Leettaschmidt

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 […]

Illustrations after watercolours by Pauline Knip, who credited herself as the author of Dutch naturalist Coenraad Jacob Temminck’s study of columbids.

Each January 1st is Public Domain Day, when a new crop of works have their copyrights expire and become free to share and reuse for any purpose. Here's our highlights for 2025.

After a year of quiet labour, we are launching our new image-forward PDR sister-site!

Yes, it’s that time of year again! We’re gearing up for the latest edition of our annual public domain game jam, Gaming Like It’s 1929! We’ve been running these game jams ever since 2019, when new works began entering the public domain in the US for the first time in over two decades, as a way to highlight the creativity that comes from a robust and growing public domain. Starting on January 1st, 2025, we’ll be doing it again to celebrate works from 1929 that are finally losing their copyright protection after nearly a century.

As in past years, we’re calling on designers of all stripes to create both analog and digital games that build on works entering the public domain. There are plenty of interesting works to draw on, including:

• Written works by Agatha Christie, William Faulkner, Mahatma Gandhi, Dashiell Hammett, Ellery Queen, Virginia Woolf
• Art by Salvador Dalí, Edward Hopper, Frieda Kahlo, Tamara de Lempicka, René Magritte
• Films including Blackmail, The Cocoanuts, The Skeleton Dance, St. Louis Blues
• Music by Irving Berlin, Noël Coward, Duke Ellington, George Gershwin, Cole Porter,  Bessie Smith, Thomas “Fats” Waller
• Other characters including Buck Rogers, Popeye, and Tintin

And that list only scratches the surface – there are lots more 1929 works, from the famous to the obscure, and we even have a prize for the best game with an obscure and unexpected source of inspiration.

If you’re interested in games, the public domain, or both, we encourage you to get involved – whether or not you have any experience as a game designer. There are lots of great tools available that let anyone build a simple digital game, like interactive fiction engine Twine and the storytelling platform Story Synth from Randy Lubin, our game design partner and co-host of this jam (check out his guide to building a Story Synth game in an hour here on Techdirt). And an analog game can be as simple as a single page of rules. For inspiration, you can have a look at last year’s winners and our series of winner spotlight posts that take a look at each year’s winning entries in more detail.

The game jam will run through the month of January, 2025 and at the end we’ll be choosing winners in six categories, and awarding a choice of prizes from Techdirt and Diegetic Games. You can read the full rules and other details, and sign up to participate, on the game jam page over on Itch.io. Every year we’ve been blown away by the creativity on display from designers who enter the jam, and we know this year will be no different! See you in January, when Gaming Like It’s 1929 begins.

“I am definitely not following the news anymore,” one patient told me when I asked about her political news consumption in the weeks before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

This conversation happened around the time I talked with a local TV channel about why we saw fewer political yard signs during this year’s election season, compared with past ones.

I am a psychiatrist who studies and treats fear and anxiety. One of my main mental health recommendations to my patients during the 2016 and 2020 election cycles was to reduce their political news consumption. I also tried to convince them that the five hours a day they spent watching cable news was only leaving them helpless and terrified.

Over the past couple of years, though, I have noticed a change: Many of my patients say they either have tuned out or are too exhausted to do more than a brief read of political news or watch one hour of their favorite political show.

Research supports my clinical experience: A Pew research study from 2020 showed that 66% of Americans were worn out by political stress. Interestingly, those who are not following the news feel that same news fatigue at an even higher percentage of 73%. In 2023, 8 out of 10 Americans described U.S. politics with negative words like “divisive,” “corrupt,” “messy” and “polarized.”

In my view, three major factors have led Americans to exhaustion and burnout with U.S politics.

1. The politics of fear

In my 2023 book, “AFRAID: Understanding the Purpose of Fear, and Harnessing the Power of Anxiety,” I discuss how American politicians and major news media have found an ally in fear: a very strong emotion that can be used to grab our attention, keeping us in the tribal dividing lines and making us follow, click, tap, watch and donate.

Over the past few decades, many people have felt a strong push for tribalism, an “us vs. them” way of seeing the world, turning Americans against one another. This has led to a point where we are not just in disagreement with each other. We hate, cancel, block and attack those who disagree with us.

2. People live in information bubbles

It can feel like Fox News and MSNBC commentators are talking about Americas from two different planets. The same is true when it comes to different social media feeds.

Many people are part of social media communities that are closed to the world outside their homes and familiar social circles. Based on people’s political views and what they search for or watch and read, social media algorithms feed them content where everybody talks and thinks alike. If you hear about the other side, it is only about their worst attributes and behavior.

The disconnect is so wide that people are not even able to comprehend the thinking of those from other perspectives and find their logic or political beliefs unfathomable.

Many Americans have gotten to the point of believing that the other half of Americans are, at best, unintelligent and stupid; and at worst, immoral and evil.

3. People’s political opinions have become their identities

There was a time in American politics where two politicians or two neighbors could disagree, but still believe that the other person was fundamentally good.

Over time, and more so since the early 2000s, this ability to connect despite political beliefs has decreased.

The majority of both Democrats and Republicans said in a 2022 Pew Research survey that someone’s political ideas are an indicator of their morality and character.

This 2022 Pew survey also shows that partisan animosity extends to judgments about character: 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats said they believe members of the opposing party are more “immoral” than other Americans.

This is evident in day-to-day conversations of members of both political tribes: “How can I be friends with someone who wants to kill babies,” or “How can I talk to someone who is OK with women dying in a corner of a clinic parking lot”. We can no longer see someone’s political affiliation in the context of their humanity at large.

What psychology and neuroscience say

Fear as a deeply ingrained survival mechanism takes priority over other brain functions.

Fear guides your memories, feelings, attention and thoughts, and can cause you to keep watching, scrolling and reading to monitor this perceived threat. Positive or neutral news could then become uninteresting because it is not important in your survival response. That has been the key to a person’s deep engagement with the fear-based political news.

But too much fear does not keep someone engaged forever. That is because of another survival mechanism – what’s called “learned helplessness.”

In 1967, American psychologist Martin Seligman exposed two groups of dogs to painful shocks. Dogs in group 1 could stop the shock by pressing a lever, which they quickly learned to do. But the dogs in group 2 learned that they could not control when the shock starts and stops.

Then, both groups were placed in a box divided into two halves by a small barrier, and shock was applied to only one side of the box. Dogs in group 1 – who had learned how to stop the shocks in the earlier experiment – quickly learned to jump over the barrier to the shock-free side. But dogs in group 2 did not even attempt to do so. They had learned there is no point in trying.

This experiment has been replicated in different forms with other animals and humans with the same conclusion: When people feel they cannot control the painful or scary situation, they just give up. During such experiences, the brain’s fear region – called the amygdala – is hyperactive. Meanwhile, emotion-regulating brain areas like the prefrontal cortex decrease in activity under these circumstances.

Learned helplessness also means the brain mechanisms commonly involved in regulating anxiety and depression don’t function as well.

When working with patients who have suffered from long periods of intense anxiety, fear, trauma and exhaustion, I see learned helplessness showing up in the form of depression, loss of motivation, fatigue and lack of engagement with the world around them.

The COVID-19 pandemic, more than a decade of intense political stress, polarizing social media and wars across the world, as well as public disillusionment with U.S. politics and media, have led, I believe, to many people experiencing burnout and learned helplessness.

If you feel politically exhausted, you are not the problem. Feel free to tune out from the noise.

Arash Javanbakht 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.

Billionaires played an unprecedented role in the 2024 US elections, with 150 of the world’s wealthiest families contributing nearly US$2 billion (£1.57 billion) trying to influence the outcome. This included donations from the likes of Elon Musk (US$133 million for the Republicans) and Michael Bloomberg (US$45 million for the Democrats).

It was a big spend – but from their perspective, a very affordable one. The US$2 billion sum represents just 0.07% of their collective wealth.

Many of those donors were very open about their political spending. But it has also been claimed that some extremely wealthy people often engage in “stealth politics” in the US – seeking to influence policies that may conflict with the majority’s preferences, without attracting public attention.

Tactics might include covert lobbying and gaining private access to public officials, which largely go unnoticed. And even though it is hard to establish exactly how much political influence the elites really have, there is evidence which suggests that US government policy is disproportionately shaped by the preferences of the wealthy.

Ordinary citizens, meanwhile, exert minimal influence – yet effectively pay higher tax rates than the richest Americans.

So it is perhaps easy to see why some question the fundamental fairness of the country’s economic and political systems.

One option for change could be new legislation that focuses on areas like campaign funding and media regulation. This might create a greater separation between money and politics, which could in turn lead to greater equality in political influence. This separation is far clearer elsewhere, and may be one of the reasons why in other countries, the preferences of poorer people seem to affect government policy.

But the apparent political power afforded to billionaires has led some to propose bolder changes. Philosopher Ingrid Robeyns, for example, has made the case for “limitarianism”, which argues for a cap on individual wealth to safeguard democracy and curb inequality (among other goals).

A related idea links limitarianism to billionaires’ political influence, suggesting that the super-rich should face a stark choice. Either they should accept a 100% tax on wealth above a certain threshold, or forfeit certain political rights, such as party donations or standing for office.

These proposals face their own criticisms, including concerns that limiting wealth could negatively affect economic growth and innovation. But they still form part of an ongoing discussion about how to balance individual wealth accumulation with the needs of democratic systems and the principle of economic fairness.

Public opinion

But what do voters think?

One study suggests that most Americans favour higher taxes on the ultra-rich while hinting at widespread public misconceptions about the lives of many billionaires. When they learn more about how luxurious those lives really are, support for taxing the ultra-rich increases significantly.

So perhaps greater public awareness of the realities of extreme wealth would shift attitudes further in favour of policies geared to more distribution of the country’s wealth.

There also seems to be broad support for policies like President Biden’s billionaire minimum income tax, which seeks to impose a minimum 25% tax rate on billionaires’ income and their assets. California’s “extreme wealth tax”, a proposal for a new tax for those worth over US$50 million, also appears popular.

Beyond tax policy, one of our recent working papers explores public attitudes toward limiting billionaires’ wealth. Our findings indicate that many Americans – regardless of political affiliation, and even in a hypothetical situation where inequality is significantly reduced – support wealth caps.

Our study also suggests that people who support wealth caps are concerned about the effects of wealth concentration on economic, political and environmental systems.

That said, we do not expect such caps being part of the next US president’s plans. After all, Trump’s previous tax cuts were said to have overwhelmingly helped the richest.

But as the likes of Elon Musk become more openly involved in politics their influence is becoming more visible. And this increased visibility could attract more public scrutiny and even a backlash.

Then, ideas like wealth caps and higher top tax rates may gain traction as more Americans question the legitimacy of an economic system that allows a tiny elite to wield disproportionate power. And perhaps with their recent expensive interventions aimed at picking the next occupant of the White House, the ultra-wealthy may have inadvertently strengthened the case for sweeping reforms aimed at limiting their power and wealth.

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

Rains of blood and frogs, mysterious disappearances, baffling objects in the sky: these were the anomalies that fascinated Charles Fort in his Book of the Damned. “For every five people who read this book“, wrote one reviewer, “four will go insane”. Joshua Blu Buhs recounts Fort’s early life, unfinished manuscripts (“X”, “Y”), and the philosophical monism that informed his research.

Generative AI agents have the possibility to make us more productive, but once trained, who will own and control it?

The post Once It Has Been Trained, Who Will Own My Digital Twin? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a set of tax cuts Donald Trump signed into law during his first term as president, will expire on Dec. 31, 2024. As Trump and Republicans prepare to negotiate new tax cuts in 2025, it’s worth gleaning lessons from the president-elect’s first set of cuts.

The 2017 cuts were the most extensive revision to the Internal Revenue Code since the Ronald Reagan administration. The changes it imposed range from the tax that corporations pay on their foreign income to limits on the deductions individuals can take for their state and local tax payments.

Trump promised middle-class benefits at the time, but in practice more than 80% of the cuts went to corporations, tax partnerships and high-net-worth individuals. The cost to the U.S. deficit was huge − a total increase of US$1.9 trillion from 2018 to 2028, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The tax advantage to the middle class was small.

Advantages for Black Americans were smaller still. As a scholar of race and U.S. income taxation, I have analyzed the impact of Trump’s tax cuts. I found that the law has disadvantaged middle-income, low-income and Black taxpayers in several ways.

Cuts worsened disparities

These results are not new. They were present nearly 30 years ago when my colleague William Whitford and I used U.S. Census Bureau data to show that Black taxpayers paid more federal taxes than white taxpayers with the same income. In large part that’s because the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and structural racism keeps Black people from owning homes.

The federal income tax is full of advantages for home ownership that many Black taxpayers are unable to reach. These benefits include the ability to deduct home mortgage interest and local property taxes, and the right to avoid taxes on up to $500,000 of profit on the sale of a home.

It’s harder for middle-class Black people to get a mortgage than it is for low-income white people. This is true even when Black Americans with high credit scores are compared with white Americans with low credit scores.

When Black people do get mortgages, they are charged higher rates than their white counterparts.

Trump did not create these problems. But instead of closing these income and race disparities, his 2017 tax cuts made them worse.

Black taxpayers paid higher taxes than white taxpayers who matched them in income, employment, marriage and other significant factors.

Broken promises, broken trust

Fairness is an article of faith in American tax policy. A fair tax structure means that those earning similar incomes should pay similar taxes and stipulates that taxes should not increase income or wealth disparities.

Trump’s tax cuts contradict both principles.

Proponents of Trump’s cuts argued the corporate rate cut would trickle down to all Americans. This is a foundational belief of “supply side” economics, a philosophy that President Ronald Reagan made popular in the 1980s.

From the Reagan administration on, every tax cut for the rich has skewed to the wealthy.

Just like prior “trickle down” plans, Trump’s corporate tax cuts did not produce higher wages or increased household income. Instead, corporations used their extra cash to pay dividends to their shareholders and bonuses to their executives.

Over that same period, the bottom 90% of wage earners saw no gains in their real wages. Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO, a labor group, estimates that 51% of the corporate tax cuts went to business owners and 10% went to the top five highest-paid senior executives in each company. Fully 38% went to the top 10% of wage earners.

In other words, the income gap between wealthy Americans and everyone else has gotten much wider under Trump’s tax regime.

Stock market inequality

Trump’s tax cuts also increased income and wealth disparities by race because those corporate tax savings have gone primarily to wealthy shareholders rather than spreading throughout the population.

The reasons are simple. In the U.S., shareholders are mostly corporations, pension funds and wealthy individuals. And wealthy people in the U.S. are almost invariably white.

Sixty-six percent of white families own stocks, while less than 40% of Black families and less than 30% of Hispanic families do. Even when comparing Black and white families with the same income, the race gap in stock ownership remains.

These disparities stem from the same historical disadvantages that result in lower Black homeownership rates. Until the Civil War, virtually no Black person could own property or enter into a contract. After the Civil War, Black codes – laws that specifically controlled and oppressed Black people – forced free Black Americans to work as farmers or servants.

State prohibitions on Black people owning property, and public and private theft of Black-owned land, kept Black Americans from accumulating wealth.

Health care hit

That said, the Trump tax cuts hurt low-income taxpayers of all races.

One way they did so was by abolishing the individual mandate requiring all Americans to have basic health insurance. The Affordable Care Act, passed under President Barack Obama, launched new, government-subsidized health plans and penalized people for not having health insurance.

Department of the Treasury data shows almost 50 million Americans were covered by the Affordable Care Act since 2014. After the individual mandate was revoked, between 3 million and 13 million fewer people purchased health insurance in 2020.

Ending the mandate triggered a large drop in health insurance coverage, and research shows it was primarily lower-income people who stopped buying subsidized insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. These are the same people who are the most vulnerable to financial disaster from unpaid medical bills.

Going without insurance hurt all low-income Americans. But studies suggest the drop in Black Americans’ coverage under Trump’s plan outpaced that of white Americans. The rate of uninsured Black Americans rose from 10.7% in 2016 to 11.5% in 2018, following the mandate’s repeal.

The consumer price index conundrum

The Trump tax cuts also altered how the Internal Revenue Service calculates inflation adjustments for over 60 different provisions. These include the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit – both of which provide cash to low-wage workers – and the wages that must pay Social Security taxes.

Previously, the IRS used the consumer price index for urban consumers, which tracks rising prices by comparing the cost of the same goods as they rise or fall, to calculate inflation. The government then used that inflation number to adjust Social Security payments and earned income tax credit eligibility. It used the same figure to set the amount of income that is taxed at a given rate.

The Trump tax cuts ordered the IRS to calculate inflation adjustments using the chained consumer price index for urban consumers instead.

The difference between these two indexes is that the second one assumes people substitute cheaper goods as prices rise. For example, the chained consumer price index assumes shoppers will buy pork instead of beef if beef prices go up, easing the impact of inflation on a family’s overall grocery prices.

The IRS makes smaller inflation adjustments based on that assumption. But low-income neighborhoods have less access to the kind of budget-friendly options envisioned by the chained consumer price index.

And since even middle-class Black people are more likely than poor white people to live in low-income neighborhoods, Black taxpayers have been hit harder by rising prices.

What cost $1 in 2018 now costs $1.26. That’s a painful hike that Black families are less able to avoid.

The imminent expiration of the Trump tax cuts gives the upcoming GOP-led Congress the opportunity to undertake a thorough reevaluation of their effects. By prioritizing policies that address the well-known disparities exacerbated by these recent tax changes, lawmakers can work toward a fairer tax system that helps all Americans.

Beverly Moran 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.

Is it possible to bridge America’s stark political divisions?

In the wake of a presidential election that many feared could tear the U.S. apart, this question is on many people’s minds.

A record-high 80% of Americans believe the U.S. is greatly divided on “the most important values”. Ahead of the election, a similar percentage of Americans said they feared violence and threats to democracy. Almost half the country believes people on the other side of the political divide are “downright evil.”

Some say that the vitriolic rhetoric of political leaders and social media influencers is partly to blame for the country’s state of toxic polarization. Others cite social media platforms that amplify misinformation and polarization.

There is, however, reason for hope.

I say this as an anthropologist of peace and conflict. After working abroad, I began doing research on the threat of violence in the U.S. in 2016. In 2021, I published a related book, “It Can Happen Here.”

Now, I am researching polarization in the U.S. – and ways to counter it. I have visited large Make America Great Again events for my research. I have also gone to small workshops run by nonprofit organizations like Urban Rural Action that are dedicated to building social cohesion and bridging America’s divides. Some refer to the growing number of these organizations as a “bridging movement.”

Their work is not easy, but they have shown that connecting with and listening to others who hold different political views is possible.

Here are three strategies these organizations are using – and people can try to use in their own daily lives – to reduce political polarization:

1. Listen first

Pearce Godwin, a former Republican-leaning consultant from North Carolina, was one of the first “bridgers.”

In 2013, Godwin was doing Christian humanitarian work in Africa. Upset by the vitriol of U.S. politics, Godwin, who had worked on Capitol Hill, wrote a commentary, “It’s Time to Listen,” while on an overnight bus trip across Uganda.

Multiple U.S. newspapers published his column, which called for what is the starting point of most bridging work: People should listen first to understand.

Later that year, Godwin started a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization, the Listen First Project, to promote this message through activities like a 2014 “Listen First, Vote Second” public relations and media campaign.

After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Godwin decided to expand Listen First work. He established the #ListenFirst Coalition with three other similar organizations: The Village Square, Living Room Conversations and National Institute for Civil Discourse.

Today, this coalition includes over 500 organizations, whose work ranges from one-off dialogue skills workshops to longer-term projects that seek to build social cohesion in the U.S.

2. Be curious, not dogmatic

Braver Angels dates back to 2016 and is another large nonprofit organization that is part of the #ListenFirst Coalition.

On Election Day on Nov. 5, 2024, Braver Angels organized hundreds of pairs of Trump and Kamala Harris supporters to stand at polling stations and demonstrate that dialogue across the political divide is possible. Some held signs that read “Vote Red, Vote Blue, We’re All Americans Through and Through.”

During the past year, I have observed Braver Angels workshops on media bias, public education, immigration and the 2024 election.

Their fishbowl exercise stands out.

Designed by Bill Doherty, a couples therapist and co-founder of Braver Angels, the fishbowl involves a group of Republicans and Democrats talking.

People in the group take turns speaking on a particular political topic, while the others – along with a larger group of observers – listen to what they say without speaking. After peering into this “fishbowl,” each group member discusses what they discovered by listening to the other group. Many mention their “surprise” at points of agreement on certain issues and the thoughtful reasoning behind positions “on the other side” they had previously dismissed.

The exercise illustrates a key starting point of bridging work: Be curious, instead of trying to prove you are right. Learn how someone on the other side of an issue understands and perceives something.

3. Burst out of your bubble

Another key strategy to overcome division is helping people burst out of their bubble. The idea is that people can objectively detach from and examine their assumptions, and then try to explore alternative views outside their social media, news information and community silos.

One #ListenFirst Coalition partner, AllSides, tries to help people do this through a digital platform that shows how the same news of the day is being reported by left, right and center media organizations. It also has an online tool, “Rate Your Bias,” which helps users become aware of their own assumptions.

People can use these tools to compare different stances on issues like federal taxes and civil liberties – and how their own positions line up. People can also search for individual media outlets to see if the majority of other users have rated these organizations as liberal, conservative or center.

When people identify their own biases – which can become evident as they examine the media outlets they like, for example – it can help them become more curious and open. It also helps them move out of the information silos that divide people.

The bridging movement is not without its challenges. People who lean red are sometimes suspicious of these initiatives, which give people information on voting and democracy and can be perceived as having a liberal bias.

Group diversity is also a challenge. Based on my observations, Braver Angels participants tend to be older, white and educated.

And other groups, like #ListenFirst Coalition partner Urban Rural Action, have to spend considerable time and effort getting a diverse range of people in their programs.

But, given America’s stark political divisions, I think there is a clear need and desire for the depolarization work these groups do.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. are concerned about the current state of polarization in the nation. These bridging groups show a way forward and offer strategies to help Americans build bridges across the country’s deepening political divide.

Alex Hinton receives funding from the Alex Hinton receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

From Iraq to Afghanistan to the US, basic freedoms for women are being eroded as governments start rolling back existing laws.

Just a few months ago a ban on Afghan women speaking in public was the latest measure introduced by the Taliban, who took back control of the country in 2021. From August the ban included singing, reading aloud, reciting poetry and even laughing outside their homes.

The Taliban’s ministry for the propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice, which implements one of the most radical interpretations of Islamic law, enforces these rules. They are part of a broader set of “vice and virtue” laws that severely restrict women’s rights and freedoms. Women are even banned from reading the Quran out loud to other women in public.

In the past three years in Afghanistan, the Taliban has taken away many basic rights from women who live there, so that there’s very little that they are allowed to do.

From 2021, the Taliban started introducing restrictions on girls receiving education, starting with a ban on coeducation and then a ban on girls attending secondary schools. This was followed by closing blind girls’ schools in 2023, and making it mandatory for girls in grades four to six (ages nine to 12) to cover their faces on the way to school.

Women can no longer attend universities or receive a degree certificate nationally, or follow midwifery or nursing training in the Kandahar region. Women are no longer allowed to be flight attendants, or to take a job outside the home. Women-run bakeries in the capital Kabul have now been banned. Women are mostly now unable to earn any money, or leave their homes. In April 2024, the Taliban in Helmand province told media outlets to even refrain from airing women’s voices.

Afghanistan is ranked last on the Women, Peace and Security Index and officials at the UN and elsewhere have called it “gender apartheid”. Afghan women are putting their lives on the line — facing surveillance, harassment, assault, arbitrary detention, torture and exile — to protest against the Taliban.

Many diplomats discuss how important it is to “engage” with the Taliban, yet this has not stopped the assault on women’s rights. When diplomats “engage”, they tend to focus on counter-terrorism, counternarcotics, business deals, or hostage returns. Despite everything that has happened to Afghan women over a short period, critics suggest this rarely makes it onto diplomats’ priority list.

Iraq’s age of consent

Meanwhile, in Iraq, on August 4 2024, an amendment to Iraq’s 1959 personal status law which would possibly lower the age of consent for marriage to nine years old from 18 (or 15 with permission from a judge and parents) was proposed by member of parliament Ra’ad al-Maliki and supported by conservative Shia factions in the government.

The law would have the potential of having matters of family law – such as marriage – adjudicated by religious authorities. This change could not only legalise child marriage but also strip women of rights related to divorce, child custody and inheritance.

Iraq already has a high rate of underage marriage, with 7% of girls married by 15 years old, and 28% married before the legal age of 18.

Unregistered marriages, not legally recorded in court but conducted through religious or tribal authorities, prevent girls from accessing civil rights, and leave women and girls vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and neglect, with limited options for seeking justice.

Many women’s groups have already mobilised against the law. But the amendment has passed its second reading in parliament. If introduced, it could pave the way for further modifications that deepen sectarian divides and move the country further away from a unified legal system. It would also be an especially troubling step backward in protecting children’s rights and gender equality.

Abortion rights in the US

Meanwhile, in the US, women’s access to abortion has been eroded significantly in the past few years. In late 2021, the US was officially labelled a backsliding democracy by an international thinktank.

Six months later, the landmark US Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade, which had safeguarded the constitutional right to abortion for nearly 50 years, was overturned. This led to a cascade of restrictive laws, with more than a quarter of US states enacting outright bans or severe restrictions on abortion.

Republican US congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene suggested, in May 2022, that women should stay celibate if they did not want to get pregnant. If only all women had that choice. In fact, in the US a sexual assault occurs every 68 seconds. One in every five American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape. From 2009-13, US Child Protective Services agencies found strong evidence indicating that 63,000 children per year were victims of sexual abuse.

These developments reflect a troubling pattern. There is evidence from Donald Trump’s first term that there could be further erosion of women’s rights in his second presidency. During his previous term there were significant attempts to weaken healthcare access, with his foreign policy reinstating the “global gag rule” restricting access to women’s reproductive healthcare worldwide via funding conditions.

---

Read more: How a second Trump presidency is likely to threaten abortion rights and women's healthcare globally

---

Fragility of women’s rights

If the world can tolerate the Taliban’s abuses, Iraq’s restrictive laws and the US restrictions on abortion access, it reveals the fragility of women’s and girls’ rights globally, and how easy it is to take them away.

The UN agency, UN Women, says it could take another 286 years to close the global gender gaps in legal protections. No country has yet achieved gender equality, based on the gender pay gap, legal equality and social inequality levels. Women and girls continue to face discrimination in all corners of the world, and it seems to be getting worse. But despite everything women continue to resist.

Hind Elhinnawy 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.

Nothing is worse than thinking you are nearing the finish line and you’ve barely started the race. In my case, the finish line is the Yuengling Center stage and the race is my college career. I thought I was set to graduate this upcoming spring semester, but after meeting with my adviser I was disappointed […]

Have you picked up a book you liked recently? Well, it just might be on the banned books list. In some Florida public schools, “Slaughterhouse Five” by Kurt Vonnegut and “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky are two of the 700 books that have been banned during the 2023-24 school year, according […]

Laura Shaw, a senior political science major, said she no longer wants to have children in Florida after Amendment 4, a proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, did not pass.  “The act of getting pregnant in Florida is risking your life,” Shaw said. “People say that’s an exaggeration, but it’s not. People […]

Here’s to a week of various inboxes filled with old men typing paragraphs.

After a while, I kind of started to wonder if all of it was even genuine. The repetition was suspect, at best — an endless line of profile pictures featuring what very well could’ve been the same guy: sunburnt, pudding-faced, probably in sunglasses, most likely with a patchy beard, and almost definitely taking a selfie in a truck. The nattering of the same right-wing dog whistles and centrist mythology, like some kind of VanderMeer-esque madness mantra, didn’t do much to change this perception.
Considering that all this was in response to a post that primarily revolved around getting together with trusted friends, having soup, sharing skills, and cultivating community resilience, it seemed especially absurd.

Like a string of identical, pink-eyed mice preaching to a henhouse that it’s perfectly fine that a fox is in charge now, actually, and you’re hysterical if you think that might be a problem.

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned well, it’s when not to waste my time. Not everyone is worth a response. Not everyone’s words are even worth consideration. That’s not always an easy lesson to internalize, however — particularly when people show up to try to rile you up on purpose. There are an awful lot of arguments for why they think they deserve your time and attention, and oh boy will they repeat them at you.
Here’s why these arguments aren’t true:

“You’re being divisive!”

Please understand me when I say, from the bottom of my heart, that it doesn’t matter.

There’s a very common idea in toxic dynamics that the person who points it out is the one who’s the problem — not the person responsible for the toxic dynamic in the first place. If you didn’t point it out, then everyone else could’ve gone on quietly ignoring it and not having to admit their complicity. It shows up in families, workplaces, and social groups alike. I’ve seen it. You probably have too.

But keeping that kind of peace is not worth it.

“Division” isn’t a bad word. It will let you know who you can actually trust. You needn’t to go out of your way to please others, especially if they’ve shown up just to talk down to you about topics that they don’t understand.

“You’re just creating an echo chamber.”

There’s a difference between retreating to an echo chamber and prioritizing where your attention goes. If someone Kool-Aid-Mans in just to waste your time, you are not obligated to let them do it.

Modern media has created the false perception that all opinions need to be heard and respected equally. This is how we ended up with broadcasts featuring respected professionals alongside the heads of Facebook groups who think giving children bleach enemas will cure them of Autism.
Everyone is free to express their opinion.
You’re also free to not give them a platform or an iota of your time and attention. It’s okay.

Knowing when to save your breath is healthy.

“But what if you could change their mind?”

You probably won’t. I’m sorry.

By now, anyone who’s remained willfully ignorant (of actual evidence, not Qanon “think mirror” posts) isn’t going to be swayed by a reply in an email or comment section. It’s just a way to get you to waste energy that could be better spent on yourself, your family, and your actual community. It’s their choice if they want to spend their time trying to antagonize you, but you are by no means required to indulge them.

There’s a saying that, sometimes, arguing is like playing chess with a pigeon. You can do your best, but your opponent is still going to shit all over the board and strut around like they’ve won. You don’t need to include yourself in every argument that tries to rope you in. Save your energy and use it for the people who actually matter.

The post “I’m not gonna read all that, but I’m happy for you. Or sorry that happened.” appeared first on Marble Crow.

One of the best holiday shopping events of the season is taking over the Florida State Fairgrounds this November. The Junior League of Tampa is hosting its 22nd annual Holiday […]

The post Junior League’s huge Holiday Gift Market returns to Tampa this November appeared first on That's So Tampa.

When we think of gravestones, we often focus on their sentimental or historical value. Yet, gravestones contain an unexpected legal aspect: copyright. Other common motifs of Halloween, such as scary […]

The post Does Copyright Law Protect Gravestones? appeared first on Copyright Alliance.

Solar geoengineering research is advancing fast, after a recent flurry of funding announcements. Yet these technologies are still speculative and have many critics, and we worry their concerns won’t be heard. If geoengineering is essentially allowed to self-regulate, with no effective global governance, future research could easily take us down a dangerous path.

Solar geoengineering refers to proposals to reduce global warming by reflecting a portion of sunlight back into space before it reaches the Earth’s surface. In its best-known form, this means using high-flying aircraft to inject tiny reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.

This so-called “stratospheric aerosol injection” hasn’t actually happened yet, beyond a few very small experiments with balloons. Yet for a long time, such ideas remained fringe and too controversial to even consider – and for some academics they still are.

The academic discussion was highly polarised from the start. Opponents, mainly governance scholars and social scientists, stood firmly entrenched against assumed proponents, mainly natural scientists and engineers. Both sides had their champions, arguments, assumptions, key publications and meetings, generally working on the topic without proper engagement with the other side.

This polarisation is still visible in publishing today. Take, for example, articles on The Conversation. Critics focus on potential negatives such as altered rainfall patterns, the infringement of human rights, or even a catastrophic “termination shock”. Advocates highlight potential benefits such as reducing extreme heat and preserving ice caps, while others suggest we may soon be forced to try it.

The authors of these articles are all academic experts. Yet they come from different disciplines and use different arguments.

A public and private funding boom

Though the two camps have not resolved their arguments, geoengineering research funding is suddenly booming. There are major philanthropic pledges of US$50 million (£38 million) and US$30 million from the Simons and Quadrature Climate foundations, which are vying for the title of biggest donor with the £10.5 million and £56.8 million of the UK government’s UKRI and Advanced Research and Innovation Agency programs.

Other key organisations speaking about the need for more research include the European Commission, the US government and the World Climate Research Programme. This comes on top of the shock of controversial private enterprises pushing for solar geoengineering, most notoriously the US-based start-up Make Sunsets.

Support is certainly not unanimous. Many prominent scholars have signed up to a call for a moratorium, for instance. And at a recent UN Environment Assembly session in Kenya many climate-vulnerable nations mobilised against calls for further research into what they see as a highly risky technology that would enable big emitters to carry on emitting.

However, many powerful interests are seemingly in favour of more research, while the 1.5°C global warming target is moving ever further out of sight. In the near future, we can therefore expect further research, perhaps including including small-scale outdoor experiments.

As PhD students working on geoengineering, situated somewhere between both camps, we have found this polarisation deeply unproductive and difficult to deal with. Our own research sometimes feels like wandering through a minefield of opinions and perspectives. Yet we can also see the valuable concerns and hopes of both sides.

That’s why we believe that upcoming research projects must factor in the concerns of opponents, and not represent only supporters of geoengineering or those who have not been explicitly against it. Excluding critical voices would directly impact the scientific process, for one thing.

But this exclusion is especially worrying as there are currently no governance structures for solar geoengineering. If efforts to develop such governance only involve supportive researchers, they could lack the critical capacity to prevent risks or undesired effects. Disasters in the financial sector and the chemical industry warn us of the perils of self-regulation without critical voices.

Learn from the critics

There are other critiques that ought to be factored into any major research project. They include concerns that simply researching the technology will create a slippery slope towards it being deployed, or worries that geoengineering ignores the social and political dynamics behind climate change and addresses only its outcomes. There are also major governance concerns over issues such as the role of the military (could geoengineering be deployed for security reasons in contested regions like the Arctic?), or the concentration of research at influential institutions in the US and Europe.

Over time, geoengineering researchers have become more aware of such arguments and some are explicitly trying to include them in their work. The American Geophysical Union has recently published an ethical framework for geoengineering, which should provide valuable guidance for any research project. But without active dialogue with critical scholars, their arguments will likely only echo faintly in the pro-research space.

In practice, more engagement between the two camps would come with many difficulties. For advocates, it can be tempting to avoid such debates and exclude those who disagree with the very foundations on which their research is built. On the flip side, some scholars who have already explicitly argued against the continuation of solar geoengineering research would nevertheless have to participate in it.

The practical implications will therefore need to be carefully worked out. However, a more productive dialogue might still shape a future that can be acceptable to all sides.

Albert Van Wijngaarden receives PhD funding from Gates Cambridge. He is involved in UArctic's Frozen Arctic Conservation project, and was an advisory board member of Ocean Vision's Sea Ice Roadmap.

Adrian Hindes is also an analyst for Civilization Research Institute which does work pertaining to global catastrophic risks, including those related to emerging technologies such as solar geoengineering.

Chloe Colomer receives PhD funding from the UK Research Institute (UKRI) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) with the grants EP/R513143/1 and EP/T517793/1.

Shortly after Donald Trump was inaugurated as president of the United States in January 2017, George Orwell’s 1949 novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” shot to the top of Amazon’s bestseller list. Apparently, lots of people thought Orwell had something relevant to say in that political moment.

Nearly eight years later, the United States once again faces the prospect of a Trump presidency.

In 2016, many Americans were caught off guard by Trump’s win, leading them to grapple with the potential consequences of a Trump presidency only after he was elected. But this time, more people seem to be thinking about the ramifications of such an outcome in advance.

In my work as a professor of philosophy and law, I’ve spent a lot of time studying Orwell’s writing. I think people were correct eight years ago to conclude that Orwell could provide insight into a Trump presidency.

Here are three such insights that I think are useful for Americans to keep in mind as they prepare to vote for their next president.

Nationalism is not patriotism

In his 1945 essay “Notes on Nationalism,” Orwell distinguishes between the terms nationalism and patriotism.

For Orwell, nationalism was “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”

He was quick to point out that this was distinct from the concept of patriotism, which he defined as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.”

To understand Orwell’s conception of patriotism, I find it useful to consider an analogy. Many parents think that their kids are the best kids in the world. This doesn’t mean that they think there are objective metrics that could be used to rank children. Most parents recognize that there is no such thing, and they don’t go around saying other children aren’t as good as theirs. Yet there is still a real sense in which they see their own kids as the very best.

There is something similar in the attitude of Orwell’s patriot. They may think that their country or their way of life is the best, but – and this may be the most important part – they have no wish to force their views or way of life on others.

Not so with the nationalist. Orwell claims, “Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power.” The nationalist is like a parent who goes around tearing other people’s kids down in order to lift theirs up.

Mere love of country is not inherently dangerous. Making advancement of one’s nation or culture one’s top priority is extremely dangerous. Patriotism sticks to the former. Nationalism goes in for the latter.

Orwell insightfully recognizes that when the nationalist makes advancement of their way of life their top priority, they inevitably end up placing that goal “beyond good and evil.” This makes the nationalist susceptible to endorsing unethical means for advancing their own way of life.

A prime example of such a nationalist mentality was Trump’s response to losing the 2020 presidential election. He sought to subvert the election results by lying and by encouraging insurrection.

Similarly, Trump’s supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 were embracing a nationalist mentality. They engaged in an unethical means of trying to advance their own political agenda.

Donald Trump does exactly what Orwell predicts the nationalist will do. He conceptualizes everything, as Orwell put it, “in terms of competitive prestige” and “his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.”

Fixation on competitive prestige is not patriotic. It’s unadulterated nationalism.

An autocrat is easy to underestimate

In a 1942 essay written during the middle of World War II and reflecting on his experiences as a volunteer soldier in the Spanish Civil War, Orwell wrote that “our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the thing you most fear never really happens,” and that “we believe half-instinctively that evil always defeats itself in the long run.”

Orwell was worried by these optimistic instincts because he thought they ran counter to the evidence. The evidence, on the contrary, suggested that things typically don’t turn out right on their own. Rather, social improvements normally require concerted effort and vigilance against backsliding.

In another essay from the same year, Orwell criticized various intellectuals who treated Hitler as “a figure out of comic opera, not worth taking seriously.” And he criticized many English-speaking countries for being places where it was “fashionable to believe, right up to the outbreak of war, that Hitler was an unimportant lunatic and the German tanks made of cardboard.”

As numerous commentators and news outlets have noted, Trump routinely speaks like an autocrat.

Yet many Americans excuse such talk, failing to treat it as the evidence of a threat to democracy that it is. This seems to me to be driven in part by the tendency Orwell identified to think that truly bad things won’t happen – at least not in one’s own country.

Orwell thought it was worth taking the possibility of bad outcomes seriously. This is one way to understand what he was up to in his most famous books, “Animal Farm” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Americans would benefit from taking potential threats to U.S. democracy seriously, too.

Nationalism can attack within

You can read “Nineteen Eighty-Four” as Orwell’s attempt to think about what a ruling political party completely captured by nationalism might look like.

In “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” orthodox party members in the fictional nation of Oceania are obsessed with “competitive prestige” and “the desire for power.” Activities such as the Two Minutes Hate, where party members were encouraged to scream and jeer at a video of a political opponent, prompt party members to focus their thoughts on “victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.”

A notable feature of the party is how often it turns on its own members through kidnapping, torture and murder. The occurrence was so frequent in Oceania that it had a name: being “vaporized.” Nationalists are a threat not only to those outside the nation but also to those inside the nation who don’t fully support the nationalist’s pursuit of power at any cost.

From this perspective, Trump’s threats against those whom he views as “the enemy from within” reveal his own nationalistic desire to turn on Americans who threaten his pursuit of power.

Orwell’s writing suggests that voters should take such threats seriously.

Mark Satta 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.

Staring out at the red-brick streets of Ybor City’s historic downtown district is Tampa’s only GameTime, a video game arcade and restaurant chain. Ninety years ago, this towering concrete building was instead a small wooden home, part of the original Ybor City “slum” neighborhoods.  The building is the subject of one of the many photographs in […]