Leettaschmidt

The U.S. educational landscape has been drastically transformed since the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered school campuses five years ago.

Access to high-quality teachers and curriculum developed by teachers is shrinking, for example. Likewise, there has been a loss of emotional support for students and a decline in the school use of technology and social media.

As education scholars focused on literacy practices in schools, here are five ways we believe the COVID-19 pandemic – and the rapid shift to remote learning and back – has transformed education:

1. Teachers are leaving, and those staying are stressed

At the start of the 2024-2025 school year, 82% of U.S. public schools had teaching vacancies.

Schools have tried to adapt by expanding class sizes and hiring substitute teachers. They have also increased use of video conferencing to Zoom teachers into classrooms.

Teacher retention has been a problem for at least a decade. But after the pandemic, there was an increase in the number of teachers who considered leaving the profession earlier than expected.

When teachers leave, often in the middle of the school year, it can require their colleagues to step in and cover extra classes. This means teachers who stay are overworked and possibly not teaching in their area of certification.

This, in turn, leads to burnout. It also increases the likelihood that students will not have highly qualified teachers in some hard-to-fill positions like physical science and English.

2. Increase in scripted curriculum

As of fall 2024, 40 states and Washington had passed science of reading laws, which mandate evidence-based reading instruction rooted in phonics and other foundational skills.

While the laws don’t necessarily lead to scripted curriculum, most states have chosen to mandate reading programs that require teachers to adhere to strict pacing. They also instruct teachers not to deviate from the teachers’ manual.

Many of these reading programs came under scrutiny by curricular evaluators from New York University in 2022. They found the most common elementary reading programs were culturally destructive or culturally insufficient – meaning they reinforce stereotypes and portray people of color in inferior and destructive ways that reinforce stereotypes.

This leaves teachers to try to navigate the mandated curriculum alongside the needs of their students, many of whom are culturally and linguistically diverse. They either have to ignore the mandated script or ignore their students. Neither method allows teachers to be effective.

When teachers are positioned as implementers of curriculum instead of professionals who can be trusted to make decisions, it can lead to student disengagement and a lack of student responsiveness.

This form of de-professionalization is a leading cause of teacher shortages. Teachers are most effective, research shows, when they feel a sense of agency, something that is undermined by scripted teaching.

3. Improvements in teen mental health, but there’s more to do

Many of the narratives surrounding adolescent mental health, particularly since the pandemic, paint a doomscape of mindless social media use and isolation.

However, data published in 2024 shows improvements in teen reports of persistent sadness and hopelessness. Though the trend is promising in terms of mental health, in-school incidences of violence and bullying rose in 2021-22, and many teens report feeling unsafe at school.

Other reports have shown an increase in feelings of loneliness and isolation among teens since the pandemic.

4. Crackdown on students’ technology use in schools

COVID-19 prompted schools to make an abrupt switch to educational technology, and many schools have kept many of these policies in place.

For example, Google Classroom and other learning management systems are commonly used in many schools, particularly in middle school and high school.

These platforms can help parents engage with their children’s coursework. That facilitates conversations and parental awareness.

But this reliance on screens has also come under fire for privacy issues – the sharing of personal information and sensitive photos – and increasing screen time.

And with academia’s use of technology on the rise, cellphone usage has also increased among U.S. teens, garnering support for school cellphone bans.

But banning these devices in schools may not help teens, as smartphone use is nearly universal in the U.S. Teens need support from educators to support them as they learn to navigate the complex digital world safely, efficiently and with balance.

In light of data surrounding adolescent mental health and online isolation – and the potential for connection through digital spaces – it’s also important that teens are aware of positive support networks that are available online.

Though these spaces can provide social supports, it is important for teens to understand the strengths and limitations of technology and receive authentic guidance from adults that a technology ban may prohibit.

5. Students and adults need social emotional support

Students returned to in-person schooling with a mix of skill levels and with a variety of social and emotional needs.

Social and emotional learning includes self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relational skills and decision-making.

These skills are vital for academic success and social relationships.

Teachers reported higher student needs for social and emotional learning after they returned to in-person instruction.

While some of this social and emotional teaching came under fire from lawmakers and parents, this was due to confusion about what it actually entailed. These skills do not constitute a set of values or beliefs that parents may not agree with. Rather, they allow students to self-regulate and navigate social situations by explicitly teaching students about feelings and behaviors.

One area where students may need support is with cognitive flexibility, or the ability to adapt to current situations and keep an open mind. Classroom instruction that engages students in varied tasks and authentic teaching strategies rooted in real-life scenarios can strengthen this ability in students.

Besides allowing students to be engaged members of a school community, cognitive flexibility is important because it supports the skill development that is part of many state English language arts and social studies standards.

Social and emotional learning and cognitive flexibility are key components that allow students to learn.

Due to vague or confusing state policies, many schools have stopped teaching social and emotional learning skills, or minimized their use.

This, coupled with teacher stress and burnout, means that both adults and children in schools are often not getting their social and emotional needs met.

Message of mistrust

While we described five shifts since the start of the pandemic, the overall trend in K-12 schools is one of mistrust.

We feel that the message – from districts, state legislators and parents – is that teachers cannot be trusted to make choices.

This represents a massive shift. During the initial phase of the COVID-19 lockdown, teachers were revered and thanked for their service.

We believe in teacher autonomy and professionalism, and we hope this list can help Americans reflect on the direction of the past five years. If society wants a different outcome in the next five years, it starts with trust.

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.

As promised, the second Trump administration has quickly rolled out a slew of policies and executive orders that the president says are all aimed at “Making America Great Again.” This takes on different forms, including Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency quickly laying off thousands of workers at various federal agencies, and President Donald Trump pausing all funding for Ukraine.

Trump says that, among others, there are three groups that are making America not-great: immigrants, people with disabilities, and people who are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

These administration efforts began at a time when many Americans expressed an overall rising sense of dissatisfaction with the state of the country and politics. Just 19% of Americans said in December 2024 that they think the country is heading in the right direction.

This perspective is striking not only because it is so dark, but because it strongly resembles how Americans felt during a pivotal decade 100 years ago, when people’s dissatisfaction with the state of the country led to a series of discriminatory, hateful policies by the federal government.

It’s a period of American history that I think offers something of a mirror of the current political situation in the U.S.

The Roaring ‘20s?

In the 1920s, the economy was good, the U.S. had won World War I, and a terrible pandemic ended.

But many Americans did not see it that way.

They entered the 1920s with a growing sense of paranoia and a feeling that they had been robbed of something. Winning World War I had come at a terrible cost. More than 116,000 American soldiers died and twice that number came home wounded.

As the war came to a close, the U.S. – and the world – was in the throes of the flu pandemic that ultimately claimed tens of millions of lives, including about 675,000 in the U.S.

Other Americans were concerned about the possible rise of communism in the U.S., as well as the arrival of many immigrants. This led extremists to introduce and implement hate-based policies at the federal and state level that targeted nonwhite immigrants and disabled people.

Among the most significant results of that political moment was the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act, a restrictive immigration policy that, among other changes, prohibited immigration from Asia.

Another pivotal movement was the Supreme Court’s 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, which affirmed that the state of Virginia had the right to sterilize intellectually and developmentally disabled people.

Discrimination against marginalized groups

The Johnson-Reed Act prompted a major shift in American immigration policy, based on the fear of something that former President Theodore Roosevelt and others called “race suicide.”

The law introduced rigid restrictions keeping people out of the country who were not from Northern and Western Europe. The immigration quotas that it established would continue to be enforced into the 1960s.

The U.S. politicians who lobbied for this law were successful because they supported their effort by presenting evidence that showed purportedly scientific proof that almost all people in the world were biologically inferior to a group they called the Nordic Race – meaning people from Northern Europe – and their American descendants, who formed a group they called the “American Race.”

By restricting immigration from all other groups, these legislators believed they were counterbalancing a crushing period where war and pandemic had killed off what they saw as the country’s best people.

Different groups preyed on Americans’ grief about the war and pandemic and directed it against minority groups.

From Maine to California, a revived Ku Klux Klan attracted millions of followers with its belief that white people were superior to all others, and that Black people should remain enslaved. At the same time, a group of scientists, doctors and psychologists found enormous success in persuading the public that there were scientific reasons why hatred and discrimination needed to be incorporated into American government.

Their proof was something called eugenics, a pseudoscience which argued that humans had to use advanced technology and medicine to get people with good traits to reproduce while stopping those with bad traits from having the opportunity to do so.

Harry Laughlin, a eugenicist based at a research laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, was one of this movement’s most vocal representatives.

Laughlin worked for several different eugenics research organizations, and this helped him become successful at creating propaganda supporting eugenics that influenced public policy. He then gained a spot as an expert eugenics adviser to Congress in the early 1920s. With his position, Laughlin then provided the pseudoscientific data that gave the supporters of Johnson-Reed the claims they needed to justify passing the measure.

A push for sterilization

In Laughlin’s influential 1922 book “Eugenic Sterilization in the United States,” he detailed a road map for passing a law that would allow governments to sterilize disabled people.

After so much death during World War I and the influenza pandemic, Laughlin found fertile ground for making a case that the U.S. needed to stop people who might be considered “feeble-minded” from passing down inferior traits.

In the mid-1920s, Laughlin and his allies pressed a court case against a teenage woman whom the state of Virginia had deemed an imbecile and incarcerated at a massive Virginia institution for the feeble-minded. This woman, Carrie Buck, was incarcerated after she gave birth to a child in 1924 who was conceived as a result of rape. If Buck, who was 18 years old at the time, had any hope of being released, the officials who ran the institution demanded she be sterilized first.

All across the country, states had begun legalizing forced sterilization. Now, this case of Buck v. Bell made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1927, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. issued the court’s ruling, which had only one dissent. In it, he wrote that “three generations of imbeciles is enough” and extended the scope of a previous ruling that allowed the government to compel people to get vaccinated to include forced sterilization of disabled people.

Buck was forcibly sterilized in October 1927, shortly after the court’s ruling.

While it is unquestionable that sterilization and other discriminatory policies found common cause with Adolf Hitler’s rising Nazi movement – which used the eugenic ideas of sterilization and mass extermination – they persisted, largely unchallenged, here in the U.S.

Some people, including myself, argue that the spirit of these discriminatory policies still exists in the U.S. today.

A familiar story

Following stalemated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the American economy has been growing.

But sensing a grave decline, some white Americans have turned their sights on people with disabilities, immigrants, transgender and nonbinary people, and people of color as the source of their problems.

Trump regularly encourages this kind of thinking. In January 2025, he blamed an air collision that occurred over the Potomac River and killed 67 people on disabled Federal Aviation Administration employees, implying that they did not possess the intelligence to do their jobs.

Trump falsely said the Jan. 1, 2025, New Orleans terror attack was caused by illegal immigration, even though a Texas-born man drove a car into a crowd of people, killing 14.

At a policy level, Trump’s administration has made significant changes to the immigration system, including taking steps to remove legal protections for 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants in the U.S. And he has launched an unprecedented challenge to birthright citizenship.

There are limits to what history can say about the current situation. But these similarities with the early 1920s suggest that, contrary to many claims about the unprecedented nature of the current times, the country has been here before.

Alex Green 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.

Florida, the “Sunshine State,” once known as a beacon of government transparency, is growing ever darker, and the clouds are spreading throughout the United States.

From March 16-22, 2025, the nation celebrates the 20th anniversary of national Sunshine Week, which originated in Florida, historically home to the most transparent and accountable governments in the country.

Times have changed.

At the University of Florida Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project, my colleagues and I have researched and taught about the freedom of information since 1977. We monitor the state of open, accountable government, and our research findings do not bode well for democracy – in Florida and throughout the U.S.

But first, let’s look back to sunnier days.

Sun rises

Florida enacted its first version of a public records law in 1909, the sixth state to do so. The movement was led by Nebraska in 1866 and Montana in 1895. Florida’s law was repealed in the 1950s and then returned in 1967 as the Sunshine Law.

“Sunshine” was equated with the state’s nickname but also the concept of government transparency – lighting the dark recesses of secrecy. The Sunshine Law also played on a famous quote by former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis that “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”

Something unique happened in Florida then. Transparency took hold.

Journalists such as Pete Weitzel at the Miami Herald pushed hard for governments to operate more transparently, building momentum through the Florida Society of Newspaper Editors. They and other media groups helped launch, with US$11,000, the Florida Freedom of Information Clearinghouse in 1977 at the University of Florida. The journalism college assigned a professor and grad student to monitor public record denials, open meeting closures and court cases, and to alert newspaper editors to secrecy legislation. This effort created a culture of transparency, including among elected leaders.

Journalists successfully pushed for a constitutional amendment in the early 1990s, which required transparency across the state and required a two-thirds vote from the state Legislature to adopt exemptions to the law.

Several provisions of Florida public records law stood out:

• Attorney fee-shifting is mandatory. If a citizen is denied government information, sues and prevails, the agency is required to pay the person’s attorney fees. Our research indicates that this is one of the most important elements in public record laws to encourage compliance.

• The definition of a public record is broad, even applying to documents created by a private person or contractor acting on behalf of the government. Applying the law to private actors is unique in the U.S., and even in the world.

• Governing bodies face strict requirements to deliberate in public. Just two officials communicating with each other constitutes an official meeting and must be announced ahead of time, allowing for public attendance. Most states require a quorum, or majority, of the governing body to be considered an official meeting.

The nonprofit Florida First Amendment Foundation was launched in 1985 to promote government transparency and hired its first paid employee, Barbara Petersen, in 1995, to monitor secrecy legislation, train public employees and aid people trying to get information. The organization banded with the Florida Society of Newspaper Editors to create Sunshine Sunday each March to promote the right to know. This event went national in 2005 as Sunshine Week.

All these factors led Florida to become known as the most transparent state in the nation.

Increasing clouds

Fast forward to 2025, and we see an entirely different climate in Florida.

The decline of newspapers has meant fewer reporters pushing for records, fewer editors advocating for transparency, and fewer owners suing government agencies.

Copy charges related to getting public records create barriers for average citizens. Research shows that providing fee waivers would increase accessibility without significant costs.

Through the years, legislators became emboldened to pass more exemptions to the Florida Sunshine Law – more than 1,100 and growing. Some of those exemptions were focused on protecting personal privacy – for example, in reaction to journalists requesting the autopsy file of NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt after his 2001 death.

Fear of terrorists following 9/11 led to a flurry of exemptions, such as hiding records about crop dusters to prevent al-Qaida from hijacking planes to spread anthrax.

Companies profiting from public records sparked another backlash. For example, some companies acquired public mugshots, posted them online and allowed people to have them removed for a price. Some attorneys gamed the fee-shifting provision, submitting public record requests that would be difficult to fulfill, sued immediately and then settled with agencies for thousands of dollars.

Elected leaders turned against transparency, Petersen, who now directs the Florida Center for Government Accountability, told me recently. One of the prominent examples she points to is Gov. Ron DeSantis’ refusal to disclose his travel expense records.

I hear it every week – calls from journalists and others stymied by state and local government agencies. They often cite high copy fees for public records, claims of exemptions and outright ghosting by agencies. One reporter encountered Miami city commissioners sworn in at a private ceremony. Another challenged Tallahassee police refusing to provide information about an officer-involved shooting. A college journalism student was told she had to pay $1,665 for records about Florida dams that could fail and ended up pleading with the government to “free the dam records.”

One of my studies from 2019 indicated that, on average, if you requested a public record in Florida, you would receive it about 39% of the time. That placed the state 31st in the nation, the bottom half.

More recent data from the nonprofit MuckRock reports Florida’s percentage declining – as of February 2025, to 35%.

Bobby Block, current director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, wrote in February that “There was a time when Florida set the gold standard for open government. … Those days are over.”

Not just Florida

Florida is reflective of a national trend – a secrecy creep spreading throughout the country, culminating in transparency deserts in cities big and small.

The United States is losing its reputation as a leader in open, accountable government. Its federal Freedom of Information Act, often known as FOIA, ranks 78th in strength out of 140 nations, and continuously drops as new countries adopt better laws. An information commissioner from Africa told me a few months ago that he and his colleagues laugh at the United States’ weak FOIA law, referring to it as a “toothless poodle.”

On average, according to our research, if you asked for a public record in America 10 years ago, you would get it about half the time. Now, it’s down to about a third of the time, and just 12% at the federal level.

Even the U.S. Department of Justice’s own statistics show a similar decline in full release of records, and the average response time has nearly doubled over the same period, from 21 to 40 days.

What happens when compliance reaches 0%?

Aside from the ramifications on democracy itself, every American will feel the pain in their pocketbooks and everyday lives.

Studies show that public record laws lead to cleaner drinking water, safer restaurants, better-informed school choice, less corruption, saved tax dollars and a lower chance of sex offenders reoffending.

According to Stanford economist James Hamilton, for every dollar spent on public-records journalism, society benefits $287 in saved lives and more efficient government.

Some transparency advocates have raised the alarm on actions taken by the new Trump administration, such as the removal of agency websites, the firing of FOIA staff and the dismantling of the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee.

It is likely these efforts will escalate the secrecy creep and allow it to trickle down to the state and local levels. It is important to note, though, that declining transparency is a long-term trend that transcends any one president or political party. The federal government reached its absolute low in full compliance with FOIA last year, under the Biden administration.

It’s easy to point fingers at one politician, but perhaps wiser to look at the entire system, which many scholars say is broken and should be reimagined.

German sociologist Max Weber posited that secrecy is the natural tendency for bureaucracy if left unchecked. For decades, news companies, particularly in Florida, pushed back against that secrecy through public pressure and litigation.

With that opposing force weakened, if not disappearing, what or who will replace it?

Nonprofit groups have filled some of the gap, and independent online news sites are growing and enforcing public record laws.

But will it be enough? Ultimately, it is up to the citizenry. If the people don’t cherish and demand transparent government, then the politicians certainly won’t, whether in Florida or the rest of the country.

David Cuillier is affiliated with the nonprofit National Freedom of Information Coalition and is a member of the National Archives and Records Administration Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee.

On-campus protests, the Vietnam War, feminism and police violence – these are a few of the subjects covered by the 1970s short-lived USF student newspaper Eye of the Beast. Andy Huse, a curator of Florida studies at USF Libraries, said the newspaper is the most “radical” student record of that era. “It shouldn’t be exaggerated […]

Education is a human right that should be protected, but Trump’s future plans make it feel as though it is a privilege.  As someone who prioritizes education, I find it disheartening. I may soon live in a reality where the President plans to dismantle the Department of Education. The result could make federal funding and […]

CHICAGO—The Society of American Archivists condemns the decision of the White House to terminate substantial numbers of archivists and cultural heritage workers at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the National Park Service, and other government agencies.

read more

At first, Canadians just shook their collective heads when United States President Donald Trump suggested Canada become the 51st American state.

They rolled their eyes when he posted a fake image of himself standing next to a Canadian flag amid snowy mountaintops — in actuality, the Swiss Alps.

Another Trump post showed a map purporting to merge Canada and the U.S. That prompted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to respond on social media that there was not a “snowball’s chance in hell” that Canadians would soon become Americans.

Meme wars are one thing, but in the real world, threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a foreign state is quite another. Canadian leaders have stopped laughing, and they now need to situate Trump’s dangerous rhetoric in the language of international law and state-to-state relations.

As a former Canadian ambassador to the Netherlands, and a permanent representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and international courts and tribunals in The Hague, I know language matters.

Trump’s threats make it an opportune time to provide a brief snapshot of the historical context for Trump’s rhetoric, and the necessary 21st-century vocabulary with which to respond and shape the public discourse.

Manifest Destiny

In threatening hefty tariffs on Canada, Trump cited the flow of fentanyl over the Canada-U.S. border, but it was clear it had little to do with fentanyl, particularly since so little crosses the border into the U.S. Instead, it seems he is coming for Canada’s sovereignty as an independent state.

When asked on Feb. 3 how Canada could ward off tariffs, Trump reiterated: “What I’d like to see is Canada become our 51st state.”

Later that same day, Trump paused tariffs on Canada, ostensibly thanks to border measures that Canada, like Mexico, had already announced. But what is still being said by the president of one of the most powerful nations on Earth cannot be unsaid.

At a Jan. 7 news conference, Trump called the border between Canada and the U.S. an “artificially drawn line” — echoing rhetoric deployed by Vladimir Putin as justification for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. His remarks, in fact, were gleefully retweeted by Russia’s propaganda channel RT.

Putin claims the Ukrainian border is the result of “administrative” action under the former Soviet Union, while Trump appears to be invoking the 19th century American concept of “Manifest Destiny.”

He used the phrase verbatim in his inaugural address in the context of planting a flag on Mars, but it is entirely consistent with his plans for, and rhetoric on, Canada.

As John O'Sullivan, the American diplomat who coined the phrase, wrote in a 1845 article entitled Annexation, it’s America’s destiny to “overspread the continent.” Trump appears to be taking that idea to heart.

‘The free white race’

Arguably the biggest fan of territorial expansion in the 20th century was Adolf Hitler, architect of the Third Reich. Trump reportedly has some of Hitler’s writings on his bedside table. Hitler had this to say in Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf:

“The extent of the national territory is a determining factor in the external security of the nation. The larger the territory which a people has at its disposal, the stronger are the national defences of that people.”

Sound familiar?

But why Canada and not Mexico, you may ask? Likely because he considers Canada less racialized, even though modern-day Canada has a large multicultural population.

---

Read more: Trump has put down his racist dog whistle and picked up a bull horn

---

In 1848, however, in the midst of the American expansionist era, pro-slavery South Carolina Sen. John Calhoun said:

“We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race — the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.”

In short, neither the context nor the history informing Trump’s designs on Canada are reassuring for Canadians.

Rules still matter

Trump’s dismissive approach to established borders ignores fundamental norms and principles on the sovereignty, equality and territorial integrity of states, codified following the Second World War in the Charter of the United Nations. Canada is a founding member of the UN; its status as a sovereign state is not subject to challenge under international law.

The charter clearly states that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

Similarly, the North Atlantic Treaty obliges NATO member states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

---

Read more: Allies or enemies? Trump's threats against Canada and Greenland put NATO in a tough spot

---

Trump has said he will use “economic force” to annex Canada. The suggestion that an economically devastated Canada could be sufficiently brought to heel has been embraced by the so-called MAGA-sphere, including an influential blogger with ties to Russia.

International law

Threatening economic rather than military force does not make Trump’s efforts at subjugating Canada any more acceptable in terms of international law.

In 1970, in the UN’s Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operations Among States, the UN General Assembly unanimously confirmed that “no state may use … economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of its exercise of its sovereign rights.” While not legally binding, this declaration represents customary international law.

In 1986, the International Court of Justice ruled in Nicaragua v, United States that:

“A prohibited intervention must accordingly be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. One of these is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy. Intervention is wrongful when it uses methods of coercion in regard to such choices, which must remain free ones.”

Keeping score

It’s both right and righteous for our elected leaders to say that Canada will never be the 51st state.

But the time has come, especially in the context of Trump’s threats to buy Greenland, seize the Panama Canal and turn Gaza into a Middle Eastern Riviera, to call out his threats to Canada.

Amid Trump’s dizzying litany of outlandish pronouncements, Canada’s leaders must keep track of what Trump’s declarations represent:

• A threat to international peace and security;
• A threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Canada;
• Unlawful coercion and intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state;
• A breach of the UN Charter;
• A breach of the North Atlantic treaty.

Trump’s threats are no way to treat an ally, but unfortunately for him, international law is on Canada’s side.

Sabine Nolke 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.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has taken off at lightning speed in the past couple of years, creating disruption in many industries. Newsrooms are no exception.

A new report published today finds that news audiences and journalists alike are concerned about how news organisations are – and could be – using generative AI such as chatbots, image, audio and video generators, and similar tools.

The report draws on three years of interviews and focus group research into generative AI and journalism in Australia and six other countries (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France).

Only 25% of our news audience participants were confident they had encountered generative AI in journalism. About 50% were unsure or suspected they had.

This suggests a potential lack of transparency from news organisations when they use generative AI. It could also reflect a lack of trust between news outlets and audiences.

Who or what makes your news – and how – matters for a host of reasons.

Some outlets tend to use more or fewer sources, for example. Or use certain kinds of sources – such as politicians or experts – more than others.

Some outlets under-represent or misrepresent parts of the community. This is sometimes because the news outlet’s staff themselves aren’t representative of their audience.

Carelessly using AI to produce or edit journalism can reproduce some of these inequalities.

Our report identifies dozens of ways journalists and news organisations can use generative AI. It also summarises how comfortable news audiences are with each.

The news audiences we spoke to overall felt most comfortable with journalists using AI for behind-the-scenes tasks rather than for editing and creating. These include using AI to transcribe an interview or to provide ideas on how to cover a topic.

But comfort is highly dependent on context. Audiences were quite comfortable with some editing and creating tasks when the perceived risks were lower.

The problem – and opportunity

Generative AI can be used in just about every part of journalism.

For example, a photographer could cover an event. Then, a generative AI tool could select what it “thinks” are the best images, edit the images to optimise them, and add keywords to each.

These might seem like relatively harmless applications. But what if the AI identifies something or someone incorrectly, and these keywords lead to mis-identifications in the photo captions? What if the criteria humans think make “good” images are different to what a computer might think? These criteria may also change over time or in different contexts.

Even something as simple as lightening or darkening an image can cause a furore when politics are involved.

AI can also make things up completely. Images can appear photorealistic but show things that never happened. Videos can be entirely generated with AI, or edited with AI to change their context.

Generative AI is also frequently used for writing headlines or summarising articles. These sound like helpful applications for time-poor individuals, but some news outlets are using AI to rip off others’ content.

AI-generated news alerts have also gotten the facts wrong. As an example, Apple recently suspended its automatically generated news notification feature. It did this after the feature falsely claimed US murder suspect Luigi Mangione had killed himself, with the source attributed as the BBC.

What do people think about journalists using AI?

Our research found news audiences seem to be more comfortable with journalists using AI for certain tasks when they themselves have used it for similar purposes.

For example, the people interviewed were largely comfortable with journalists using AI to blur parts of an image. Our participants said they used similar tools on video conferencing apps or when using the “portrait” mode on smartphones.

Likewise, when you insert an image into popular word processing or presentation software, it might automatically create a written description of the image for people with vision impairments. Those who’d previously encountered such AI descriptions of images felt more comfortable with journalists using AI to add keywords to media.

The most frequent way our participants encountered generative AI in journalism was when journalists reported on AI content that had gone viral.

For example, when an AI-generated image purported to show Princes William and Harry embracing at King Charles’s coronation, news outlets reported on this false image.

Our news audience participants also saw notices that AI had been used to write, edit or translate news articles. They saw AI-generated images accompanying some of these. This is a popular approach at The Daily Telegraph, which uses AI-generated images to illustrate many of its opinion columns.

Overall, our participants felt most comfortable with journalists using AI for brainstorming or for enriching already created media. This was followed by using AI for editing and creating. But comfort depends heavily on the specific use.

Most of our participants were comfortable with turning to AI to create icons for an infographic. But they were quite uncomfortable with the idea of an AI avatar presenting the news, for example.

On the editing front, a majority of our participants were comfortable with using AI to animate historical images, like this one. AI can be used to “enliven” an otherwise static image in the hopes of attracting viewer interest and engagement.

Your role as an audience member

If you’re unsure if or how journalists are using AI, look for a policy or explainer from the news outlet on the topic. If you can’t find one, consider asking the outlet to develop and publish a policy.

Consider supporting media outlets that use AI to complement and support – rather than replace – human labour.

Before making decisions, consider the past trustworthiness of the journalist or outlet in question, and what the evidence says.

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.

Michelle Riedlinger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada's Global Journalism Innovation Lab. She is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

Phoebe Matich receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a post-doctoral research fellow within the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society.

Ryan J. Thomas 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.

President Donald Trump dismissed half the appointed trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts’ board on Feb. 12, 2025. The remaining board members, most of whom he had recently appointed, then voted to make Trump the center’s chair. The board also fired Deborah Rutter, who had served as the center’s president since 2014 and already planned to step down seven months later.

The board replaced Rutter with Richard Grenell, who served in the first Trump administration.

The Conversation U.S. asked E. Andrew Taylor, an arts management scholar, to explain how the Kennedy Center operates and sum up the significance of Trump’s unprecedented interference with its operations.

Why is the government involved in the Kennedy Center?

The Kennedy Center, a unique cultural enterprise located along the Potomac River in Washington, has a complex ownership and operating structure. The campus includes three large performance halls, two midsize theaters and many smaller venues and public spaces that host musical, theatrical and dance performances, lectures, exhibits and other special events. In form and function, it looks a lot like other major metropolitan performing arts centers, such as New York City’s Lincoln Center. But its structure is different.

The Kennedy Center is part of the federal government. Officially, it’s a bureau under the Smithsonian Institution.

It was originally conceived during the Eisenhower administration and later championed by President John F. Kennedy. It was named after JFK following his assassination.

The center opened in 1971, with a world premiere of composer Leonard Bernstein’s “Mass.” President Richard M. Nixon did not attend after the FBI warned him of possible anti-war messages encoded in the Latin text that might be designed to embarrass him.

The center’s current mission statement captures its purpose and goals:

“As the nation’s cultural center, and a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy, we are a leader for the arts across America and around the world, reaching and connecting with artists, inspiring and educating communities. We welcome all to create, experience, learn about, and engage with the arts.”

Why does the Kennedy Center have a nonprofit board?

From the start, the Kennedy Center was planned as a public-private effort. Government funding covers the maintenance, upkeep, security and restoration of the building and grounds.

Private funds, largely derived from ticket sales, individual donors, foundations and corporations, cover the performances, productions and other programs.

Those private funds cover more than three-quarters of the Kennedy Center’s budget. Its 2023 annual report explained that its US$286 million in revenue included $152 million from ticket sales, services and fees, $85 million from donations and $45 million from the federal government, with the rest derived from income from its endowment and other sources.

In accordance with this public-private mix of revenue, the center’s governance has always been a hybrid, with the structure of a nonprofit board but with political appointees.

The Kennedy Center’s board is authorized by its legislation to solicit and accept private donations, enter into contracts, maintain its halls and grounds, and appoint and oversee professional leadership. For the most part, it has the same responsibilities as any nonprofit board.

There’s a big exception, however.

While most nonprofit boards recruit, elect and develop their own membership, the Kennedy Center board consists of government appointees. About two dozen trustees serve by virtue of their government office, such as the librarian of Congress, the secretary of state, the mayor of Washington and the speaker and the minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Up to 36 more are appointed by the president, each serving staggered six-year terms so that they don’t all expire at the same time.

Is the board supposed to be nonpartisan?

The six-year terms reflect a goal of establishing a largely nonpartisan governing board, since presidents usually appoint board members aligned with their own party. Until now, that balance has been the norm. But that outcome wasn’t mandated when Congress passed legislation establishing the Kennedy Center.

Having a politically balanced board has historically helped the Kennedy Center raise money and attract world-class artists. For example, the 2025 season, as of mid-February, will or has included Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, jazz pianist Kenny Barron, soprano Renée Fleming, author David Sedaris, comedian Sarah Silverman and touring productions of “Parade” and “Les Misérables.”

Its in-house productions are often classic works, such as “La Bohème” and Beethoven’s symphonies. Many of the center’s theatrical productions have gone on to Broadway and national tours, including “42nd Street,” “Noises Off” and revivals of “The King and I,” “Annie” and “Spamalot.”

I’m concerned that many longtime or potential future donors may not want to contribute to a cause that has suddenly become subject to partisan leadership.

Many artists and creative partners have already begun to sever their ties to the Kennedy Center or cancel upcoming shows at its venues out of an aversion to the board’s dramatic political turn. Some performances and tours tied to the center have been called off for other reasons that haven’t yet been made public.

Members of the public may balk at attending events at a politically charged venue, especially with so many other performing arts options in and around Washington, reducing ticket sales.

What does the Kennedy Center chair do?

Board chairs are in charge of the governing board, expending considerable energy, attention, effort, political muscle and often personal wealth to ensure that the organization can thrive.

The Kennedy Center’s prior chairs have not been figureheads. Rather, they have been actively engaged in fundraising, strategic planning and public advocacy. The legislation that chartered the center requires that its chair and secretary “shall be well qualified by experience and training to perform the duties of their respective offices.”

Trump has admitted that he’s never seen a show at the Kennedy Center. He has no prior relevant arts board leadership experience. And he is constrained from serving on a nonprofit board in the state of New York after admitting to the misuse of charitable funds by the now-dissolved Donald J. Trump Foundation.

David Rubenstein, the board chair ousted by this upheaval, has given the Kennedy Center at least US$111 million, making him the center’s biggest donor ever. The philanthropist spearheaded fundraising for its first major expansion, securing significant support from private corporations and foundations.

Has anything like this happened before?

No U.S. president has served as a member of the Kennedy Center board before, let alone its chair.

Presidents do often appoint their friends and allies to government boards and commissions, and often remove appointees of previous administrations. President Joe Biden, for example, removed Sean Spicer – a former Trump press secretary and White House communications director – from the Naval Academy advisory board.

But that board is leading a strictly governmental body, not a public-private hybrid so dependent on private funding. And the speed and scale of this purge are unprecedented.

What are the potential consequences?

All big, multi-venue metropolitan performing arts centers are extraordinarily complex and difficult to manage.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is particularly so. It hosts approximately 2,200 performances that draw more than 2 million visitors each year, with an in-house symphony and opera company. It produces the Kennedy Center Honors, which celebrate exceptional American artists with an annual gala, performance and television broadcast, and the Mark Twain Prize, which honors one accomplished American comedic actor, author or performer each year.

It’s also a national hub for arts education that serves 2.1 million students and teachers across all 50 states, doubling as an open campus: It offers daily free performances of everything from classical chamber music and ballet to jazz and rock bands.

Even under the best possible conditions, this is a lot to handle.

Successful arts nonprofits benefit from a governing board whose members have expertise in the arts, business and philanthropy, are loyal to the mission above themselves, and rigorously follow the law. Beyond those basics, ideal conditions also include having enthusiastic audiences, passionate donors, eager and exceptional artistic collaborators, and creative and administrative teams that are supported and empowered to do their difficult work.

With Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center board, this national cultural center has now, essentially, turned into a branch of the White House. In my view, that’s a disturbing turn of events in a nation that celebrates free and creative expression. It’s also disruptive to a complex, mission-driven enterprise that demands care, loyalty and obedience from its governing board.

E. Andrew Taylor directs American University's Arts Management Program. Some of its alumni and students have worked as staff and fellows for The Kennedy Center.

When Bishop Mariann Budde closed her sermon at the National Prayer Service at Washington National Cathedral on January 21 she called on Donald Trump, who was sitting in front of her, “to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now”.

Trump demanded an apology later the same day from “the so-called Bishop” who he said was “nasty in tone”. Republican congressman Mike Collins even suggested that Budde (a US citizen) should be deported.

The bishop was building on a long tradition of Christian leaders using bold speech. But the idea of bold speech goes back further – to the concept of “parrhesia” in democratic Athens when every freeborn male citizen had the right to speak freely in public debates.

French philosopher Michel Foucault highlighted that with the decline of democracy, parrhesia came to mean boldly speaking truth to power. For instance, in the Roman Empire, it meant having the bravery to speak to an emperor, a governor, or one’s master as if one was their equal.

Early Christians picked up on this use of the term in the New Testament. The Acts of the Apostles describes the arrest of Peter and John for healing and preaching in Jerusalem and recounts that the assembled “rulers, elders and scribes” were amazed to hear such parrhesia from “uneducated and ordinary men”.

The apostles were so popular that the council released them after vainly threatening them to keep quiet. Peter and John’s own community of followers was even said to be so inspired by their bold example that they prayed to be given parrhesia too, a prayer which was immediately answered by the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:29, 31). Parrhesia here is seen as a powerful divine gift which enables ordinary people to challenge dominant religious authorities.

Several sermons on martyrs from John Chrysostom (who was apppointed as the archbishop of Constantinople in AD397) close with exhortations to emulate a martyr’s parrhesia. Chrysostom’s Discourse on Blessed Babylas and against the Greeks describes a bishop who reprimanded an emperor for murdering a child hostage. Chrysostom praises Bishop Babylas for moderate parrhesia, guided by reason, keeping anger and other emotions in check. It recalls the advice of the philosopher Plutarch in “How to tell a flatterer from a friend”: parrhesia must be respectful, in due measure and at the right moment.

Babylas’s moderate parrhesia produces astonished admiration from the crowd, but it provoked the outraged emperor to order Babylas’ execution.

Such stories set expectations for the behaviour of bishops even under Christian emperors. Scholars have shown how bishops have exploited their educational and social standing to leverage limited influence with governors and sometimes even emperors.

Gregory of Nazianzus tells how his friend Basil, a 4th century bishop, faced down the rage of an imperial representative who “roared like a lion till most men dared not approach him”, threatening “confiscation, banishment, torture, death”. When Basil refused to back down, the astonished official declared that no-one had spoken to him with such parrhesia. “Perhaps you’ve not met a bishop before,” Basil replied. “Generally, we know our place and we submit to the law. But where the interests of God are at stake, we care about nothing else.”

Two of the most famous examples of bishops who exercised parrhesia against imperial authority were the aforementioned Chrysostom and Ambrose (who became bishop of Milan in AD374). Both Chrysostom and Ambrose wrote substantial treatises which (among other things) defended the priest’s right to censure whomever was guilty of sin. Chrysostom warns that fear of powerful authorities causes people to flatter them rather than speaking the truth. Ambrose makes a similar point, reminding his audience that John the Baptist did not flatter King Herod, despite having reason to fear him. These comments resonate with Foucault’s observation that a speaker addressing someone more powerful must choose between flattery and parrhesia.

But the point of these examples is that by the 4th century there was a strong belief that part of the job of being a bishop was being prepared to speak boldly against wrongdoing – even if the wrongdoer was an emperor. And the power of their parrhesia was not so much the success (or otherwise) of their requests, but the way their bold speech sent ripples out into the wider community.

It is here that we can identify resonances with the case of Bishop Budde. First, parrhesia involves a direct, public but personal appeal to someone who could normally expect to be in authority over the speaker (the Jewish council of elders, a Roman governor).

The appeal is often made respectfully, but it is still risky and disruptive. It challenges the addressee’s declared vision of the truth, setting against it the speaker’s own sources of authority, including appeals to the divine.

In Budde’s case too we find this tension between respect and challenge. In an interview for the New Yorker, Budde reflected that she “needed to honor the office of the President and the fact that millions of people placed their trust in him”.

By addressing Trump respectfully, she acknowledged he had the authority to be merciful. But in drawing on the authority of scripture, Christian tradition and her episcopal role, she challenged the president’s moral authority on key questions of public policy.

Basil’s parrhesia astonished the imperial representative, but gave his friend Gregory a model for his own episcopal ministry. Similarly, Budde had a two-fold audience in mind. She used parrhesia respectfully but firmly to challenge the authority of a powerful person who did not expect to be challenged and was outraged when they were.

It is evident that Budde’s past experience of criticising Trump (she commented in the New York Times about Trump posing for a photo with a Bible in 2020) left her in no doubt that her “audacious” direct appeal to the president would bring anger on herself. But she also addressed a wider audience, intending that “people overhearing me talk to Trump” would hear words of solidarity and hope for them.

The power of Budde’s speech does not depend on the success of her appeal for mercy but in the disruptive nature of her challenge to Trump’s moral authority and the way it rippled out into wider audiences, provoking astonishment, anger or praise.

History prompts us to look harder at the power dynamics that create such varied and highly charged emotional responses. Now, as in the ancient world, it is in the absence of an open hearing for all, when bold speech is needed.

Morwenna Ludlow will receive funding from the Leverhulme Trust for a project on 'God and Good Speech' for two years from September 2025. She is a priest in the Church of England and has an honorary role as Canon Theologian at Exeter Cathedral.

In the four weeks since he was inaugurated for his second term as US president, Donald Trump has issued dozens of executive orders – many of which are now the subject of legal challenges on the grounds they exceed his authority under the US constitution. As a result, some will inevitably end up in front of the US Supreme Court.

What the court rules – and how the Trump administration responds to its judgments – will tell us a great deal whether the separation of powers still works as US founding fathers intended when they drafted the constitution.

The concept of separation of powers is incorporated into just about every democratic constitution. It rests on the principle of the separation of powers between the three fundamental branches of government: executive, legislature and judiciary.

It’s what enables the political ecosystem of checks and balances to create the conditions for democracy to exist and freedom to flourish. But if one of the three branches of government dominates the other two, the equilibrium is shattered and democracy collapses.

We owe this idea of constitutional democracy as a tripartite division of power to an 18th-century French political philosopher, Charles de Montesquieu. He was the author of one of the most influential books to come out of the Enlightenment period, The Spirit of the Laws.

Published in 1748, this work gradually reshaped every political system in Europe, and had a powerful influence on America’s Founding Fathers. The 1787 US constitution was drafted in the spirit of Montesquieu’s recommendations.

Modern democracies are more complex than those of the 18th century – and new institutions have developed to keep up with the times. These include specialised tribunals, autonomous regulatory agencies, central banks, audit bodies, ombudsmen, electoral commissions and anti-corruption bodies.

What all these institutions have in common is that they operate with a considerable degree of independence from the three aforementioned arms of government. In other words, more checks and balances.

Notwithstanding his immense influence, the idea of a separation of powers at the heart of democracy predates Montesquieu by many centuries. One of the earliest formulations of this idea can be found in Aristotle’s work, the Politics. This includes the argument that “the best constitution is made up of all existing forms”. By this Aristotle meant a mixed government of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

But it was the Romans who developed a working model of checks and balances. The constitution of the Roman republic was characterised by the separation of powers between the tribune of the plebs, the senate of the patricians, and the elected consuls.

The consuls held the highest political office, akin to a president or prime minister. But since the Romans did not trust anyone to have too much power, they elected two consuls at a time, for a period of 12 months. Each consul had veto power over the actions of the other consul. Checks and balances.

The greatest advocate of the Roman republic and its constitutional mechanisms, was the Roman philosopher, lawyer and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero. It was Cicero who inspired Montesquieu’s work – as well as influencing John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the US.

The Roman republic had lasted for approximately 500 years but came to an end following the violent death of Cicero in 43BC. He had devoted his life resisting authoritarian populists from undermining the Roman republic and establishing themselves as sole despots. His death (on top of the assassination of Julius Ceasar the previous year) are seen as key moments in Rome’s transition from republic to empire.

Democracy under threat

Today our democracies are facing the same predicament. In many different parts of the world this simple institutional mechanism has come under increasing attack by individuals hell-bent on curbing the independent power of the judiciary and the legislative.

In Europe, following in the footsteps of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, the Italian far-right premier Giorgia Meloni has been pushing for constitutional reforms that reinforce the executive branch of government at the expense of the other two branches.

The assault on the system of checks and balances has also been identified in Washington. The use and abuse of presidential executive orders is an indication of this growing political cancer.

During his time as 46th US president, from January 2021 to January 2025, Joe Biden signed 162 executive orders – an average of 41 executive orders per year. By comparison, during his first term Donald Trump’s annual average was 55 executive orders. Barack Obama before him was 35.

In his first 20 days since returning to the White House Donald Trump has already signed 60 executive orders. This has included pardoning some 1,500 people who were involved in the January 6 insurrection at the US capitol.

But of much greater concern is the Trump administration’s veiled threats to overturn the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court from 1803, Marbury v. Madison, the case that established the principle that the courts are the final arbiters of the law.

In recent weeks Trump has openly criticised federal judges who have tried to block some of his most executive orders. He’s been supported by his vice-president, J.D. Vance, who has been quoted as saying that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power”.

Meanwhile the president’s senior advisor, Elon Musk, accused a judge’s order to temporarily block the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency from accessing confidential treasury department data of being “a corrupt judge protecting corruption”.

So democracy’s delicate balancing act is under serious pressure. If the separation of powers does not hold, and the checks and balances prove to be ineffective, democracy will be threatened.

The next few months and years will determine whether the rule of law will be displaced by the rule of the strongest. At the moment the odds don’t look good for Cicero, Montesquieu and Madison.

It takes a brave person to bet on democracy to win this contest, but we live in hope that America will remain the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Vittorio Bufacchi is affiliated with the Labour Party in Ireland.

Ukraine has not been invited to a key meeting between American and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia this week to decide what peace in the country might look like.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine will “never accept” any decisions in talks without its participation to end Russia’s three-year war in the country.

A decision to negotiate the sovereignty of Ukrainians without them – as well as US President Donald Trump’s blatantly extortionate attempt to claim half of Ukraine’s rare mineral wealth as the price for ongoing US support – reveals a lot about how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.

But this is not the first time large powers have colluded to negotiate new borders or spheres of influence without the input of the people who live there.

Such high-handed power politics rarely ends well for those affected, as these seven historical examples show.

1. The Scramble for Africa

In the winter of 1884–85, German leader Otto von Bismarck invited the powers of Europe to Berlin for a conference to formalise the division of the entire African continent among them. Not a single African was present at the conference that would come to be known as “The Scramble for Africa”.

Among other things, the conference led to the creation of the Congo Free State under Belgian control, the site of colonial atrocities that killed millions.

Germany also established the colony of German South West Africa (present-day Namibia), where the first genocide of the 20th century was later perpetrated against its colonised peoples.

2. The Tripartite Convention

It wasn’t just Africa that was divided up this way. In 1899, Germany and the United States held a conference and forced an agreement on the Samoans to split their islands between the two powers.

This was despite the Samoans expressing a desire for either self-rule or a confederation of Pacific states with Hawai'i.

As “compensation” for missing out in Samoa, Britain received uncontested primacy over Tonga.

German Samoa came under the rule of New Zealand after the first world war and remained a territory until 1962. American Samoa (in addition to several other Pacific islands) remain US territories to this day.

3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement

As the first world war was well under way, British and French representatives sat down to agree how they’d divide up the Ottoman Empire after it was over. As an enemy power, the Ottomans were not invited to the talks.

Together, England’s Mark Sykes and France’s François Georges-Picot redrew the Middle East’s borders in line with their nations’ interests.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement ran counter to commitments made in a series of letters known as the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. In these letters, Britain promised to support Arab independence from Turkish rule.

---

Read more: What was the Sykes-Picot agreement, and why does it still affect the Middle East today?

---

The Sykes-Picot Agreement also ran counter to promises Britain made in the Balfour Declaration to back Zionists who wanted to build a new Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine.

The agreement became the wellspring of decades of conflict and colonial misrule in the Middle East, the consequences of which continue to be felt today.

4. The Munich Agreement

In September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier met with Italy’s fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, and Germany’s Adolf Hitler to sign what became known as the Munich Agreement.

The leaders sought to prevent the spread of war throughout Europe after Hitler’s Nazis had fomented an uprising and began attacking the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. They did this under the pretext of protecting German minorities. No Czechoslovakians were invited to the meeting.

The meeting is still seen by many as the “Munich Betrayal” – a classic example of a failed appeasement of a belligerent power in the false hope of staving off war.

5. The Évian Conference

In 1938, 32 countries met in Évian-les-Bains, France, to decide how to deal with Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany.

Before the conference started, Britain and the US had agreed not to put pressure on one another to lift the quota of Jews they would accept in either the US or British Palestine.

While Golda Meir (the future Israeli leader) attended the conference as an observer, neither she nor any other representatives of the Jewish people were permitted to take part in the negotiations.

The attendees largely failed to come to an agreement on accepting Jewish refugees, with the exception of the Dominican Republic. And most Jews in Germany were unable to leave before Nazism reached its genocidal nadir in the Holocaust.

6. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

As Hitler planned his invasion of Eastern Europe, it became clear his major stumbling block was the Soviet Union. His answer was to sign a disingenuous non-aggression treaty with the USSR.

The treaty, named after Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop (the Soviet and German foreign ministers), ensured the Soviet Union would not respond when Hitler invaded Poland. It also carved up Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres. This allowed the Soviets to expand into Romania and the Baltic states, attack Finland and take its own share of Polish territory.

Unsurprisingly, some in Eastern Europe view the current US-Russia talks over Ukraine’s future as a revival of this kind of secret diplomacy that divided the smaller nations of Europe between large powers in the second world war.

7. The Yalta Conference

With the defeat of Nazi Germany imminent, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and US President Franklin D Roosevelt met in 1945 to decide the fate of postwar Europe. This meeting came to be known as the Yalta Conference.

Alongside the Potsdam Conference several months later, Yalta created the political architecture that would lead to the Cold War division of Europe.

At Yalta, the “big three” decided on the division of Germany, while Stalin was also offered a sphere of interest in Eastern Europe.

This took the form of a series of politically controlled buffer states in Eastern Europe, a model some believe Putin is aiming to emulate today in eastern and southeastern Europe.

Matt Fitzpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the History Council of South Australia.

In many ways, I feel like we shouldn’t be happy with what we have. We live in a world of tremendous inequality and cruelty, running towards an environmental wall. Not just that, but some of the best people I know are chronic persistors: they know how not to accept the unacceptable.

But we also live in an economy that profits from and purposefully generates private feelings of lack, want, comparison and envy. Somewhat counter-intuitively, this envy often spurs on the feelings of lack and want, rather than the other way around. This is the genius of advertising: to generate “perceived” (aka fake) needs. I see someone living a “good” life – exciting, sexy, creative – and now I want what they have: the shoes, watch, holiday, you name it.

Envy requires comparison. And comparison requires a scale by which to rank ourselves. Popular culture offers quite a few. Being the object of sexual desire (think of “matches” on dating apps) for example, or digital social connectivity (think of “followers” or “likes”). These can all play a role in shaping your sense of personal success or failure.

---

Ready to make a change? The Quarter Life Glow-up is a new, six-week newsletter course from The Conversation’s UK and Canada editions.

Every week, we’ll bring you research-backed advice and tools to help improve your relationships, your career, your free time and your mental health – no supplements or skincare required. Sign up here to start your glow-up at any time.

---

Sometimes, these are presented in a unified pseudo-metric of success. Take for example the idea of a “high-value man”. The parts of the internet that use the concept tend to celebrate having money, a wide social network and being useful to others. This often veers into celebrating material wealth and superficial self improvement as the path to success and sexual attractiveness. The viral TikTok song I’m Looking for a Man in Finance is an only mildly exaggerated spoof of this ideal.

The implicit assumption is that having more “good things” than others means being more valuable as a person. But behind this there are a host of hidden assumptions – not least that you can “own” the genuinely valuable things in life (as opposed to being them).

These hidden assumptions usually reveal deep seated shame – the feeling that you are not enough as you are. And that you are not entitled to set the parameters that define the success or failure of your own life.

Feeling bad about yourself is not always unhealthy. A healthy negative feeling lets you know if you have done something wrong, or acted in a manner that does not meet your own moral standards. This feeling calls for you to change your ways.

The unhealthy feeling, that I am calling “shame”, is not merely the feeling of embarrassment or moral doubt. Rather, it is (to follow vulnerability researcher Brené Brown’s definition) “the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging”.

This feeling is so psychologically painful that you may reflexively do all you can to remain unaware of it. This denial means that you can start to see your own critical inner voice (itself shaped by past negative experiences) as animated by an “objective” social reality, telling you not just that you’re failing, but that you are a failure. This is often called “projection”.

Other times, when you can bear to consciously feel this emotion, you may seek to negotiate with it and offer remedial actions to the universe to make up for recurrent feelings of worthlessness. In darker times still, shame can overtake your whole life, paralysing you and creeping into the quietest parts of your private self.

How to combat shame and be happy with what you have

Shame can be a remarkably sticky emotion. Identifying and interrogating it can be helpful. Working on revising how you understand your self and your relationship to others can also help. The options are many, but for the sake of illustration here are three that speak to me.

1. Stoicism

Stoics believed that your essential nature is stable and the project of life is to fulfil this nature and flourish. When making judgments, people ascribe value to an imagined state of affairs (“it would be really great if I were thinner”) and a belief that a specific course of action will make it a reality (“going without chocolate will return the figure I had in my teens”).

Both of these can be false, because the things you desire can actually be bad for you, and you have less control over the future than you tend to think. Stoics thought people should try to get the relationship between their emotional state and the goods they pursue into harmony, seeking self-mastery in order to flourish.

To this end, stoic ethics demand that you recognise and cultivate habits that put you in touch with your own nature within the wider world – starting from the self, expanding to the family, the community, the state, humanity and ultimately the cosmos.

2. Existentialism

In contrast, existentialism requires paying attention to the lack of any ultimate purpose in human life. No one thing can ever fully define who you are. Your capacity to reinvent yourself, to value something new, to start a fresh project, is yours alone.

The empty feeling of meaninglessness you sometimes encounter when you have finally achieved a long sought after goal (like getting that big promotion) can be dizzying. But this feeling is a reminder of the fact that nothing in your nature demands that you achieve any one thing. It’s up to you.

You must face authentically the fact that you are free and therefore responsible for your projects and the meaning you give to them.

3. Humanistic psychotherapy

A humanistic psychotherapeutic perspective offers a middle way. It invites you to look upon yourself with compassion, seeing yourself as complex, responsible and yet also imperfect and vulnerable, always involved in a richly evolving tapestry of relationships that ultimately gives meaning and purpose to your life.

This means that relationships and the recognition you give and derive from them provide the only solid basis for confronting that most important question – “who am I?” – ultimately seeing you through your darkest times. But this means that you need these relationships to be genuine, kind and honest so that you can see yourself and others for the frail, evolving and unique individuals that we all are.

Joshua Forstenzer's work receives funding from the Yale Center for Faith and Culture as part of its Templeton-funded Life Worth Living project (https://lifeworthliving.yale.edu/). He is also a consultant to North Consulting as part of the LIFE Erasmus+ project (https://www.kmop.gr/projects-vf/news-life-worth-living/) which uses text-based pedagogic methods to facilitate wellbeing conversations about meaning and purpose with teachers and school leaders in five European countries.

One of President Donald Trump’s major promises during the 2024 presidential campaign was to launch mass deportations of immigrants living in the U.S. without legal authorization.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has said that, since January 2025, it is detaining and planning to deport 600 to 1,100 immigrants a day. That marks an increase from the average 282 immigration arrests that happened each day in September 2024 under the Biden administration.

The current trend would place the Trump administration on track to apprehend 25,000 immigrants in Trump’s first month in office. On an annual basis, this is about 300,000 – far from the “millions and millions” of immigrants Trump promised to deport.

A lack of funding, immigration officers, immigration detention centers and other resources has reportedly impeded the administration’s deportation work.

The Trump administration is seeking US$175 billion from Congress to use for the next four years on immigration enforcement, Axios reported on Feb. 11, 2025.

If Trump does make good on his promise of mass deportations, our research shows that removing millions of immigrants would be costly for everyone in the U.S., including American citizens and businesses.

Food costs will increase

One important factor is that mass deportations would weaken key industries in the U.S. that rely on immigrant workers, including those living in the U.S. illegally.

Overall, immigrants without legal authorization make up about 5% of the total U.S. workforce.

But that overall percentage doesn’t reflect these immigrants’ concentrated presence within various industries. Approximately half of U.S. farmworkers are living in the country without legal authorization, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Some of these immigrant farmworkers are skilled supervisors who make decisions about planting and harvesting. Others know how to use and maintain tractors, loaders, diggers, rakers, fertilizer sprayers, irrigation systems, and other machines crucial to farm operations.

If those workers were to be suddenly removed from the country, Americans would see an increase in food costs, including what they spend on groceries and at restaurants.

With fewer available workers to pick fruits and vegetables and prepare the food for shipment and distribution, the domestic production of food could decrease, leading to higher costs and more imports.

National estimates of the restaurant and food preparation workforce, meanwhile, indicate that between 10% and 15% of those workers are immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

Past state-level immigration enforcement policies offer an idea of what could happen at the national level if Trump were to carry out widespread deportations.

For example, a 2011 Alabama law called HB-56 directed local police officers to investigate the immigration status of drivers stopped for speeding. It also prohibited landlords from renting properties to immigrants who do not have legal authorization to work or live in the country. That law and its resulting effects prompted some Alabama-based immigrant workers to leave the state following workplace raids.

Their departure wound up costing the state an estimated $2.3 billion to $10.8 billion loss in Alabama’s annual gross domestic product due to the loss of workers and economic output.

Other industries that rely on immigrants

Part of the challenge of mass deportations for industries like construction, nearly a quarter of whose workers are living without legal authorization, is that their workforce is highly skilled and not easily replaced. Immigrant workers are particularly involved in home construction and specialize in such tasks as ceiling and flooring installation as well as roofing and drywall work.

Fewer available workers would mean slower home construction, which in turn would make housing more expensive, further compounding existing problems of housing supply and affordability.

Shocks from deportations would also slow commercial and public infrastructure construction. Six construction workers, for example, died in April 2024 in the sudden collapse of the Baltimore Key Bridge in Maryland. All of them were Latino immigrants living in the U.S. without legal documentation.

Examining the arguments

Trump administration officials and other politicians have argued that deporting large numbers of immigrants would help the country save money, since fewer people will use federal and state funds by attending public schools or receiving temporary shelter.

Trump said in November 2024 that there is “no price tag” for large-scale deportations.

“It’s not a question of price tag,” Trump said. “We have no choice. When people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here,” Trump told NBC News.

Trump and his supporters also argue that deporting immigrants would mean more jobs for American workers.

But there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

First, immigrants are filling labor shortages and doing jobs that many Americans don’t want to do, ones that might be unsafe or poorly paid.

Even if Americans were willing to do those jobs, there simply aren’t enough Americans in the workforce to fill existing labor vacuums, let alone an enlarged one following deportations.

Second, for employers, having fewer workers in the country translates into higher wages, which in turn means less capital to adapt and grow. For businesses based on consumer debt – think mortgages, car loans and credit cards – deportations would disrupt the financial sector by removing responsible borrowers who make consistent payments.

Third, immigrants living without legal documentation in the U.S. pay more than $96 billion in federal, state and local taxes per year and consume fewer public benefits than citizens.

Immigrants without legal authorization are not eligible for Social Security benefits and can’t enroll in Medicare or many other safety net programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The bottom line

In other words, people who are living and working in the U.S. without legal authorization are helping to pay, through taxes, the costs of caring for Americans as they age and begin to draw on the nation’s retirement and health care programs.

The burden from recent inflation notwithstanding, an economy supported by immigrants living illegally in the U.S. protects Americans.

The U.S. would be unable to dodge the economic shocks and high costs that mass deportations would bring about.

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.

Restrictions on medical care for transgender youth assume that without the ability to medically transition, trans people will vanish.

As of 2024, 26 U.S. states have banned gender-affirming care for young people. Less than a month into office, President Donald Trump issued numerous executive orders targeting transgender people, including a mandate to use “sex” instead of “gender” on passports, visas and global entry cards, as well as a ban on gender-affirming care for young people. These actions foreground the upcoming Supreme Court case of U.S. vs. Skrmetti which promises to shape the future of gender-affirming health care in the U.S., including restrictions or bans.

History, however, shows that withholding health care does not make transgender people go away. Scholarship of medieval literature and historical records reveals how transgender people transitioned even without a robust medical system – instead, they changed their clothes, name and social position.

Surgery in medieval times

Surgery was not a widespread practice in the medieval period. While it gained some traction in the 1300s, surgery was limited to southern France and northern Italy. Even there, surgery was dangerous and the risk of infection high.

Cutting off fleshy bits is an old practice and, potential dangers aside, removing a penis or breasts wasn’t impossible. But amputating functioning limbs was nearly always a form of punishment. Medieval people, including surgeons and patients, likely would not have had positive views of surgery that involved removing working body parts.

Surgeons in the 14th century were increasingly thinking about how to perform surgery on those with both male and female genitalia – people now called intersex. But they thought about this in terms of “correcting” genitalia to make it more apparently male or female – an attitude still present today. Historically, the procedure was probably performed on adults, but today it is usually performed on children. Both then and now, the surgery often disregards the patient’s wishes and is not medically necessary, at times leading to complications later. For patients deemed female, excess flesh could be cut away, and for patients deemed male, the vulva could be cauterized to close it.

There is, however, at least one historical example of a transgender individual receiving surgery. In 1300, near Bern, Switzerland, an unnamed woman was legally separated from her husband because she was unable to have sex with him. Soon after, the woman headed to Bologna, which was the surgery capital of Europe at the time. There, a surgeon cut open the woman’s vulva, revealing a penis and testicles. The account ends, “Back home, he took a wife, did rural work, and had legitimate and sufficient intercourse with his wife.”

The story presents the possibility of medical transition, possibly even a desire for it. But given the limits of surgical techniques and ideologies at the time, these forms of medical transition were unlikely to be common.

Transitioning without medicine

To transition without medicine, medieval transgender people relied on changes they could make themselves. They cut their hair, put on different clothes, changed their names, and found new places in society.

In 1388, a young woman named Catherine in Rottweil, Germany, “put on men’s clothes, declared herself to be a man, and called herself John.” John went on to marry a woman and later developed breasts. This caused some initial consternation – the city council of Rottweil sent John and his wife to court. However, the court did not see breasts as inhibiting John’s masculinity and the couple went home without facing any charges.

In 1395, a transgender woman named Eleanor Rykener appeared before a court in London, England, after she was caught working as a prostitute. The court clerk wrote “that a certain Anna … first taught [her] to practice this detestable vice in the manner of a woman. [She] further said that a certain Elizabeth Bronderer first dressed [her] in women’s clothing” and later she took on work as an embroideress and tapster, a sort of bartender. The account is Rykener’s own, but the court clerk editorialized it, notably adding the phrase “detestable vice” in reference to prostitution.

Rykener’s account reveals that there were a number of people interested in helping her transition – people who helped her dress, taught her how to behave, provided her employment and supported her choice of a new name. Community was a more important part of her transition than transforming her body. Based on the record, she apparently did not make an effort to create breasts.

Another account appeared in 1355 in Venice, Italy, concerning Rolandina Ronchaia. While John declared himself male, and Rykener was very active in her transition, Ronchaia’s transition was spurred on by the perceptions of others. She argued that she had always had a “feminine face, voice and gestures,” and was often mistaken for a woman. She also had breasts, “in women’s fashion.” One night, a man came to have sex with her, and Ronchaia, “wishing to connect like a woman, hid [her] own penis and took the man’s penis.” After that, she moved to Venice, where, although she continued to wear men’s clothes, she was still perceived as a woman.

Ronchaia’s account is unique because it emphasizes her body and her desire to change it by hiding her penis. But this was still a matter of what she herself could do to express her gender, rather than a medical transition.

A long transgender history

The accounts of medieval transgender individuals are limited – not only in number but in length. A lot of things did not get written down, and people were not talking about transgender people the way we are now.

Historical accounts of transgender individuals are almost always in court records, which reflect the concerns of the court more clearly than the concerns of its subjects. The court was especially worried about sexual activity between men, which both overemphasizes the importance of sex in medieval transgender people’s lives and often obscures that these accounts are even about transgender people. Eleanor Ryekener’s account frequently misgenders her and refers to her as “John.”

But it’s clear that transgender people existed in the medieval period, even when medical care was unavailable to them.

It is also the case that many of these individuals – Rykener is a likely exception – were probably intersex, and their experience would be different from those who were not. Intersex people were legally recognized and allowed some leeway if they chose to transition as an adult. This is starkly apparent in an account from Lille, France, in 1458, where a transgender woman was accused of sodomy and burned at the stake. She claimed “to have both sexes,” but the account says this was not the case. While being demonstrably intersex may not have saved her, that she claimed she was is telling.

Gender transition has a long history, going even further back than the medieval period. Then as now, the local community played a vital role in aiding an individual’s transition. Unlike the medieval period, most modern societies have far greater access to medical care. Despite current restrictions, transgender people have far more options for transition than they once did.

Medieval modes of transitioning are not a solution to current denials of medical care. But medieval transgender lives do illuminate that transgender people will not vanish even when the legal and medical systems strive to erase them.

Sarah Barringer 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.

The U.S. Copyright Office recently allowed the registration of an AI-generated video with AI-generated music based on the editing of the AI-generated elements.

The work is titled “Film clip for song Just Like In A Movie (SNEAK PREVIEW)” by Andrew John King. King wrote the lyrics for the song, with the music AI-generated, and then apparently edited a video he AI-generated with the music.

Presumably, the editing of the video consists of King’s selecting, coordinating, or arranging the AI-generated music and video elements, along with King’s original lyrics. The copyright extends to that particular selection or arrangement, along with King’s lyrics, but, the AI-generated elements are excluded from copyright. In other words, the video is a selection and arrangement of (1) copyrightable elements (lyrics) and (2) unconpyrightable elements (AI-generated music and video elements), and the particular selection and arrangement is itself copyrightable.

This is the third such copyright registration of AI-generated works, but there may be others we still have to uncover. And we should expect many others will follow.

Related stories

Copyright Office registers artwork collage consisting of AI-generated elements

AI-generated image received copyright registration based on “selection, coordination, and arrangement.” Yes, in the United States. How?

Scholarship: Prompting Progress: Authorship in the Age of AI in Florida Law Review

Comment of Professor Edward Lee to Artificial Intelligence Study by The United States Copyright Office

Joseph Alexander said he had a “very good life” with his family until Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939.  He was only 17 years old the first time he was in a concentration camp. Alexander survived 12 camps, including Auschwitz and Dachau, and is the only survivor of his immediate family, which included his […]

University President Rhea Law, 75, announced on Monday she plans to step down from her role. Law, a USF alumna, said she will leave her position after a nationwide search is conducted and her replacement is chosen. She said she had been considering stepping down for “quite a while” in a press conference. There is […]

Many Americans have watched in horror as Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, has been permitted to tear through various offices of the United States government in recent weeks. Backed by President Donald Trump, and supported by a small team of true believers, he has successfully laid siege to America’s vast federal bureaucracy.

On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order giving Musk even more power. It requires federal agencies to cooperate with his “Department of Government Efficiency” (known as DOGE) in cutting their staffing levels and restricting new hires.

In his first comments to the media since joining the Trump administration as a “special” government employee, Musk also responded to criticism that he’s launching a “hostile takeover” of the US government.

The people voted for major government reform, and that’s what people are going to get.

Are Musk’s actions akin to a “hostile takeover” of government, or a coup? I argue it’s more a form of “state capture”. Here’s what that means.

Why it’s not a coup or self-coup

Under the pretence of maximising government efficiency and productivity, DOGE has amassed quite a bit of power. It has:

• penetrated the massive system responsible for virtually all government payments
• breached sensitive databases and private medical records
• circumvented routine conflict of interest and transparency requirements
• dismantled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
• gained access to the computer systems of a number of federal agencies.

Musk’s blitzkrieg across Washington – carried out in apparent violation of numerous federal laws – has not only stirred confusion, but defied explanation.

A popular argument, supported by some historians and commentators, is that Musk’s actions amount to a coup. They argue this is not a coup in the classic sense of a takeover of the physical centres of power. Rather, it’s a seizure of digital infrastructure by an unelected group seeking to undo democratic practices and violate human rights.

This term, however, is not technically correct. The most widely accepted definition of a coup is:

an overt attempt by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting head of state using unconstitutional means.

Since Musk and Trump are bedfellows in this plot, the tech billionaire is clearly not trying to violently unseat the president.

Another possible explanation: this is a self-coup. This describes a situation in which

the sitting national leader takes decisive illegitimate action against countervailing institutions and elites to perpetuate the incumbent’s power.

In December, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol attempted a self-coup when he declared martial law in order to ostensibly protect the country from opposition forces. He quickly reversed his decision amid elite defections and mass public demonstrations.

Though self-coups are becoming more common, Musk is doing the dirty work in the US – not Trump. Also, Musk’s chief target – the bureaucracy – does not nominally offset presidential power (except in conspiracy theories).

What is ‘state capture’?

More accurately, Musk’s siege amounts to a form of “state capture”. This refers to:

the appropriation of state resources by political actors for their own ends: either private or political.

By this logic, Musk’s aim could be to capture different pieces of the US government and turn the state into a tool for wealth extraction.

State capture is a relatively simple but extremely destructive process. This is how it has played out in countries like Indonesia, Hungary, Nigeria, Russia, Sri Lanka and South Africa (Musk’s birthplace):

First, political and corporate elites gain control of formal institutions, information systems and bureaucratic policy-making processes.

Then, they use this power to apply rules selectively, make biased decisions and allocate resources based on private interests (rather than the public good).

In captured states, strongman leaders often use economic policy and regulatory decisions to reward their political friends. For instance, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Russian President Vladimir Putin and former South African President Jacob Zuma have helped their allies by:

• making government anti-trust decisions
• issuing permits and licenses
• awarding government contracts and concessions
• waiving regulations or tariffs
• conferring tax exempt status.

State capture is fundamentally a predatory process.

By taking over how the American government does business, Musk could be seeking to enrich a small but powerful network of allies.

The first beneficiary would be Trump, who is no stranger to using his office to expand his family’s business empire. With a more fully captured state, Trump can take an active role in determining how public wealth is dispersed among corporate and political elites. This decision-making power often goes hand-in-hand with “personalist” regimes, in which everything is a transaction with the leader.

The second beneficiary would be Musk himself and other Silicon Valley mega-billionaires who have bent a knee to Trump. By positioning their tech companies as the solution to what allegedly ails the federal government, particularly when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence, they stand to secure lucrative contracts handed out by the “new” state.

The third beneficiary would be the small army of engineers and technicians working with Musk to upend the American government. As loyal foot soldiers, these individuals will be compensated with career advancement, financial gains and networking opportunities, while also enjoying legal impunity. This kind of quid pro quo is how authoritarian regimes work.

What this could mean for the US

As Musk continues his assault on the federal bureaucracy, the American people will suffer the consequences.

The most immediate impact of state capture: worse decisions are made. By purging experienced civil servants, cancelling government contracts and accessing sensitive information systems, Musk’s actions will likely degrade the standard of living at home and endanger American lives abroad.

State capture also means there would be less accountability for the Trump administration’s public policy decisions. With a lack of congressional and independent oversight, key decisions over the distribution of economic benefits could be made informally behind closed doors.

Finally, state capture is inseparable from corruption. Doing business with the US federal government could soon require one to pass a loyalty test rather than a public interest test.

Trump’s enemies will encounter more hurdles, while his allies will have a seat at the table.

Lee Morgenbesser receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP220103214). He is also a member of the Australian Labor Party.

Biomedical research in the U.S. is world-class in part because of a long-standing partnership between universities and the federal government.

On Feb. 7, 2025, the U.S. National Institutes of Health issued a policy that could weaken the position of the United States as a global leader in scientific innovation by slashing funds to the infrastructure that allows universities and other institutions to conduct research in the first place.

Universities across the nation carry out research on behalf of the federal government. Central to this partnership is federal grant funding, which is awarded through a rigorous review process. These grants are the lifeblood of biomedical research in the U.S.

When you think of the costs of scientific research, you might picture the people who conduct the research, and the materials and lab equipment they use. But these don’t encompass all the essential components of research. Every scientific and medical breakthrough also depends on laboratory facilities; heating, air conditioning, ventilation and electricity; and personnel to ensure research is conducted securely and in accordance with federal regulations.

These critical indirect costs of research are both substantial and unavoidable, not least because it can be very expensive to build, maintain and equip space to conduct research at the frontiers of knowledge. The NIH stated that it spent more than US$35 billion on grants in the 2023 fiscal year, which went to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools and other kinds of research institutions across the nation. Approximately $9 billion of this funding was allocated to indirect costs.

NIH grants have supported the direct costs of my own scientific research on developing treatments for conditions ranging from cancer to eye diseases. I would be unable to carry out my research without the support of the indirect costs the NIH plans to cut.

What are indirect costs?

Indirect costs, also known as facilities and administration costs, or overhead, are funds provided to institutions to cover expenses that are not directly tied to specific research projects but are essential for their execution. Unlike direct costs, which cover salaries, supplies and experiments, indirect costs support the overall research environment, ensuring that scientists have the necessary resources to conduct their work effectively.

Indirect costs include maintaining optimal laboratory spaces, specialized facilities providing services like imaging and gene analysis, high-speed computing, research security, patient and personnel safety, hazardous waste disposal, utilities, equipment maintenance, administrative support, regulatory compliance, information technology services, and maintenance staff to clean and supply labs and facilities.

Research institutions that receive federal grants must comply with the rules and regulations established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. These guidelines dictate the indirect cost rates of each institution.

Institutions submit proposals to federal agencies that outline the costs associated with maintaining research infrastructure. The cost allocation division of the Department of Health and Human Services reviews these proposals to ensure compliance with federal policies.

Indirect rates can range from 15% to 70%, with the specific level depending on the research and infrastructure needs of an institution.

Typically, institutions undergo an exacting process to renegotiate their indirect rates every four years, factoring in components such as general, departmental and program administration, building and equipment depreciation, interest, operations and maintenance, and library expenses. Universities need to carefully justify these cost components to ensure the sustainability of research infrastructure and compliance with federal requirements.

Notably, indirect costs from grants do not cover the full cost of carrying out research at universities. In 2023, colleges and universities contributed approximately $27 billion of their own funding, such as money from their endowments, to support research. This included $6.8 billion in indirect costs that the federal government did not reimburse.

Slashing vital research funding

In its February announcement, the National Institutes of Health declared that it would no longer determine indirect costs rates based on the needs of each institution. Instead, it would issue a standard indirect cost rate of 15% across all grants. The rationale given by the agency for the cap is to “ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”

It notably comes after the Trump administration and Elon Musk have sought to slash federal spending, with Musk criticizing indirect cost rates as “a ripoff.”

A standard 15% rate would significantly affect an institution’s ability to maintain its research infrastructure. For example, if a university had a 50% indirect cost rate in 2024, it would receive $150,000 for a $100,000 grant, with $50,000 allocated to indirect costs. With the new NIH cap, this would drop to $115,000, with only $15,000 for indirect costs.

The scale of this cut in research support becomes apparent at the state level, with harms to both red and blue states. For example, Texas institutions would face a reduction of over $310 million, and institutions in Iowa a reduction of nearly $37 million. California would lose more than $800 million, and Washington over $178 million.

The NIH compared the new 15% cap to the indirect cost rates that foundations typically set for institutions of higher education. It pointed to the 10% rate granted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Smith Richardson Foundation, the 12% rate of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the 15% rate of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, John Templeton Foundation, Packard Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation.

However, many researchers and funders have criticized this claim as misleading. A spokesperson for the Gates Foundation has previously stated that the listed rate does not reflect how the organization allocates its funds. Universities have pointed out that they often accept foundation grants with low or zero overhead rates because these grants constitute a relatively small portion of their funding and are often spent on early-stage faculty whose careers need additional support.

In addition, it is only because NIH grants cover a significant portion of their overhead costs that research institutions are able to accept foundation grants with such low indirect rates.

Biomedical researchers respond

Scientists and researchers responded to the NIH announcement with deep concern about the negative effects these funding cuts would have on biomedical research in the United States.

The Council on Governmental Relations, which monitors federal policy for major universities and medical research centers, stated that “America’s competitors will relish this self-inflicted wound,” urging the NIH to “rescind this dangerous policy before its harms are felt by Americans.”

The president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges stated that the NIH policy would “diminish the nation’s research capacity, slowing scientific progress and depriving patients, families, and communities across the country of new treatments, diagnostics and preventative interventions.”

Research institutions, scientific societies, advocacy groups and lawmakers from both major political parties have pushed back against the 15% cap on indirect costs, urging NIH leadership to reconsider its policy.

Soon after the attorneys general of 22 states filed lawsuits challenging the policy, a federal judge issued a temporary pause in those states until lifted by the court.

Scientists expect the long-term effects of these funding cuts to significantly damage U.S. biomedical research. As the debate over federal support to academic research institutions unfolds, how institutions adapt and whether the NIH reconsiders its approach will determine the future of scientific research in the United States.

Aliasger K. Salem receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He serves on the Executive Board of the American Association for Pharmaceutical Scientists.

State governments, community groups, advocacy nonprofits and regular Americans have filed a large and growing number of federal lawsuits opposing President Donald Trump’s barrage of executive orders and policy statements. Some of his actions have been put on hold by the federal courts, at least temporarily.

As a scholar of the federal courts, however, I expect the courts will be of limited help in navigating through this complicated new political landscape.

One problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has moved sharply to the right and has approved of past efforts to expand the powers of the presidency. But the problem with relying on the courts for help goes beyond ideology and right-leaning justices going along with a right-leaning president, as happened in Trump’s first term.

One challenge is speed: The Trump administration is moving much faster than courts do, or even can. The other is authority: The courts’ ability to compel government action is limited, and also slow.

And that doesn’t even factor in statements by Trump, Vice President JD Vance and “special government employee” multibillionaire Elon Musk. All three have indicated that they are open to ignoring court rulings and have even threatened to seek the impeachment of judges who rule in ways they don’t like.

Speed

Musk has been put in charge of White House efforts to cut government services, both in spending amount and reach.

Constitutional law is clear: The executive branch cannot, on its own, close or shut down a federal agency that has been established by Congress. That is Congress’ job. But Trump and Musk are trying to do so anyway, including declaring that the congressionally established U.S. Agency for International Development will be shut down and turning employees away from the agency’s offices in Washington, D.C.

The administration’s strategy, it seems, is the longstanding tech-company mantra: “move fast and break things.” The U.S. courts do not – and by design cannot – move equally quickly.

It can take years for a case to wind its way through the lower courts to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. This is by design.

Courts are deliberative in nature. They take into account multiple factors and can engage in multiple rounds of deliberation and fact-finding before reaching a final ruling. At every stage, lawyers on both sides are given time to make their cases. Even when a case does get to the Supreme Court – as many of these lawsuits likely will – it can take months to be fully resolved.

By contrast, Trump’s and Musk’s actions are happening in a matter of days. By the time a court finally resolves an issue that happened in late January or early February 2025, the situation may have changed substantially.

For an example, consider the effort to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development. In the space of a week, the Trump administration put most of USAID’s workers on administrative leave and halted USAID’s overseas medical trials, which included pausing potentially lifesaving treatments.

As of this writing, a district judge has temporarily blocked the order putting USAID workers on leave. But even if the courts ultimately conclude several months from now that the Trump administration’s actions regarding USAID were unlawful, it might be impossible to reconstitute the agency the way it used to be.

For instance, many workers may have been demoralized and sought other employment. New personnel would have to be recruited and trained to replace them. Contracts that were terminated or invalidated or expired would have to be renegotiated. And the countries and communities that had received help from USAID might be less committed to the renewed programs, because of concerns services could be cut off again.

Breadth

When Republicans disagreed with any of Joe Biden’s executive actions – for example, his student debt forgiveness plan – they went to federal court to obtain nationwide injunctions stopping the implementation of the plan.

But injunctions will not be as helpful given Trump’s recent playbook. A court blocking one order isn’t enough to stop the administration from trying different tactics. In 2017, courts blocked the first two versions of Trump’s ban on travel to the U.S. from majority-Muslim countries – but ultimately allowed a third version to take effect. And if an attack on one agency is blocked, the administration can try similar – or different – tactics against other agencies.

The strategy of moving fast and breaking things is successful if the other side – or even the process of repair – can’t keep up with all the different strategies. Courts can be part of the strategy to preserve the Constitution, but they cannot be its only defenders.

Authority

Researchers have argued that court-issued injunctions mostly work to stop the government from doing something, not to compel the government into doing something. Judges are already expressing concern that the Trump administration may fail to comply with orders to stop funding freezes.

For instance, a federal district judge in Massachusetts has ordered the government not only to refrain from implementing changes to federal research grant funding but to provide evidence to the court that it was complying with the court’s order, immediately and every two weeks until the case is decided.

Another federal judge has already found the administration failed to abide by a court order – but so far has not imposed any consequences on Trump, the administration or other officials.

It’s unclear whether Trump would obey Supreme Court rulings against him, either. On the campaign trail, Trump’s running mate JD Vance said, “When the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.’” He also recently remarked that “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” hinting at strong opposition to rulings the administration disagrees with.

All this doesn’t mean the courts are useless, nor that people shouldn’t sue to challenge actions they deem illegal or unconstitutional. The courts – and the Supreme Court in particular – exist in part to arbitrate power disputes between Congress and the presidency. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in his landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

But the courts alone will not be sufficient. The courts are like an antibiotic on a cut, helping healing and staving off further infection. They cannot keep a grievously wounded patient alive. For this, a robust political strategy is necessary. It is in all Americans’ hands collectively to make sure that the constitutional structure is not just enforced, but also sustained.

Maya Sen 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.

Immigration enforcement officers will be allowed in schools after a federal policy preventing that was rescinded, raising concerns about student well-being. USF has yet to determine how it will respond. USF spokesperson Althea Johnson said the university is monitoring and assessing the “potential impacts” of updates and executive orders at the federal level. The university […]

When a hurricane or tornado starts to form, your local weather forecasters can quickly pull up maps tracking its movement and showing where it’s headed. But have you ever wondered where they get all that information?

The forecasts can seem effortless, but behind the scenes, a vast network of satellites, airplanes, radar, computer models and weather analysts are providing access to the latest data – and warnings when necessary. This data comes from analysts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, known as NOAA, and its National Weather Service.

Atmospheric scientists Christine Wiedinmyer and Kari Bowen, who is a former National Weather Service forecaster, explained NOAA’s central role in most U.S. weather forecasts.

When people see a weather report on TV, what went on at NOAA to make that forecast possible?

A lot of the weather information Americans rely on starts with real-time data collected by NOAA satellites, airplanes, weather balloons, radar and maritime buoys, as well as weather stations around the world.

All of that information goes into the agency’s computers, which process the data to begin defining what’s going on in different parts of the atmosphere.

NOAA forecasters use computer models that simulate physics and the behavior of the atmosphere, along with their own experience and local knowledge, to start to paint a picture of the weather – what’s coming in a few minutes or hours or days. They also use that data to project seasonal conditions out over weeks or months.

When severe weather is on the way, the agency issues the official alerts you’ll see in the news and on your phone.

All of this analysis happens before the information reaches private weather apps and TV stations.

No matter who you are, you can freely access that data and the analyses. In fact, a large number of private companies use NOAA data to create fancy maps and other weather products that they sell.

It would be extremely difficult to do all of that without NOAA.

The agency operates a fleet of 18 satellites that are packed with instruments dedicated to observing weather phenomena essential to predicting the weather, from how hot the land surface is to the water content of the atmosphere. Some are geostationary satellites which sit high above different parts of the U.S. measuring weather conditions 24/7. Others orbit the planet. Many of these are operated as part of partnerships with NASA or the Air Force.

Some private companies are starting to invest in satellites, but it would take an enormous amount of money to replicate the range of instrumentation and coverage that NOAA has in place. Satellites only last so long and take time to build, so NOAA is continually planning for the future, and using its technical expertise to develop new instruments and computer algorithms to interpret the data.

Maritime buoys are another measuring system that would be difficult to replicate. Over 1,300 buoys across oceans around the world measure water temperature, wind and wave height – all of which are essential for coastal warnings, as well as long-term forecasts.

Weather observation has been around a long time. President Ulysses S. Grant created the first national weather service in the War Department in 1870. It became a civilian service in 1880 under the Department of Agriculture and is now in the Commerce Department. The information its scientists and technologists produce is essential for safety and also benefits people and industries in a lot of ways.

Could a private company create forecasts on its own without NOAA data?

It would be difficult for one company to provide comprehensive weather data in a reliable way that is also accessible to the entire public.

Some companies might be able to launch their own satellite, but one satellite only gives you part of the picture. NOAA’s weather observation network has been around for a long time and collects data from points all over the U.S. and the oceans. Without that robust data, computer models and the broad network of forecasters and developers, forecasting also becomes less reliable.

Analyzing that data is also complex. You’re not going to be able to take satellite data, run a model on a standard laptop and suddenly have a forecast.

And there’s a question of whether a private company would want to take on the legal risk of being responsible for the nation’s forecasts and severe weather warnings.

NOAA is taxpayer-funded, so it is a public good – its services provide safety and security for everyone, not just those who can pay for it.

If weather data was only available at a price, one town might be able to afford the weather information necessary to protect its residents, while a smaller town or a rural area across the state might not. If you’re in a tornado-prone area or coastal zone, that information can be the difference between life or death.

Is climate data and research into the changing climate important for forecasts?

The Earth’s systems – its land, water and the atmosphere – are changing, and we have to be able to assess how those changes will impact weather tomorrow, in two weeks and far into the future.

Rising global temperatures affect weather patterns. Dryness can fuel wildfires. Forecasts have to take the changing climate into account to be accurate, no matter who is creating the forecast.

Drought is an example. The dryness of the Earth controls how much water gets exchanged with the atmosphere to form clouds and rainfall. To have an accurate weather prediction, we need to know how dry things are at the surface and how that has changed over time. That requires long-term climate information.

NOAA doesn’t do all of this by itself – who else is involved?

NOAA partners with private sector, academia, nonprofits and many others around the world to ensure that everyone has the best information to produce the most robust weather forecasts. Private weather companies and media also play important roles in getting those forecasts and alerts out more widely to the public.

A lot of businesses rely on accuracy from NOAA’s weather data and forecasts: aviation, energy companies, insurance, even modern tractors’ precision farming equipment. The agency’s long-range forecasts are essential for managing state reservoirs to ensure enough water is saved and to avoid flooding.

The government agency can be held accountable in a way private businesses are not because it answers to Congress. So, the data is trustworthy, accessible and developed with the goal to protect public safety and property for everyone. Could the same be said if only for-profit companies were producing that data?

Christine Wiedinmyer is the CIRES Associate Director for Science. CIRES is a CU Boulder research institute that has a cooperative agreement (grant) with NOAA called the Cooperative Institute for Earth Systems Research and Data Science, CIESRDS. Wiedinmyer's funding is primarily from NOAA, which supports more than 400 CIRES CU Boulder employees.

Kari Bowen is the Science and Administration Manager. CIRES is a CU Boulder research institute with a cooperative agreement (grant) with NOAA called the Cooperative Institute for Earth Systems Research and Data Science, CIESRDS. Bowen's funding is from NOAA, which supports more than 400 CIRES CU Boulder employees.

I teach a course on the relationship between social media and society at Durham College. As part of their assessments, I ask my students to reflect on their social media use.

A recurring theme is that they cannot be separated from their smartphones. Many admit to spending significant time daily on social media watching short videos without a clear purpose and as a way to procrastinate on more productive activities.

There is a term for this kind of behaviour and its impact on mental health, one that was recently named Oxford Word of the Year 2024: “brain rot” — the deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially as the result of over-consuming trivial or unchallenging online content.

For many adults, a diffuse addiction to the internet, or what clinical psychologists call digital drugs (like online shopping, gaming, gambling, pornography), has become a widespread problem, especially since the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic.

When social media platforms emerged at the beginning of this century, they were welcomed for their potential to empower individuals, facilitate storytelling and connect communities.

While they do enable these possibilities, they also pose significant challenges to our relationship with truth and trust — two pillars of a functioning democracy. By spreading misinformation and creating echo chambers that polarize communities, social media platforms have become a ground for the rise of “hate and extremism.”

As a sociologist, I study pop culture. My colleagues and I at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) and the University of Ottawa recently published a report on how cultural and identity narratives are evolving amid fast-developing digital technologies.

Shortened attention spans

Among younger generations in the United States, the average daily consumption is more than five hours on screens and 237 notifications — about one notification every four minutes.

In a culture of constant connectivity, many young people are navigating a digital world of idealized images, from beauty influencers who subject them to unrealistic comparisons that often lead to feelings of inadequacy and diminished self-worth to an online bro culture that purveys a toxic form of masculinity as a path to success.

For cultural theorist Byung-Chul Han, this is a sign of the decline in storytelling. Modern readers have lost the ability to engage deeply with narratives. The “long, slow, lingering gaze” that allows for daydreaming and true distraction has been replaced by a hyper-focused engagement with constant streams of information. As a result, narration is in crisis.

Recently, a team of researchers at TMU who study workplaces from the perspective of young workers created a two-minute-and-40-second video to engage students on the topic of what young workers want from their work.

Students couldn’t follow the entire video and felt it was too long. As a result, the team had to edit it into a series of much shorter clips — some as brief as 16 seconds — so they could capture the attention of their audience. Should this come as a surprise?

Modern media and technology constantly remind us to preserve our memory and protect our history. However, memory is paradoxical in that it involves forgetting and absence with every act of remembrance.

Online platforms, with their ephemeral content, risk contributing to a cultural memory loss since so much of what’s shared on these platforms is transitory and geared toward superficial engagement rather than meaningful cultural expression.

When brains rot, truth fades

In his memoir, American writer and naturalist Henry David Thoreau lamented society’s declining capacity for deep thought and intellectual effort, favouring instead simple and superficial thinking.

In 1854, he wrote in his book Walden:

“While England endeavors to cure the potato-rot, will not any endeavor to cure the brain-rot, which prevails so much more widely and fatally?”

Thoreau may have seen a future where the U.S. would be led by a president who not only lacks the capacity for deep thought and self-reflection but also disregards historical facts and moral values.

Despite his reputation as a pathological liar, Donald Trump exemplifies what philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined as a bullshitter — a person who does not mislead in the way a liar does, by deliberately making false claims about reality, but rather by speaking without any regard for truth at all.

Bullshitters shift the rules of conversation by making questions of truth and falsehood irrelevant. Lies and the truth simply become tools that can be used to tell their story — regardless of the facts.

---

Read more: Bullshit is everywhere. Here's how to deal with it at work

---

The bigger picture

Georg Simmel was one of the first social scientists who expressed concern about the impact of modern life on mental health. In 1903, writing about Berlin, he described blasé attitude as a psychological condition that arises when the brain is subjected to an overwhelming number of stimuli. To cope, it develops a defense mechanism: becoming indifferent to its surroundings.

One century later, when our online feeds are flooded with endless digital content, it is uncanny to revisit Simmel’s observation. We must move beyond traditional diagnostic digital literacy and competency frameworks. The problem lies not only in the technology itself, but in the broader socio-economic system in which it operates — a consumer-capitalist-digital complex that is eroding our brains and cultures.

Humans have always been fascinated by stories. We need them to understand ourselves. However, social media’s profit-driven algorithms homogenize experiences and ultimately undermine cultural diversity. We have become storysellers instead of storytellers.

Masoud Kianpour has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Hating democrats is one thing, but making education a battlefield for culture-war nonsense is another. Donald Trump is doing just this: “I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” he vowed at […]

Undocumented immigration is a key issue in American politics, but it can be hard to nail down the basic facts about who these immigrants are, where they live and how their numbers have changed in the past few decades.

I study the demographics of the U.S. immigrant population and have seen how the data has changed over time. Here are some basics to set the stage as President Donald Trump begins his second term in office vowing to crack down hard on immigrants, including by conducting mass deportations.

Immigration status

My analysis of the Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey data, in collaboration with the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan nonprofit immigration research group, finds that as of the middle of 2023, approximately 51 million foreign-born people lived in the United States.

Most immigrants are in the U.S. legally. About 49% have become U.S. citizens by a process known as naturalization. Another 19% hold lawful permanent resident status and are eligible to become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Still another 5% are in the country on temporary visas, like those for international students, diplomats and their families, and seasonal or temporary workers.

The remaining 27% – around 13.7 million people – are outside those categories and therefore generally considered to be undocumented.

My analysis shows that the number of undocumented immigrants held steady at around 11 million between 2007 and 2019. In the next four years, the numbers increased by nearly 3 million. This recent growth is mostly attributable to large increases in border crossings by migrants from Central and South America who were seeking asylum or other forms of humanitarian relief. Starting in June 2024, however, the number of people entering across the U.S.-Mexico border fell back to normal levels when the Biden administration implemented the Secure the Border rule, which suspends asylum applications at the border when crossings reach a seven-day average of 2,500.

These changes were accompanied by changes in the undocumented migration process itself. In the past, undocumented immigrants often entered the country by slipping undetected across the U.S. border with Mexico. But increased border enforcement made the journey more dangerous and expensive.

Instead of paying smugglers or risking their lives in the desert, growing numbers of undocumented immigrants now either directly approach immigration officials at airports or land-border crossings and seek asylum in the U.S. Others are initially admitted to the country legally on a temporary tourist, student or work visa – but then overstay the time period for which they have permission.

Additionally, growing numbers of undocumented immigrants occupy what might be called a “liminal” or “in-between” status. The Migration Policy Institute analysis estimates this encompasses a range of groups as of the middle of 2023, including:

• About 2.1 million people awaiting a decision on their asylum claims.
• 521,000 parolees, allowed into the U.S. for humanitarian or national security reasons, like those paroled recently from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
• 654,000 people who hold temporary protected status because it would be unsafe for them to return home due to armed conflict, natural disasters and other emergencies.
• 562,000 who are protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program because they were brought to the United States as children by their parents.

The report estimates that just over one-quarter of undocumented immigrants currently occupy this type of “in-between” status. These immigrants are protected from deportation. Some even have a legal right to work in the U.S. Yet they do not possess a durable legal immigration status, and their rights could be threatened by policy changes.

While Trump says he wants to deport as many as 11 million immigrants, analyses published by The New York Times and The Washington Post indicate that it may be difficult to remove many of them under existing U.S. law. The one group that is easy to remove – those with a criminal record – is relatively small, numbering about 650,000.

Shifting countries of origin

Since 1980, Mexicans have been the largest single national origin group in the United States. I found that 10.9 million Mexican-born individuals were living in the country in 2023, making up 23% of all immigrants. The second-largest group, immigrants from India, numbered just 2.9 million, or 6% of all immigrants living in the U.S.

However, immigrants’ origins have been shifting away from Mexico.

With the onset of the Great Recession of 2007-2009, work opportunities in U.S. construction and manufacturing evaporated. Many Mexican laborers had been working in construction at the time but went back to Mexico when the U.S. housing market collapsed.

At that same time, Mexico’s economic conditions improved, its population growth slowed, and many would-be migrants opted to stay home. For the first time in decades, from 2007 to 2022 the number of Mexicans who returned home exceeded the number coming to the United States.

This trend was especially pronounced among undocumented immigrants. I found that Mexicans made up about 51% of the undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country 10 or more years ago. Central Americans made up 20%, and the remaining originated from other regions.

However, undocumented migrants now come from across the globe. Among undocumented immigrants who arrived within the past 10 years, 19% came from Mexico. Larger shares came from Central America and South America. While some of these new migrants seek work, others flee crime, economic and ecological disasters, and political persecution in their home countries.

Duration of residence

Most immigrants, whether they are in the U.S. legally or illegally, have lived in the United States for many years. Just under half of foreign-born individuals have lived in the country for two decades or more, and more than two-thirds have lived in the country for at least 10 years. Only 20% arrived within the past five years.

This is a dramatic change from the early 2000s, when less than 10% of immigrants had been in the U.S. for more than two decades, and more than one-third had arrived within the previous five years.

That means many of the people who are likely to be targeted for deportation in the coming months are settled, long-term members of American society.

Place of residence

As of 2023, 6.6 million immigrants reported on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey that they moved to the United States in the past five years.

However, the effects of these new immigrants on American communities has been uneven. Although most communities are more racially and ethnically diverse now than in the past, the numbers of newly arrived immigrants are relatively low in most places.

Fifteen states host fewer than 20,000 immigrants, and 33 states are home to fewer than 100,000. In contrast, over half of new arrivals live in just five states: California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas are the home of over half of new arrivals yet have only 37% of the U.S. population. Other states such as Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington also are home to large and growing immigrant populations.

The U.S. immigrant population is changing rapidly. In the early years of the 21st century, Mexican immigrants dominated undocumented immigration flows to the United States. Decades later, many of these people continue to live in the country.

In the past four years, however, the flow of undocumented people increased dramatically. These new arrivals tend to come from troubled nations in Central and South America, many of whom are protected from deportation and have a legal right to work in the U.S. Altogether, most undocumented immigrants either have lived in the country for decades or have legal protections.

Neither of these groups fit the profile of undocumented immigrants who are typically targeted for deportation.

Jennifer Van Hook receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. She is a nonresident fellow of the Migration Policy Institute.

Heatwaves are among the world’s deadliest weather hazards. Every year, vast numbers of people are killed by heat stress and it can worsen health problems such as diabetes, asthma and heart disease.

Unfortunately, the bitumen roads, brick and concrete structures and roofing tiles in cities can absorb and retain vast amounts of heat, much of which is released after the sun has set. This creates what’s known as the urban heat island effect. In fact, temperatures can be significantly higher in cities than in surrounding or rural areas.

Trees and greenspace can drive down urban temperatures – but they must be able to draw water from the soil to achieve these massive cooling effects.

In other words, it can sometimes be helpful to water your trees during a heatwave.

How trees keep us cool (and no, it’s not just about shade)

Trees reduce urban temperatures in two significant ways. One is by the shade they provides and the other is through their cooling effect – and no, they’re not the same thing.

Water is taken up via a plant’s roots, moves through the stems or trunks and is then misted into the air from the leaves through little holes called stomata. This is called transpiration, and it helps cool the air around leaves.

Water can also evaporate from soil and other surfaces. The combined loss of water from plants and soil is called evapotranspiration.

The cooling effects of evapotranspiration vary but are up to 4°C, depending on other environmental factors.

Watering your trees

If heatwaves occur in generally hot, dry weather, then trees will provide shade – but some may struggle with transpiration if the soil is too dry.

This can reduce the cooling effect of trees. Keeping soil moist and plants irrigated, however, can change that.

The best time to irrigate is early in the morning, as the water is less likely to evaporate quickly before transpiration can occur.

You don’t need to do a deep water; most absorbing roots are close to the surface, so a bit of brief irrigation will often do the trick. You could also recycle water from your shower. Using mulch helps trap the water in the soil, giving the roots time to absorb it before it evaporates.

All transpiring plants have a cooling effect on the air surrounding them, so you might wonder if trees have anything special to offer in terms of the urban heat island effect and heatwaves.

Their great size means that they provide much larger areas of shade than other plants and if they are transpiring then there are greater cooling effects.

The surface area of tree leaves, which is crucial to the evaporative cooling that takes place on their surfaces, is also much greater than many other plants.

Another advantage is that trees can be very long lived. They provide shade, cooling and other benefits over a very long time and at relatively low cost.

Not all trees

All that said, I don’t want to overstate the role of urban trees in heatwaves when soils are dry.

Some trees cease transpiring early as soils dry, but others will persist until they wilt.

Careful tree selection can help maximise the cooling effects of the urban forest. Trees that suit the local soil and can cope with some drying while maintaining transpiration can provide greater cooling

And, of course, it is important to follow any water restriction rules or guidelines that may be operating in your area at the time.

Trees keep us cool

Despite the clear benefits trees can provide in curbing heat, tree numbers and canopy cover are declining annually in many Australian cities and towns.

Housing development still occurs without proper consideration of how trees and greenspace improve residents’ quality of life.

It is not an either/or argument. With proper planning, you can have both new housing and good tree canopy cover.

We should also be cautious of over-pruning urban trees.

Trees cannot eliminate the effects of a heatwave but can mitigate some of them.

Anything that we can do to mitigate the urban heat island effect and keep our cities and towns cooler will reduce heat-related illness and associated medical costs.

Gregory Moore is affiliated with Make Victoria Greener, which campaigns to preserve trees in Victoria.

U.S. foreign aid is in disarray.

The Trump administration froze most aid disbursements on Jan. 20. According to billionaire Elon Musk, an adviser to President Donald Trump with “special government employee status,” the U.S. Agency for International Development, widely known as USAID, had been shut down as of Feb. 3, 2025.

Although the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to do this, hundreds of people on the agency’s staff have been put on unpaid leave or fired, according to news reports.

And the agency’s official website wasn’t working. A partial replacement, however, had appeared within the State Department’s website.

I’m a scholar of public policy who researches nonprofits, which in the foreign aid sphere are often called nongovernmental organizations. These groups are responsible for carrying out many programs funded by foreign aid from governments such as the United States.

In light of the Trump administration’s attack on the government’s main foreign aid agency and the disruption of this funding, I believe it’s important to debunk three common myths:

1. The U.S. spends too much on foreign aid.
2. The U.S. spends more than its fair share on foreign aid compared with other countries.
3. Corrupt governments squander U.S. foreign aid.

What is foreign aid?

Foreign aid consists of money, goods and services – such as training – that government agencies provide to other countries. Foreign aid falls into two broad categories: economic assistance and military – sometimes called security – aid.

Economic assistance includes all programs with development or humanitarian objectives. That tends to include projects related to health, disaster relief, the promotion of civil society, agriculture and the like. Most U.S. economic aid dollars come from the State Department budget, including spending allocated by USAID, which has operated as an independent agency since the Kennedy administration.

On Feb. 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that he was serving as USAID’s acting director, indicating that the agency was no longer independent of the State Department.

While U.S. taxpayers have long spent just a few bucks each on foreign aid every year, the impact is profound, saving millions of people from hunger, averting the worst of natural disasters such as droughts and flooding, tackling life-threatening diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria, and more.

Myth No. 1: US spends too much on foreign aid

The United States consistently spends only about 1% of its budget on foreign aid, including military and economic support. The 2023 aid managed by USAID totaled about US$40 billion.

Americans tend to believe that their government spends a far bigger share of its budget on foreign aid than it does.

In a survey the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted in 2015, it found that, on average, Americans believed that foreign aid accounts for nearly one-third of the budget. Only 3% of those polled answered correctly that foreign aid constituted 1% or less of total federal spending.

Myth No. 2: US spends more than its fair share

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States is by far the leading national source of economic assistance dollars. In 2023, it contributed $64.7 billion in overseas development assistance, far outpacing the $37.9 billion spent by Germany, the second-biggest source of that kind of aid. Some of this assistance is managed by USAID, some by the Department of State, and a small portion by other government agencies, such as the Treasury and Health and Human Services departments.

That tells only part of the story, however. The United States spends very little on foreign aid relative to the size of its economy, particularly compared with other rich countries. The U.S. spent about 0.24% of its gross national income on overseas development assistance in 2023. By comparison, Norway, the top contributor by this metric, gave 1.09% of its gross national income in overseas development aid that year. The United States ranks toward the bottom of OECD countries, close to Portugal and Spain, by this measurement.

In 1970, the United Nations General Assembly agreed that “economically advanced countries” would aim to direct at least 0.7% of their national income to overseas development assistance. Although developed countries have repeatedly mentioned this target in agreements and at summits since then, very few countries have reached that goal. In 2023, only five countries met the 0.7% target.

The OECD average was just 0.37% in 2023 – far higher than the 0.24% the U.S. provided that year.

Myth No. 3: Corrupt governments squander US aid

You may think that foreign aid consists of government-to-government transfers of money. But governments channel most aid through nonprofits such as Catholic Relief Services, public-private partnerships, private companies such as Chemonics International and Deloitte, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank.

In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, between 2013 and 2022, most U.S. foreign assistance bypassed governments altogether: NGOs received 24% of the money, for-profit companies 21%, multilateral organizations 34%, and other organizations, such as universities, research institutes and faith-based organizations, 7%.

When the political scientist Simone Dietrich researched this question, she found that the United States outsources a lot of its foreign aid to NGOs. This is especially the case with the support it provides countries with bad governance and rampant corruption such as Sudan and Sri Lanka, which could be likely to squander or swipe those funds.

To be sure, corrupt governments sometimes do squander U.S. foreign aid. But it is important to understand that most aid never enters the coffers of those corrupt governments in the first place.

Even without Trump’s proposed cuts, US fails to lead

Even if Trump fails at his current bid to greatly reduce foreign aid spending, other countries, including the United Kingdom and Denmark, are spending far more on economic assistance for the world’s poorest people, as a share of their economies, than the U.S. does.

Slashing foreign aid would damage U.S. credibility with American allies, reduce U.S. influence around the globe and – as a group of more than 120 retired generals and admirals predicted when Trump tried to slash foreign aid in his first administration – make Americans less safe.

Parts of this article appeared in a story first published on April 6, 2017, and have been updated.

Joannie Tremblay-Boire 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.

Everyone who has taken a philosophy class knows how the tone of the classroom changes when that one kid chimes in with his “Well actually…” These instances are a misrepresentation of the full scope of philosophy because it is so much more than mansplaining in an intellectual ivory tower. College students are at a critical […]

From student loans to federal protections, the Department of Education is responsible for enforcing educational policies nationwide. President Donald Trump promised to eliminate the department during his campaign, but whether he will follow through with it and what this may look like for USF students remains unclear. Related: USF students share shock, relief over Trump’s […]