one.

Clearly you wouldn’t want to be that person. And this isn’t all about the middle classes. In a study in an economically deprived area in the north of England in 2021, one respondent said:

You don’t want visitors to think you live in a dump, you don’t want them to pity you … It gives you pride, not just in your house but in the whole area. It makes it look like your area has not just been left to rot.

The sense of community and social control is reinforced when neighbours greet one another in apparently throwaway comments. “Morning – nice weather for gardening, isn’t it?” one of my interviewees said when he saw another outside. It’s friendly on one level, but there’s a subtext about moral duty as well.

The state of someone’s front garden influences how others perceive you and your house. Tidy and manicured garden? You must be middle class and have a nice, tidy house. A garden full of weeds and dirt? You must be working class, antisocial or renting.

There is even stigma around relaxing in your front garden. A 2023 UK study, which did focus-group interviews with people from different social classes and parts of England, had a contributor who said:

I think sitting out the front, people would say either this person’s got too much time or he’s looking at the neighbourhood gossip.

What happens round the back

Back gardens are a whole different can of worms. These are spaces of privacy and self-expression, where homeowners are more likely to go rogue with their designs. If you’re going to see cacti or palm trees, or statues or Japanese rock gardens, this is the place to look.

Among those who take biodiversity more seriously, you’ll maybe see microhabitats like ponds, nests and insect boxes. Those who prioritise self-sufficiency are increasingly setting up greenhouses and allotment-style plots to grow and harvest seasonal vegetables.

Back gardens are where people kick back, talk to family and friends, and let the children play. It’s where we’re less likely to worry if the grass is a bit longer than usual, since there’s probably tall enough fencing or hedging that the neighbours can’t see what’s going on.

Back gardens were particularly vital for restoring people and improving their wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic – for those lucky enough to have them.

So, if you want to know what a person is really like, check out their back garden. Although I should add, it is a little different in the Netherlands – where the culture is to usually have all curtains open, sending out a message that there’s nothing to hide in this house. That may or may not impose a little more conformity than in other countries, but that’s a research question for another day.

Rachel Lauwerijssen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Satirical musical artist Tom Lehrer passed away on July 26, 2025. Lehrer is best remembered for his sharp wit, engaging musical compositions, and timeless social commentary. In 2020, Lehrer proactively disclaimed his rights under copyright to his lyrics and musical compositions, allowing others to re-use his works without his permission. Lehrer’s dedication of his works to the commons emboldens its power, and reflects his talent to be in-conversation with cultural moments long after he is gone. 

Lehrer’s wit and support for cultural remixing shines through in a 2013 comment where he granted 2Chainz permission to sample “The Old Dope Peddler”. “I grant you m*f*s permission to do this,” Lehrer quipped. To celebrate his life, spirit, and contribution to the public domain, we invite you to explore his works for pleasure, inspiration, or just sheer curiosity. Below are a few fan favorites.

We Will All Go Together When We Go

A funny and dark song spoofing global nuclear annihilation fears during the height of the Cold War. Its cheery and delightful-sounding musical composition juxtaposes against lyrics reflecting a dark vision of “universal bereavement” following armageddon.

The Vatican Rag 

Known for its savvy skewering of the controversy around the resistance to modernizing traditions and rituals, plus who else could write a lyric like “Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate”?

The Elements

A fun, whimsical, and breakneck-paced take on the periodic table, itself building off of the public domain tune of the “Major-General’s Song” from 1879’s The Pirates of Penzance.

This post is published with a CC0 Waiver, dedicating it to the public domain.

When it comes to due diligence and background investigations, it’s easy to assume that public records and proprietary databases are all you need. While those sources are certainly important, news coverage can offer something they often don’t—context. News stories can provide unique insights, reveal red flags, and help you dig deeper into your findings. Still, there are plenty of misconceptions about using news in investigations, and these myths can hold us back.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the most common myths—and the reality behind them:

Myth #1: Public Records Are Enough

Public records are a great starting point, but they don’t tell the whole story. Many significant developments never make it into court filings or government databases. News articles can surface details about business deals, legal disputes, or regulatory issues that haven’t yet entered official records—or may never appear there at all. They help fill in the blanks and uncover leads you might otherwise miss.

Myth #2: News Sources Are Just Fluff

Some see news as too soft to be useful in an investigation. But solid reporting can reveal a lot—how someone responds to pressure, how they handle setbacks, and what others say about them. That kind of detail matters. You’ll also find images, graphics, and maps that add helpful context to your findings.

Myth #3: Online News Can’t Be Trusted

It’s true that misinformation is out there, but that doesn’t mean all online news is unreliable. The key is to evaluate your sources carefully. Ask yourself: Is this source reputable? Are the facts verifiable? Premium databases like LexisNexis and Factiva include vetted news sources with editorial oversight. And once you develop a system for evaluating what you find, online news becomes a powerful part of your toolbox.

Myth #4: Google Covers It All

Google is a great place to start, but it’s not the finish line. Many valuable articles—especially older content or trade publications—won’t show up in a basic search. That’s where news databases and specialized sources come in. A layered search strategy helps you catch what others miss.

Myth #5: Only Negative News Matters

Yes, red flags are important—but so is seeing the full picture. Positive coverage can highlight accomplishments, community involvement, and leadership qualities that matter just as much. Balanced reporting helps you avoid confirmation bias and make more informed decisions.

Myth #6: AI Can Do It for Me

GenAI tools like ChatGPT can help with brainstorming or analysis, but they don’t replace solid research. These tools aren’t built for real-time, comprehensive news searching. They can point you in a direction, but you still need to verify, cross-check, and dig into the details using multiple trusted sources.

Myth #7: News Research Takes Too Much Time

It doesn’t have to. A strategic approach to news searching—starting broad, refining keywords, and using filters—can actually save time. Tools like alerts and monitoring services also keep you updated without constant manual searching.

The reality: is that news sources help fill critical gaps in your investigations. When done right, news research:

• Reveals information you won’t find in public records
• Provides leads and helps with verification
• Adds personality, behavior, and context
• Keeps you current on trends and developments
• Strengthens your findings with another layer of intelligence

Don’t let these myths limit your investigations. With the right strategies and tools, news sources can add depth and insight that your clients will appreciate. The more complete the picture, the better the decisions—and that’s what due diligence is all about.

The post Top 7 myths about using news for due diligence appeared first on Marcy Phelps and Associates.

Tom Lehrer’s passing this weekend at age 97 has rightfully sparked tributes to his brilliant satirical songs. But amid all the well-deserved praise for “The Elements” and “Poisoning Pigeons in the Park,” there’s another aspect of Lehrer’s legacy that deserves equal celebration: his decision to dump his entire catalog into the public domain.

In an era when artists’ estates routinely extend copyright protections as long as legally possible, Lehrer’s approach was not just generous—it was revolutionary. In an age where copyright terms are discussed in notation known as “life plus…” Lehrer agreed to free up everything while he was still around to see what people would do with it.

We first wrote about his thinking on this way back when. It came out when someone had created a fan channel on YouTube posting all his music. Fearing that Lehrer would be upset, the guy (Erik Meyn) called up Lehrer to apologize, leading to this amazing conversation, in which Lehrer told him he was fine with it and didn’t care at all what people did with his music.

TL: Well, you see, I’m fine with that channel.

EM: You’re very kind. But my question is: Who in your family will take care of your copyright and your songs in the distant future?

TL: I don’t have a family.

EM: OK, but what do you think will happen to the channel and your songs? And if you have someone who will act on your behalf, could you give them my name in case they’d want the channel taken down?

TL: Yes, but there’s no need to remove that channel.

EM: I was just wondering what will happen in the future, because you’re certainly going to continue to sell records.

TL: Well, I don’t need to make money after I’m dead. These things will be taken care of.

EM: I feel like I gave away some of your songs to public domain without even asking you, and that wasn’t very nice of me.

TL: But I’m fine with that, you know.

In 2020, in the midst of the pandemic, Lehrer made this more official and announced that he was putting all his lyrics in the public domain:

I, Tom Lehrer, and the Tom Lehrer Trust 2000, hereby grant the following permission:

All the lyrics on this website, whether published or unpublished, copyrighted or uncopyrighted, may be downloaded and used in any manner whatsoever, without requiring any further permission from me or any payment to me or to anyone else.

Some lyrics written by Tom Lehrer to copyrighted music by others are included herein, but of course such music may not be used without permission of the copyright owners. (The translated songs may be found in their original languages on YouTube.)

In other words, all the lyrics herein should be treated as though they were in the public domain.

In particular, permission is hereby granted to anyone to set any of these lyrics to their own music and publish or perform their versions without fear of legal action.

But Lehrer wasn’t done. While his 2020 declaration covered lyrics, some raised questions about the publishing and composition rights (which was a bit more complex, given that many of his songs were to other’s music). Rather than let lawyers sort it out after his death, Lehrer took care of that too. In 2022, he put everything else he’d ever done into the public domain as well, rewriting his declaration to be absolutely clear:

I, Tom Lehrer, and the Tom Lehrer Trust 2007, hereby grant the following permissions:

All copyrights to lyrics or music written or composed by me have been relinquished, and therefore such songs are now in the public domain. All of my songs that have never been copyrighted, having been available for free for so long, are now also in the public domain.

The latter includes all lyrics which I have written to music by others, although the music to such parodies, if copyrighted by their composers, are of course not included without permission of their copyright owners. The translated songs on this website may be found on YouTube in their original languages.

Performing and recording rights to all of my songs are included in this permission. Translation rights are also included.

In particular, permission is hereby granted to anyone to set any of these lyrics to their own music, or to set any of this music to their own lyrics, and to publish or perform their parodies or distortions of these songs without payment or fear of legal action.

Some recording, movie, and television rights to songs written by me are merely licensed non-exclusively by me to recording, movie, or TV companies. All such rights are now released herewith and therefore do not require any permission from me or from Maelstrom Music, which is merely me in another hat, nor from the recording, movie, or TV companies involved.

In short, I no longer retain any rights to any of my songs.

So help yourselves, and don’t send me any money.

The website then became a treasure trove: MP3s of recordings, PDFs of lyrics, everything. Despite Lehrer’s warnings that he’d probably shut it down, it remains up today. And here’s the beauty of his public domain decision—even if it does disappear, anyone can recreate it without asking permission or paying licensing fees.

There are plenty of reasons to celebrate Tom Lehrer, and most will be covered in other tributes. But his public domain gift deserves special recognition. At a time when most artists’ estates are extending copyright terms, creating new licensing schemes, and finding ever more creative ways to monetize decades-old work, Lehrer went the opposite direction.

He didn’t just talk about artistic freedom—he actually freed his art.

Nestled on the north east corner of Riverside Heights, Viper Video keeps the analog dream alive with floor-to-ceiling shelves of cult treasures like clamshell VHS slashers, boutique-label 4K restorations, and […]

The post Inside Viper Video: Tampa’s old school video store keeps the analog dream alive appeared first on That's So Tampa.

Within days of each other, two federal judges in the same district reached completely opposite conclusions about AI training on copyrighted works. Judge William Alsup said it’s likely fair use as transformative. Judge Vince Chhabria said it’s likely infringing because of the supposed impact on the market. Both rulings came out of the Northern District of California, both involve thoughtful judges with solid copyright track records, and both can’t be right.

The disconnect reveals something important: we’re watching judges fixate on their personal bugbears rather than grappling with the fundamental questions about how copyright should work in the age of AI. It’s a classic case of blind men and an elephant, with each judge touching one part of the problem and declaring that’s the whole animal.

I just wrote about Judge Alsup’s careful analysis, which found that training AI was likely protected as fair use, but building an internal digital library on unlicensed downloaded works was probably not. Before that piece was even published, Judge Vince Chhabria came out with a ruling that disagrees.

The summary: AI training is likely infringing. But here, the plaintiff authors failed to present evidence, and thus, their case against Meta is dismissed. Ironically, Alsup’s ruling was probably a win for AI innovation but a loss for Anthropic. Chhabria’s is the opposite: a clear win for Meta, but potentially devastating for AI innovation generally.

Chhabria’s Flawed Market Harm Analysis

Chhabria’s ruling seems to overweight (and, I think incorrectly predict) the “effect on the market” aspect of the fair use analysis:

Because the performance of a generative AI model depends on the amount and quality of data it absorbs as part of its training, companies have been unable to resist the temptation to feed copyright-protected materials into their models—without getting permission from the copyright holders or paying them for the right to use their works for this purpose. This case presents the question whether such conduct is illegal.

Although the devil is in the details, in most cases the answer will likely be yes. What copyright law cares about, above all else, is preserving the incentive for human beings to create artistic and scientific works. Therefore, it is generally illegal to copy protected works without permission. And the doctrine of “fair use,” which provides a defense to certain claims of copyright infringement, typically doesn’t apply to copying that will significantly diminish the ability of copyright holders to make money from their works (thus significantly diminishing the incentive to create in the future). Generative AI has the potential to flood the market with endless amounts of images, songs, articles, books, and more. People can prompt generative AI models to produce these outputs using a tiny fraction of the time and creativity that would otherwise be required. So by training generative AI models with copyrighted works, companies are creating something that often will dramatically undermine the market for those works, and thus dramatically undermine the incentive for human beings to create things the old-fashioned way

I find this entire reasoning extremely problematic, and it’s why I mentioned in the Alsup piece that I don’t think the “effect of the use upon the market” should really be a part of the fair use calculation. Because any type of competition can lead fewer people to buy a different work. Or it can inspire people to actually buy more works because of more interest. Chhabria’s example here seems particularly… weird:

Take, for example, biographies. If a company uses copyrighted biographies to train a model, and if the model is thus capable of generating endless amounts of biographies, the market for many of the copied biographies could be severely harmed. Perhaps not the market for Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate, because that book is at the top of so many people’s lists of biographies to read. But you can bet that the market for lesser-known biographies of Lyndon B. Johnson will be affected. And this, in turn, will diminish the incentive to write biographies in the future.

This is where Chhabria’s reasoning completely falls apart. He admits in his own example that Robert Caro’s biography would be fine because “that book is at the top of so many people’s lists.” But that admission destroys his entire argument: people recognize that a good biography is a good biography, and AI slop—even AI slop generated from reading other good biographies—is not a credible substitute.

More fundamentally, his logic would make any learning from existing works potentially infringing.

If you go to Ford’s Theatre in DC, where Lincoln was shot and killed, you can actually see a very cool tower of every book they could find written about Lincoln. Under Chhabria’s reasoning, this abundance should have killed the market for Lincoln biographies decades ago. Instead, new ones keep getting published and finding audiences.

If any of the authors of any of those books read any of the other books, learned from them, and then wrote their own take which did not copy any of the protectable expression of the other books, would that be infringing? Of course not. Yet Chhabria’s analysis seems to argue that it would likely be so.

Or take magazine articles. If a company uses copyrighted magazine articles to train a model capable of generating similar articles, it’s easy to imagine the market for the copied articles diminishing substantially. Especially if the AI-generated articles are made available for free. And again, how will this affect the incentive for human beings to put in the effort necessary to produce high-quality magazine articles?

This argument would be more compelling if the internet hadn’t already been flooded with free content for decades. Plenty of the internet (including this very site) consists of freely available articles based on our reading and analysis of magazine articles. This hasn’t destroyed the market for original journalism—it’s just competition. And, indeed, some of that competition can actually increase the market for the original works as well. If I read a short summary of a magazine article, that may make me even more likely to want to read the original, professionally written one.

So I don’t find either of these examples particularly compelling, and am a bit surprised that Chhabria does. He does admit that other kinds of works are “murkier”:

With some types of works, the picture is a bit murkier. For example, it’s not clear how generative AI would affect the market for memoirs or autobiographies, since by definition people read those works because of who wrote them. With fiction, it might depend on the type of book. Perhaps classic works of literature like The Catcher in the Rye would not see their markets diminished. But the market for the typical human-created romance or spy novel could be diminished substantially by the proliferation of similar AI-created works. And again, the proliferation of such works would presumably diminish the incentive for human beings to write romance or spy novels in the first place.

Again, even his murkier claims seem weird. There are so many romance and spy novels out there, with more coming out all the time, and the fact that the market is flooded with such books doesn’t seem to diminish the demand for new ones.

This all feels suspiciously like the debunked arguments during the big internet piracy wars about how downloading music for free would magically make it so that no one wanted to make music ever again. The reality was actually quite different: the fact that the tools for production and distribution became much easier and more democratic, meant that more music than ever before was actually produced, released, distributed… and monetized in some form.

So the entire premise of Chhabria’s argument just seems… wrong.

The Alsup vs. Chhabria Split

Chhabria also takes a fairly dismissive tone on the question of transformativeness. And even though he likely wrote most of this opinion before Alsup’s became public, he adds in a short paragraph addressing Alsup’s ruling:

Speaking of which, in a recent ruling on this topic, Judge Alsup focused heavily on the transformative nature of generative AI while brushing aside concerns about the harm it can inflict on the market for the works it gets trained on. Such harm would be no different, he reasoned, than the harm caused by using the works for “training schoolchildren to write well,” which could “result in an explosion of competing works.” Order on Fair Use at 28, Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-5417 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025), Dkt. No. 231. According to Judge Alsup, this “is not the kind of competitive or creative displacement that concerns the Copyright Act.” Id. But when it comes to market effects, using books to teach children to write is not remotely like using books to create a product that a single individual could employ to generate countless competing works with a miniscule fraction of the time and creativity it would otherwise take. This inapt analogy is not a basis for blowing off the most important factor in the fair use analysis.

Here we see the fundamental disagreement: Alsup thinks transformativeness is the key factor; Chhabria thinks market impact trumps everything else. Both can’t be right, and the fair use four-factor test gives judges enough wiggle room to justify either conclusion.

Chhabria does agree that training LLMs is transformative:

This factor favors Meta. There is no serious question that Meta’s use of the plaintiffs’ books had a “further purpose” and “different character” than the books—that it was highly transformative. The purpose of Meta’s copying was to train its LLMs, which are innovative tools that can be used to generate diverse text and perform a wide range of functions. Cf. Oracle, 593 U.S. at 30 (transformative to use copyrighted computer code “to create a new platform that could be readily used by programmers”). Users can ask Llama to edit an email they have written, translate an excerpt from or into a foreign language, write a skit based on a hypothetical scenario, or do any number of other tasks. The purpose of the plaintiffs’ books, by contrast, is to be read for entertainment or education.

But he thinks market harm is more important—a conclusion that would gut much of fair use doctrine if applied consistently.

Also, while Alsup focused heavily on the unauthorized works that Anthropic downloaded and then stored in an internal “library” and Chhabria goes into great detail about how Meta used BitTorrent to download similar (and in some cases, identical) copies of books, he leaves for another day the question of whether that aspect is infringing.

Indeed, in some ways, these two cases represent the old claim that the fair use four factors is just an excuse to do whatever the judge wants to do and then try to work backwards to try to justify it in more legalistic terms using those for factors.

The Plaintiffs’ Spectacular Failure

Given all this, you might think that Chhabria ruled against Meta, but he did not, mainly because the crux of his opinion—that these AI tools will flood the market and diminish the incentives for new authors—is so ludicrous that the plaintiffs in this case barely even raised it as an issue and presented no evidence in support.

In connection with these fair use arguments, the plaintiffs offer two primary theories for how the markets for their works are affected by Meta’s copying. They contend that Llama is capable of reproducing small snippets of text from their books. And they contend that Meta, by using their works for training without permission, has diminished the authors’ ability to license their works for the purpose of training large language models. As explained below, both of these arguments are clear losers. Llama is not capable of generating enough text from the plaintiffs’ books to matter, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the market for licensing their works as AI training data. As for the potentially winning argument—that Meta has copied their works to create a product that will likely flood the market with similar works, causing market dilution—the plaintiffs barely give this issue lip service, and they present no evidence about how the current or expected outputs from Meta’s models would dilute the market for their own works.

Given the state of the record, the Court has no choice but to grant summary judgment to Meta on the plaintiffs’ claim that the company violated copyright law by training its models with their books.

In short, the court’s ruling in this case is that the winning argument is the impact on the market, while the plaintiffs in this case focused on the claim that the outputs of AI tools trained on their works was infringing. But, Chhabria notes, that argument is silly.

The irony is delicious: Chhabria essentially handed the authors a roadmap for how to beat AI companies in future cases, but these particular authors were too focused on their other weak theories to follow it. It’s a clear win for Meta, but potentially devastating precedent for AI development generally.

What we’re watching is how the fair use four-factor test can be manipulated to justify almost any conclusion a judge wants to reach. Alsup prioritized transformativeness and found for fair use. Chhabria prioritized market harm and found against it (even while ruling for Meta on procedural grounds). Both wrote lengthy, seemingly reasoned opinions reaching opposite conclusions from largely similar facts.

This case isn’t settled. Neither is the broader question of AI training and copyright. We’re still years away from definitive answers, and in the meantime, companies and developers are left navigating a legal minefield where identical conduct might be fair use in one courtroom and infringement in another.

On July 8, an expanded coalition of library associations, civil society organizations, journalist groups, and other advocates for information access sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee explaining their opposition to the Pro Codes Act. This coalition has grown significantly from the original group that opposed the bill, now including major organizations like the NAACP and numerous journalism organizations.

The Pro Codes Act is back (first as H.R. 4009, but refiled as H.R. 4072) in almost identical form to bill H.R. 1631 in the 118th Congress. The previous version was brought to the floor under suspension of the rules—a procedural mechanism typically reserved for non-controversial legislation—but failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority for passage. The use of suspension of the rules was particularly notable given that the Pro Codes Act is far from non-controversial. The Pro Codes Act has not received a committee hearing in this Congress or any previous one.

Works Incorporated by Reference Into Law

To understand the Pro Codes Act, one has to understand incorporation by reference. For example, a city may pass legislation saying that all residential structures must follow the International Residential Code 2024 (IRC 2024), published by the International Code Council (ICC).  That means the IRC 2024 is now law in that city – it must be followed and violations can confer civil or even criminal penalties. Another example is the Web Content Accessibility Guideline (WCAG), which the Department of Justice incorporated by reference into regulations requiring web and mobile applications operated by state and local governments to be accessible to people with disabilities.

These laws govern everything from backyard deck projects to life safety regulations for baby pacifiers.  They are accessed by construction professionals, DIYers, manufacturers, medical professionals, journalists, librarians, law students, consumers checking that products are safe, and many others.

Pro Codes prioritizes corporate profits over public access to law

At its core, the Pro Codes Act aims to grant standards development organizations (SDOs) exclusive ownership of large swathes of public law.  The bill’s text is fairly convoluted, but states that “a standard … shall retain such [copyright] protection, notwithstanding that the standard is incorporated [into law] by reference.”  

Proponents of the bill claim that it is necessary because without copyright protections, SDOs will no longer be incentivized to create codes and standards. But Congress does not need to do anything to incentivize the creation of standards. Even without copyright protection for standards incorporated by reference, standards development organizations (SDOs) benefit financially from licensing the latest versions of the standards they develop, and selling training materials and programs on these standards. As the bill itself acknowledges, these private entities provide limited access to the law “in a manner that does not substantially disrupt the ability of those organizations to earn revenue from the industries and professionals that purchase copies and subscription-access to those standards”. 

The bill includes a minimum requirement that standards be made “publicly accessible online,” but does not prohibit copyright holders from providing read-only access and prohibiting users from downloading, copying, printing, or linking to the standards. As UpCodes explains here, this and other restrictions impose severe restrictions on access to the law. 

The False Claim About Financial Hardship

While the argument that SDOs need copyright protection to stay in business and continue creating these important regulations enjoyed a fair amount of traction in the last Congress, there is no evidence, as noted by multiple courts now, that this has any basis in truth.  

The main proponents of the bill, ICC and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), are making more money than ever as can be seen from their Form 990s (ICC’s, NFPA’s), despite public interest groups like Public.Resource.Org and companies like UpCodes providing free, unfettered access to these laws for the first time ever.  The organizations are able to monetize a suite of auxiliary services around the law such as consulting, testing, inspection, certification and training.  This allows them to continue growing their revenues and maintain exorbitant executive compensation (with CEO salaries upwards of $1,000,000, compared to the median CEO salary for non-profits of $115,682).  In one case, a circuit court noted that:

“it is difficult to imagine an area of creative endeavor in which the copyright incentive is needed less. Trade organizations have powerful reasons stemming from industry standardization, quality control, and self regulation to produce these model codes; it is unlikely that, without copyright, they will cease producing them.”  (Veeck v. SBCCI, 5th Circuit)

This 5th Circuit ruling was from 2002.  The SBCCI went on to become the ICC and indeed from their 990s discussed above it’s seen that, 23 years later, the judge was indeed correct.

Courts Have Ruled Against Private Ownership of Law

The proponents also argue that the courts are split so Congress needs to intervene, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.  Every circuit-level ruling has upheld that laws can not be owned.  The supporters of the bill bring no evidence and are unable to cite any circuit-level case law showing codes adopted into law can be copyrighted.  On the other hand, the free law proponents have many rulings in their camp.  In addition to the above ruling, for example:

“The plaintiffs here claim a copyright over binding legal texts, which would enable them to prevent anyone from gaining access to that law or copying it for the public… As a matter of common-sense, this cannot be right: access to the law cannot be conditioned on the consent of a private party.” (ASTM, NFPA et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, DC Circuit Court)

“The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.” (BOCA v. Code Technology, 1st Circuit)

In 2020, the matter reached the Supreme Court with all three of the justices who wrote opinions concurring on one fundamental principle:

 “No one can own the law”  -Justice Roberts

“Beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable”  -Justice Ginsburg

“Statutes and regulations cannot be copyrighted”  -Justice Thomas

This is precisely why these organizations are now turning to Congress.  The courts refused to grant them a monopoly over public law, after which they began spending millions lobbying to push this ill-conceived bill.

A Role for Advocates

While SDOs dedicate significant resources to lobbying for Congress to pass the Pro Codes Act, Congressional offices heard surprisingly little about this last Congress.  Some offices report not getting a single note from constituents on Pro Codes.  If you agree that this bill is deceptively written, please take one minute to contact your representatives and tell Congress not to paywall the law.

Katherine Klosek is the Director of Information Policy and Federal Relations at the Association of Research Libraries.  Garrett Reynolds is a Founder of UpCodes.

Did you know you can transform your yard into a beautiful, sustainable space without spending a fortune? Right here in the Tampa Bay area, it’s easier than you think—and it all starts with choosing the right plants and practices that work with Florida’s unique environment and Tampa yards.

Related: Move Over, Gyms and Pools: Renters Want Pet Areas and Happy Hour

In the latest episode of Hello Hillsborough, airing Friday, July 11, Lynn from the Hillsborough County Extension Service dives into the nine principles of Florida-Friendly Landscaping, a guide to creating low-maintenance, water-wise yards that support our local ecosystem.

Whether you’re hoping to attract butterflies and birds or simply want a greener lawn with less effort, Lynn’s tips make it simple. The episode covers everything from recycling yard waste to conserving water and selecting native plants that thrive in our Tampa climate.

Want to get started today? Try planting these Florida natives that do great in Tampa yards:

• Firebush (Hamelia patens): A hummingbird magnet with bright red-orange flowers.
• Coontie (Zamia integrifolia): A hardy, low-growing plant that’s perfect for shady spots—and it’s the larval host for the rare Atala butterfly.
• Muhly Grass (Muhlenbergia capillaris): An elegant, drought-tolerant grass with eye-catching pink plumes in fall.
• Simpson’s Stopper (Myrcianthes fragrans): A native shrub that offers fragrant white flowers, bright berries, and shelter for birds.
• Dune Sunflower (Helianthus debilis): A sunny groundcover that blooms nearly year-round and attracts pollinators.

Tampa homeowners can have a vibrant, eco-conscious yard that’s as good for the environment as it is for curb appeal.

The post Tampa Yards Can Be Beautiful, Budget-Friendly, and Eco-Smart appeared first on ModernGlobe.

The Trump administration was given the green light by the Supreme Court on July 14, 2025, to proceed with mass layoffs at the Department of Education – part of a wider plan to dismantle the agency. In doing so, the conservative majority on the bench overruled a lower court judge that had blocked the move.

While the court didn’t explain its decision – and didn’t rule on the merits of the case – Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberal justices who objected, issued a strongly worded dissent: “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.”

The Conversation has been following the administration’s efforts to take apart the Department of Education since President Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. Here are a few stories from our archives that explain the executive order targeting the department, why the agency has been in the crosshairs of conservatives, and some of the impacts of carrying out the order.

1. Hollowing out education

Trump has promised to eliminate the Department of Education since at least September 2023. What started out as a campaign promise eventually became the executive order he issued on March 20, 2025, released shortly after the administration announced plans to lay off about 1,300 of the 4,000 employees in the department.

“Although the president has broad executive authority, there are many things he cannot order by himself,” wrote Joshua Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University. “And one of those is the dismantling of a Cabinet agency created by law. But he seems determined to hollow the agency out.”

And that’s what the Supreme Court says he can do while the case plays out in lower courts. Ultimately, Trump’s order creates a lot of “legal and policy uncertainty around funding for children in local schools and communities.”

Read more: Mass layoffs at Education Department signal Trump's plan to gut the agency

2. What the education secretary normally does

The person directed to actually carry our the president’s order is the education secretary, Linda McMahon. She has called dismantling the department its “final mission.”

But the secretary – and the department – have many other missions, such as managing students loans and administering Title I funding to help schools serving low-income students obtain an equitable education regardless of their socioeconomic status.

“Every child in the United States is required to attend school in some capacity, and what happens at the federal level can have real-world impacts on students ranging from preschool to grad school,” wrote Dustin Hornbeck, a scholar of educational policy at the University of Memphis.

In his article, Hornbeck explored the key duties of the education secretary and the role of the federal government in education, which he argued will continue even if the Education Department is abolished.

Read more: US secretary of education helps set national priorities in a system primarily funded and guided by local governments

3. Why MAGA targeted the department

So why did Trump decide getting rid of the Education Department was a top priority and worth the legal risks?

Fighting what he perceived as “wokeness” was likely one reason, wrote Alex Hinton, an anthropologist who has been studying U.S. political culture at Rutgers University − Newark.

“First and foremost, Trump and his supporters believe that liberals are ruining public education by instituting what they call a ‘radical woke agenda’ that they say prioritizes identity politics and politically correct groupthink at the expense of the free speech of those, like many conservatives, who have different views,” he explains.

Trump’s battle against DEI – or diversity, equity and inclusion – is of course a big part of that, but so too are what he and his supporters call “radical” race and gender policies.

Hinton goes on to describe three other reasons – including supposed “Marxist indoctrination” and school choice – he argues that the MAGA faithful want to eliminate the Department of Education.

Read more: Trump orders a plan to close Education Department – an anthropologist who studies MAGA explains 4 reasons why Trump and his supporters want to eliminate it

4. It didn’t begin with Trump

But conservative efforts to gut the department didn’t begin with Trump or MAGA. In fact, the Heritage Foundation, which created the Project 2025 blueprint for remaking the federal government, has been trying to limit or end its role in education since at least 1981 – just two years after the Department of Education was created.

“In its 1981 mandate, the Heritage Foundation struck now-familiar themes,” including closing the Department of Education and ending funding for disadvantaged students, wrote Fred L. Pincus, a sociology professor focused on diversity and social inequality at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “And the Heritage Foundation called for ending federal support for programs it claimed were designed to ‘turn elementary- and secondary-school classrooms into vehicles for liberal-left social and political change.’”

The conservative think tank struck similar themes in its Project 2025 playbook, though it went even further in calling out “leftist indoctrination” and “gender ideology extremism,” Pincus noted.

Read more: Trump's executive order to dismantle the Education Department was inspired by the Heritage Foundation's decades-long disapproval of the agency

5. Impact on most vulnerable students

After all the already planned layoffs go into effect, the Department of Education will have roughly half the staff it started the year with. That will have a significant impact on its ability to carry out its many tasks, such as managing federal loans for college and tracking student achievement.

The department also enforces civil rights for schools and universities, and that office has been hit especially hard by the job cuts, wrote education professors Erica Frankenberg of Penn State and Maithreyi Gopalan of the University of Oregon.

“The Office for Civil Rights has played an important role in facilitating equitable education for all students,” they wrote. “The full effects of these changes on the most vulnerable public school students will likely be felt for many years.”

Read more: Big cuts at the Education Department's civil rights office will affect vulnerable students for years to come

This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

I know I am just a blog about ugly houses but I want to say something important here: the ruling class in this country does not want you to have affordable housing. They don’t want you to have clean, reliable public transportation. They don’t want you to have access to groceries you can afford. If something bad happens to you, they don’t care if you live or die. If you lose your home, they will hole up in their penthouses, McMansions, and mommy-bought apartments and tell you it’s your fault – but it’s not. It is theirs. Everything from budget cuts to rent hikes, is their fault, their way of ensuring that the city becomes a place made up solely of people like themselves.

Zohran Mamdani is the only high profile candidate I’ve seen in my narrow, millennial lifetime running for any position – least of all the mayor of the biggest city in the country – on a platform of decommodification in terms of access to food, housing and transportation. City-run grocery stores would ensure that food stays affordable because there is no profit motive. While some are critical of his policy of fare-free transportation (as opposed to spending the same amount of money improving services), given the amount of policing involved in watching the fareboxes, it’s something I’m coming more and more around to.

In demanding a rent freeze, Zohran is one of the only politicians able to articulate a direct plan for keeping people in their homes at a time when rent is skyrocketing with no end in sight. Zohran is one of a limited few in this miserable, cowardly country who are willing to speak out for the rights of Palestinians being murdered en masse by Israel. A vote for Zohran is a vote for the idea that better things are possible and, if you ask me, I think we live in such dire times that we’ve begun to forget this fundamental truth: things do not have to be like this. We do not have to live under the jackboot of privatization and exploitation forever. That choice, however, is up to us.

I am forever skeptical of the power of the ballot box to enact lasting change, especially in recent years. In fact, I am the most skeptical of electoralism I have ever been. However, why is it that the right can use what little sovereignty and enfranchisement is available to us to enact sweeping, if devastating changes, and yet, when the opportunity presents itself to the left, all we hear is that such things are no better than pissing in the wind? The answer to this question, of course, is that the ruling class is perfectly content with a party that hinders rather than ushers in change. Zohran may be using the sclerotic party system we’ve been doomed to inhabit, but despite these limitations his candidacy has surged immensely in the last few months, and the momentum of the people is on his side. This may be one of the last chances wherein one can attempt a truly progressive campaign like this.

Now that things are heating up, the ruling class, the backers of Andrew Cuomo, an abuser of women and a man responsible for the untold deaths of the elderly because he valued profits over their lives so early on in the pandemic, will stop at nothing to make sure that Zohran Mamdani does not win, that things stay the same. That the rent goes up, that the grocery prices continue to explode, that New York City becomes the playground of the rich and famous at the expense of everyone else. The party will try to intervene in undemocratic ways just like they did with Bernie Sanders in the 2020 primary. There will be untold lies and accusations, the press will abandon what few journalistic obligations they still abide by, and it will get ugly. There are even rumors that Cuomo will run as an independent even if he loses the primary, which, to be honest, isn’t a bad tactic – he’s just the worst guy to be using it.

I realize this post may be annoying to some (hell, I myself live in Chicago), and I’m sure there’s some rightful criticism for my not having used my blog like this before. (However, for those of you who don’t know, I usually write about all manner of politics in my column at The Nation!) That being said, if you follow me and you live in New York City, rank Zohran #1 and Brad Lander #2. DO NOT RANK SUBURBANITE BIKE LANE-PARKER ANDREW CUOMO.

Anyway, that’s all. I’ll be back with a new McMansion Hell this Friday, so stay tuned.

Sometimes a house is so ugly, disgust boomerangs back into a form of respect.

This is a rare phenomenon, one which should be treated seriously. I’ve been looking at ugly houses professionally for almost a decade now and I can say with confidence that there are only a handful of true goose eggs that meet the mark. This house – this remarkable, revolting house – located, of all places, in Randolph County, North Carolina, is perhaps the finest goose egg a rogue and most certainly confused contractor could possibly lay.

Yeehaw, man. For the curious, the house is on the market for over 500 grand despite being badly sited and measly 2600 square feet. Most of that is devoted to the lawyer foyer which is not the choice I would personally make, but hey, to each their own.

Most of the houses on McMansion Hell these days are submissions from members of the McMansion Hell Patreon, either in our discord server or on our livestreams. This one, however was a total fluke. I came across it by accident because my brother is looking to move to the area in order to be closer to my folks. (I doubt he’d be interested in something this, uh, unique.)

Now, in all these years, I’ve never devoted an entire post to the exterior of a house. As they say, there’s a first time for everything. There is so much going on with this house, all of it in direct opposition to the concept of taste, it requires a deeper investigation than the initial exterior image usually allows. (Also the entire interior is, as one might expect, entirely dark gray, complete with that awful washed out laminate flooring.)

(here is a sneak peek inside. the rest is not really important nor interesting.)

Anyway, without further ado, let’s hit it from the top.

First off, no, I don’t know what is inside this house’s giant, hammerhead-esque forehead. It’s not supported by anything so my assumption is, well, nothing. They put this in there for the sheer aesthetic love of the game.

Second, we have to talk about the siding. It’s vinyl, and $500 grand is firmly in Hardie®™© Board territory. You can already start to see it ripple against the cornice, which is probably fine. The cornices are painted black in a cartoony, Roy Lichtenstein fashion, that is, if Roy Lichtenstein was drunk. The can lights are a nice touch. They help highlight important parts of the facade, such as:

The vinyl siding and black trim will continue until morale improves. Also, I zoomed out here to include the forehead (fivehead?) just because the scale is INSANE – that’s like a 50-50 wall-to-fivehead ratio. Honestly, even though things in the world are pretty dire, I wouldn’t trust that cantilever with my life.

The window layout on this thing makes me wonder if the people who put it together have eyes that can see and a brain that connects to them. Now, I’m not going to invoke the Greek orders or anything, but I am going to say that every single architectural rule is being brazenly broken here. Total impunity. The window and door don’t line up at the top, which is the bare minimum of common decency. Then there’s that little guy pulling a Leeroy Jenkins up in the corner. You go dude.

The trim on these masses is starting to look AI generated but it’s probably just the HDR every realtor uses. The FaceTune of the field. Anyway, I think it’s a bad idea to put what looks like builder grade wood flooring on the outside of a house. It’s giving mold. It’s giving sunbleaching. It’s giving Etsy.

As we can see, another familiar McMansion Hell enemy has also made an appearance: the prairie mullion window. There is no reason to use this window unless it involves building a fake bungalow, but the worst possible place to use it is in this particular situation. It’s the only window with white mullions, it looks weird with the siding, and it’s not exactly “”“modern”“” or whatever this house is supposed to be.

(Often I wonder if some people believe that modernism is just “doing some stuff with squares” and the more squares there are the more modernist it is. Probably not true, but then again, I’m not the one pulling massive profit on houses that look like doo doo so jokes on me.)

Zooming out again because context still matters even in the most nonsensical situations. The funny thing about this house is that the only normal part of it is the front door and even then… what?? Also, look at that siding-less patch of brick on the right. As though to say: haha! Finally, I love how the stairs lead down into a bunch of rocks. Serves you right!

Thanks to advanced screenshotting technology, we can see that there are also prairie mullions on these other windows, it’s just that they’re a more reasonable black. Don’t worry though, the windows are still offensive. They’re two windows stuck together in order to give the impression of a single continuous one. (Remember the inside shot?) Nice try, bucko. Second, why don’t the two windows meet where that little band of siding is? Well, we all know the answer to this question. (We don’t, in fact, know the answer to this question.)

This is my favorite part of the house. It’s almost good, to me, which is why I saved it for last. I have no idea what the hell that glossy composition book siding is but I love it. I’ve never seen it before. I also like how they’re doing a weird entablature-quoin combo thing with it, but only on the right side of the house. There’s some great five-cornice action going on but, thanks to the precedents set by truly mid postmodernism, it works.

Unfortunately there are some downsides here. What’s the deal with that tiny, skinny stone? brick? veneer? Second, why is the siding just hanging off the edge like that? That whole little section where the three (four?) cladding meet is precipitous. The cheapo off-white developer special garage door with the little trad elements is a nice gesture, one that tells you life has no meaning. Why bother?

Anyway, after all that, if we put it all together again, we get this:

If you like this (unusual) post and want more like it, support McMansion Hell on Patreon for as little as $1/month for access to great bonus content including a discord server, extra posts, and livestreams. (Don’t worry! This doesn’t adjust for inflation! Now’s the perfect time to join!) By the way: new subscribers can buy a year of McMansion Hell for just $12!

Not into recurring payments? Try the tip jar! McMansion Hell stocks, much like mortgage-backed securities only ever go up!

USF’s Feed-A-Bull is a donation-based food pantry that helps students in need of food assistance. The pantry is primarily supplied by Feeding Tampa Bay, which helped launch the project in late 2015.  With Feeding Tampa Bay expected to face cuts from the United States Department of Agriculture in the coming fiscal year, USF’s Feed-A-Bull could […]

The post USF’s Feed-A-Bull could see reduced food supply amid USDA cuts appeared first on The Oracle.

Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation.

No matter where you live, NSF-supported research has also made your life safer. Engineering studies have reduced earthquake damage and fatalities through better building design. Improved hurricane and tornado forecasts reflect NSF investment in environmental monitoring and computer modeling of weather. NSF-supported resilience studies reduce risks and losses from wildfires.

Using NSF funding, scientists have done research that amazes, entertains and enthralls. They have drilled through mile-thick ice sheets to understand the past, visited the wreck of the Titanic and captured images of deep space.

NSF investments have made America and American science great. At least 268 Nobel laureates received NSF grants during their careers. The foundation has partnered with agencies across the government since it was created, including those dealing with national security and space exploration. The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% since 1950, meaning for every dollar U.S. taxpayers invested, they got back between $1.50 and $3.

However, that funding is now at risk.

Since January, layoffs, leadership resignations and a massive proposed reorganization have threatened the integrity and mission of the National Science Foundation. Hundreds of research grants have been terminated. The administration’s proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2026 would cut NSF’s funding by 55%, an unprecedented reduction that would end federal support for science research across a wide range of discipines.

At my own geology lab, I have seen NSF grants catalyze research and the work of dozens of students who have collected data that’s now used to reduce risks from earthquakes, floods, landslides, erosion, sea-level rise and melting glaciers.

I have also served on advisory committees and review panels for the NSF over the past 30 years and have seen the value the foundation produces for the American people.

American science’s greatness stemmed from war

In the 1940s, with the advent of nuclear weapons, the space race and the intensification of the Cold War, American science and engineering expertise became increasingly critical for national defense. At the time, most basic and applied research was done by the military.

Vannevar Bush, an electrical engineer who oversaw military research efforts during World War II, including development of the atomic bomb, had a different idea.

He articulated an expansive scientific vision for the United States in Science: The Endless Frontier. The report was a blueprint for an American research juggernaut grounded in the expertise of university faculty, staff and graduate students.

On May 10, 1950, after five years of debate and compromise, President Harry Truman signed legislation creating the National Science Foundation and putting Bush’s vision to work. Since then, the foundation has become the leading funder of basic research in the United States.

NSF’s mandate, then as now, was to support basic research and spread funding for science across all 50 states. Expanding America’s scientific workforce was and remains integral to American prosperity. By 1952, the foundation was awarding merit fellowships to graduate and postdoctoral scientists from every state.

There were compromises. Control of NSF rested with presidential appointees, disappointing Bush. He wanted scientists in charge to avoid political interference with the foundation’s research agenda.

NSF funding matters to everyone, everywhere

Today, American tax dollars supporting science go to every state in the union.

The states with the most NSF grants awarded between 2011 and 2024 include several that voted Republican in the 2024 election – Texas, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania – and several that voted Democratic, including Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Colorado.

More than 1,800 public and private institutions, scattered across all 50 states, receive NSF funding. The grants pay the salaries of staff, faculty and students, boosting local employment and supporting college towns and cities. For states with major research universities, those grants add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Even states with few universities each see tens of millions of dollars for research.

As NSF grant recipients purchase lab supplies and services, those dollars support regional and national economies.

When NSF budgets are cut and grants are terminated or never awarded, the harm trickles down and communities suffer. Initial NSF funding cuts are already rippling across the country, affecting both national and local economies in red, blue and purple states alike.

An analysis of a February 2025 proposal that would cut about US$5.5 billion from National Institutes of Health grants estimated the ripple effect through college towns and supply chains would cost $6.1 billion in GDP, or total national productivity, and over 46,000 jobs.

An uncertain future for American science

America’s scientific research and training enterprise has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. Yet, as NSF celebrates its 75th birthday, the future of American science is in doubt. Funding is increasingly uncertain, and politics is driving decisions, as Bush feared 80 years ago.

A list of grants terminated by the Trump administration, collected both from government websites and scientists themselves, shows that by early May 2025, NSF had stopped funding more than 1,400 existing grants, totaling over a billion dollars of support for research, research training and education.

Most terminated grants focused on education – the core of science, technology and engineering workforce development critical for supplying highly skilled workers to American companies. For example, NSF provided 1,000 fewer graduate student fellowships in 2025 than in the decade before − a 50% drop in support for America’s best science students.

American scientists are responding to NSF’s downsizing in diverse ways. Some are pushing back by challenging grant terminations. Others are preparing to leave science or academia. Some are likely to move abroad, taking offers from other nations to recruit American experts. Science organizations and six prior heads of the NSF are calling on Congress to step up and maintain funding for science research and workforce development.

If these losses continue, the next generation of American scientists will be fewer in number and less well prepared to address the needs of a population facing the threat of more extreme weather, future pandemics and the limits to growth imposed by finite natural resources and other planetary limits.

Investing in science and engineering is an investment in America. Diminishing NSF and the science it supports will hurt the American economy and the lives of all Americans.

Paul Bierman receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

Triggered by hormonal changes in the brain and body, puberty marks a physical transformation. Oestrogen and testosterone – often called “sex hormones” – drive many familiar changes, such as breast development and periods or a deeper voice and facial hair.

For most young people, the pubertal changes they experience align with their gender. However, for trans and gender diverse adolescents, these changes can be distressing and may lead to a sense of disconnection from their true sense of self.

(We’ll use the term “trans” in this article to refer to transgender and gender diverse people.)

Why do young trans people use sex hormones?

To support trans adolescents, oestrogen and testosterone may be used to induce physical changes that better align with their gender.

Oestrogen stimulates breast development, alters body fat distribution, results in softer skin, and reduces facial and body hair, creating a more feminine appearance.

Testosterone deepens the voice, increases facial and body hair, promotes muscle growth and stops periods, creating a more masculine appearance.

Hormones are just one means by which people can affirm their gender and only some trans adolescents seek sex hormone treatment. Other means include puberty suppression, changing your name, pronouns, hair, clothing and legal documents.

When do trans people start sex hormones?

Many trans people start taking sex hormones as adults.

For those who start as adolescents, hormones are introduced when a young person is considered to have the intellectual and emotional maturity to make this decision.

The starting age also varies depending on the person’s preferences, family support and barriers to accessing care. These barriers include long wait times, regional disparities, costs, legal or policy restrictions, and challenges navigating the health system, all of which make it harder to get timely, reliable care.

Before starting hormone therapy, trans adolescents undergo comprehensive assessment and counselling with a team of mental health professionals and medical doctors who specialise in transgender health. This helps ensure young people understand the potential benefits, limitations, risks, and long-term implications of treatment.

This process involves their family and is designed to provide time, support and space for shared, informed decision-making.

Treatment with sex hormones usually begins with low doses, after which adjustments are made over time under regular clinical monitoring.

Subsequent physical changes occur gradually over several years, as is true for puberty, and some of these are irreversible. Breast growth or a deepened voice, for example, will persist if treatment is stopped.

What are the benefits?

The largest study to date followed 315 trans and gender diverse adolescents for two years after starting oestrogen or testosterone. It found a significant increase in how comfortable participants felt about their appearance. This was accompanied by significant improvements in life satisfaction and reductions in depression and anxiety.

More recently, Australian youth mental health research centre Orygen conducted a review of the overall evidence. It reported sex hormone treatment for young trans people is associated with body image satisfaction and reduced psychological symptoms, including depression, anxiety and suicide attempts, thoughts and/or planning.

An independent review of the evidence commissioned by NSW Health reported similar conclusions and found sex hormone therapy was associated with reduced gender dysphoria, which is the distress experienced when a person’s gender identity differs from their sex reported at birth.

Together, these published outcomes are consistent with decades of clinical and lived experience that young trans people report feeling more at ease in their bodies, more confident in social settings, and more optimistic about their future after starting hormones.

What about unwanted effects?

Like all medical treatments, sex hormone therapy involves the potential for unwanted effects.

Oestrogen, for example, can increase the risk of blood clots and breast cancer in the long-term, but the overall risk appears low.

Testosterone can increase acne as well as the number of red blood cells the body produces. Too many red cells can make a person’s blood too thick and increase the likelihood of a stroke or heart attack. Monitoring red cell counts and adjusting the dose of testosterone helps reduce these risks.

Oestrogen and testosterone can also affect the reproductive system. Oestrogen can stop sperm production and testosterone can stop the ovaries from releasing eggs, but neither treatment should be considered an effective form of contraception.

Given the possibility that trans adolescents might wish to stay on hormone treatment long-term, they are usually offered fertility counselling before starting treatment. The option to freeze sperm or eggs exists, although access and affordability can be a challenge.

One unwanted effect that has received a lot of attention relates to regret. There is fear adolescents who start hormone treatment will regret this decision later on.

At this stage, the risk of regret among adolescents starting hormone therapy appears low. Harvard researchers recently followed a cohort of 1,050 adolescents who had received hormone therapy, and only one was noted to have expressed regret.

However, the risk of regret is inherent to any medical treatment. Allowing adolescents the dignity of risk to make their own decisions respects their autonomy.

Sex hormones have been used in trans adolescents since at least the 1980s, and so far the evidence suggests these treatments are safe and work well for those who receive them. Nonetheless, long-term research into their safety (and effectiveness) is ongoing and essential.

What about consent?

Past decisions of the Family Court of Australia established a requirement for both parents to provide consent for their trans adolescent to access hormonal treatments, treating this care as legally exceptional.

However, a 2022 decision of the Queensland Supreme Court ruled an adolescent, who is under the age of 18 and has sufficient understanding and intelligence to consent for themselves, could consent to their own hormone treatment.

Despite this, some gender clinics still require consent from both parents. If there’s a dispute between parents, the matter should be taken to court, to reach a resolution based on the adolescent’s best interests.

Testosterone and oestrogen therapy are not new or experimental. They are grounded in decades of clinical practice and growing evidence. What is new is the public attention. We need to ensure policies and conversations are based on facts, not fear.

Cristyn Davies reports voluntarily being co-chair of the Human Rights Council of Australia; co-chair of the Child and Youth Special Interest Group for the Public Health Association of Australia; President of the Australian Association For Adolescent Health; an ambassador to Twenty10 Incorporating the Gay and Lesbian Counselling Service of New South Wales; and co-chair of the research committee for the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health.

Blake Cavve is a senior research officer at The Kids Research Institute Australia and an adjunct researcher at The University of Western Australia, with ongoing research collaborations with the Child and Adolescent Health Service. Blake has recieved funding from the Perth Children's Hospital Foundation and the Raine Medical Research Foundation. He is a member of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

Ken Pang is a Senior Principal Research Fellow at the Murdoch Children's Research Insititute and a paediatrician at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. He receives research funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund. He is a member of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the editorial board of the journal, Transgender Health.

Michele O'Connell is paediatric endocrinologist at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. She is a co-investigator on research studies funded by the Medical Research Future Fund and a member of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health.

Rachel Skinner receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council's Medical Research Future Fund and the Australian Research Council for related research. She is an adolescent medicine paediatrician employed by the Sydney Children's Hospitals Network and provides clinical care to trans young people. She has professional memberships with the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australian Association of Adolescent Health, the Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine, the Australian Professional Association of Transgender Health and the World Professional Association of Transgender Health.

In today’s digital world, people routinely turn to the internet for health or medical information. In addition to actively searching online, they often come across health-related information on social media or receive it through emails or messages from family or friends.

It can be tempting to share such messages with loved ones – often with the best of intentions.

As a global health communication scholar studying the effects of media on health and development, I explore artistic and creative ways to make health information more engaging and accessible, empowering people to make informed decisions.

Although there is a fire hose of health-related content online, not all of it is factual. In fact, much of it is inaccurate or misleading, raising a serious health communication problem: Fake health information – whether shared unknowingly and innocently, or deliberately to mislead or cause harm – can be far more captivating than accurate information.

This makes it difficult for people to know which sources to trust and which content is worthy of sharing.

The allure of fake health information

Fake health information can take many forms. For example, it may be misleading content that distorts facts to frame an issue or individual in a certain context. Or it may be based on false connections, where headlines, visuals or captions don’t align with the content. Despite this variation, such content often shares a few common characteristics that make it seem believable and more shareable than facts.

For one thing, fake health information often appears to be true because it mixes a grain of truth with misleading claims.

For example, early in the COVID-19 pandemic, false rumors suggested that drinking ethanol or bleach could protect people from the virus. While ethanol or bleach can indeed kill viruses on surfaces such as countertops, it is extremely dangerous when it comes into contact with skin or gets inside the body.

Another marker of fake health information is that it presents ideas that are simply too good to be true. There is something appealingly counterintuitive in certain types of fake health information that can make people feel they have access to valuable or exclusive knowledge that others may not know. For example, a claim such as “chocolate helps you lose weight” can be especially appealing because it offers a sense of permission to indulge and taps into a simple, feel-good solution to a complex problem. Such information often spreads faster because it sounds both surprising and hopeful, validating what some people want to believe.

Sensationalism also drives the spread of fake health information. For instance, when critics falsely claimed that Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical adviser to the president at the time, was responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, it generated a lot of public attention.

In a study on vaccine hesitancy published in 2020, my colleagues and I found that controversial headlines in news reports that go viral before national vaccination campaigns can discourage parents from getting their children vaccinated. These headlines seem to reveal sensational and secret information that can falsely boost the message’s credibility.

The pull to share

The internet has created fertile ground for spreading fake health information. Professional-looking websites and social media posts with misleading headlines can lure people into clicking or quickly sharing, which drives more and more readers to the falsehood. People tend to share information they believe is relevant to them or their social circles.

In 2019, an article with the false headline “Ginger is 10,000x more effective at killing cancer than chemo” was shared more than 800,000 times on Facebook. The article contained several factors that make people feel an urgency to react and share without checking the facts: compelling visuals, emotional stories, misleading graphs, quotes from experts with omitted context and outdated content that is recirculated.

Visual cues like the logos of reputable organizations or photos of people wearing white medical coats add credibility to these posts. This kind of content is highly shareable, often reaching far more people than scientifically accurate studies that may lack eye-catching headlines or visuals, easy-to-understand words or dramatic storylines.

But sharing content without verifying it first has real-world consequences. For example, studies have found that COVID-19-related fake information reduces people’s trust in the government and in health care systems, making people less likely to use or seek out health services.

Unfounded claims about vaccine side effects have led to reduced vaccination rates globally, fueling the return of dangerous diseases, including measles.

Social media misinformation, such as false claims about cinnamon being a treatment for cancer, has caused hospitalizations and even deaths. The spread of health misinformation has reduced cooperation with important prevention and treatment recommendations, prompting a growing need for medical professionals to receive proper training and develop skills to effectively debunk fake health information.

How to combat the spread of fake health information

In today’s era of information overload in which anyone can create and share content, being able to distinguish between credible and misleading health information before sharing is more important than ever. Researchers and public health organizations have outlined several strategies to help people make better-informed decisions.

Whether health care consumers come across health information on social media, in an email or through a messaging app, here are three reliable ways to verify its accuracy and credibility before sharing:

• Use a search engine to cross-check health claims. Never rely on a single source. Instead, enter the health claim into a reputable search engine like Google and see what trusted sources have to say. Prioritize information from established organizations like the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United Nations Children’s Fund or peer-reviewed journals like The Lancet or Journal of the American Medical Association. If multiple reputable sources agree, the information is more likely to be reliable. Reliable fact-checking websites such as FactCheck.org and Snopes can also help root out fake information.

• Evaluate the source’s credibility. A quick way to assess a website’s trustworthiness is to check its “About Us” page. This section usually explains who is behind the content, their mission and their credentials. Also, search the name of the author. Do they have recognized expertise or affiliations with credible institutions? Reliable websites often have domains ending in .gov or .edu, indicating government or educational institutions. Finally, check the publication date. Information on the internet keeps circulating for years and may not be the most accurate or relevant in the present context.

• If you’re still unsure, don’t share. If you’re still uncertain about the accuracy of a claim, it’s better to keep it to yourself. Forwarding unverified information can unintentionally contribute to the spread of misinformation and potentially cause harm, especially when it comes to health.

Questioning dubious claims and sharing only verified information not only protects against unsafe behaviors and panic, but it also helps curb the spread of fake health information. At a time when misinformation can spread faster than a virus, taking a moment to pause and fact-check can make a big difference.

Angshuman K. Kashyap does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.