BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – A federal grand jury has indicted four Birmingham men with multiple crimes related to three separate carjacking events in Jefferson County, announced U.S. Attorney Prim F. Escalona and FBI Special Agent in Charge Carlton Peeples.
Those indicted in January include:
Dearrius Dontrell Pace, 30, who was charged with carjacking and kidnapping. This incident occurred on July 16, 2024;
Charles Avery Pruitt, 22, who was charged with carjacking and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. This incident occurred on July 10, 2024; and
Kyone D’Mias Harris and Brandon Taylor Ezell, both 24, who were charged with carjacking and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. This incident occurred in October 2024.
FBI investigated each case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys John G. Camp, Daniel S. McBrayer, and Darius C. Greene are prosecuting these cases.
An indictment contains only charges. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Greensboro, NC – Chaudhry Shabbir Ahmed pled guilty on Monday, February 3, 2025, to conspiring to launder over $3 million in connection with a $100 million dollar health care fraud scheme, announced Acting United States Attorney Randall S. Galyon.
According to court documents, Ahmed conspired with another individual to represent himself as the owner of two durable medical equipment businesses—Dune Medical Supply, LLC located in High Point, North Carolina and Prospect Health Solutions, Inc. located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Ahmed and a co-conspirator used a sham purchase agreement to make it appear as though Ahmed owned and operated these companies, even though the co-conspirator continued to control the companies. Once Ahmed was listed on relevant documents as the sole owner of Dune and Prospect, including documents submitted to Medicare, Dune and Prospect collectively submitted more than $100 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare. The claims were submitted between April 2024 and August 2024 for durable medical equipment that Medicare beneficiaries never received, requested, or needed, or that the provider never ordered.
Before the scheme was discovered, Medicare electronically deposited more than $33 million in claim reimbursements into bank accounts held in the name of Dune and Prospect at various financial institutions. Ahmed had access to these accounts and would withdraw fraud proceeds in cash at bank branches. For example, on June 30, 2024, Ahmed withdrew $400,000 in cash from Prospect’s bank account and on August 9, 2024, Ahmed withdrew $500,000 in cash from Prospect’s bank account.
As part of the plea agreement, Ahmed agreed to forfeit over $17.6 million dollars that was seized during the investigation, as well as a Rolex watch and cryptocurrency.
Sentencing is scheduled to take place on June 24, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Greensboro, North Carolina, before Chief United States District Judge Catherine C. Eagles. At sentencing, Ahmed faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a period of supervised release of up to three years, and monetary penalties.
The Department of Health and Human Services-Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are investigating the case, and it is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Rebecca Mayer, JoAnna McFadden, and Ashley Waid.
When we see “tested under laboratory conditions”, we often assume real-world conditions will lead to faster degradation of a product.
But experts from Stanford University have found the opposite is true for electric vehicle (EV) batteries. Their new research shows traditional laboratory testing leads to faster degradation, while real-world use gives substantially more battery life, extending the lifespan of the entire EV. Researchers found the stop-start way we drive and the variable rate the battery discharges power actually prolongs battery life by up to 38% compared to traditional tests.
This is good news for EV drivers – and for efforts to electrify transport. This extra battery life would translate to more than 300,000 more kilometres an EV could drive before needing battery replacement, the researchers say.
Longer-lasting batteries would reduce the total cost of EV ownership – and benefit the environment by getting more use out of each battery.
How do we usually test battery degradation?
Common battery chemistries such as lithium-ion will degrade over time. As lithium ions shuttle back and forth across the electrode, some will be diverted or trapped. As batteries age, they don’t hold as much charge.
So how do you measure this?
When you make an EV battery, you don’t want to spend 20 years testing its longevity before release. To test batteries more quickly, researchers have tended to estimate battery degradation rates by using a constant rate of battery discharge. Studies of EV battery degradation are normally done in a laboratory environment under controlled conditions.
In the lab, researchers subject the battery to rapidly repeated charge-discharge cycles. Power is discharged at a constant rate. Observing the gradual drop in capacity gives us the degradation levels over time. This is how we get estimates such as “retains 80% capacity in ten years time”.
But while this method is widely used, it has limitations. Discharging power at a constant rate is not how we really drive. We might accelerate fast to get onto the freeway, spend lots of time accelerating and braking in stop-start traffic, or do a quick run to several shops. Plus, much of the time the battery is not being used. Instead of a constant drain on the battery, it’s a mix.
What the Stanford researchers have done is test EV batteries in realistic ways, imitating the way we actually drive. This is known as “dynamic cycle testing”.
Mimicking real world use
To replicate real-world usage and driving patterns, the Stanford team designed different discharge patterns for EV batteries, some based on real driving data. The researchers then tested 92 commercial lithium-ion batteries for more than two years across the different profiles.
The results showed batteries tested using real life scenarios degraded substantially slower than expected and had higher battery expectancy than those tested under lab conditions. Even better, the more realistic the battery use, the slower the battery degraded.
Battery researchers have long assumed rapid acceleration is bad for battery life. But this isn’t the case. Short acceleration and regenerative braking – where EVs charge their batteries during braking – were actually associated with slower battery degradation rates.
Is this backed up in practice?
A number of other recent studies have looked at how batteries perform in practice using data from EVs in operation, including commercial vehicles. These studies also found correlations between real-world use and lower battery degradation rates.
A 2024 report by GEOTAB researchers used telematic remote monitoring to get data from 10,000 EVs. The study found improved battery technology is leading to slower degradation. Newer EVs lose about 1.8% of their health per year – a sharp drop compared to the 2.3% degradation rate in 2019.
Several factors influenced battery longevity other than use patterns. One of these is worth noting – frequent use of DC fast chargers by high-use vehicles is linked to faster battery degradation. The effect is more notable in hot climates. By contrast, slower “level 2” charging is better for battery longevity. Overall, the researchers found the best way to prolong battery life was to keep charge between 20% and 80%, reduce exposure to extreme temperatures and limit fast charging.
You can prolong battery life still further by avoiding overuse of DC fast chargers and extreme temperatures. Halfpoint/Shutterstock
Another 2024 report analysed the batteries of 7,000 EVs used intensively over 3-5 years. The report found lower degradation rates than expected.
This report found most batteries still had had good capacity (more than 80%) even after propelling vehicles more than 200,000 km. Factors such as use patterns, advances in cell chemistry and optimised battery management were also found to influence battery ageing.
What does this mean for the EV transition?
These results suggest EV owners may not need to replace expensive battery packs for several additional years. Over the lifetime of an EV, this means lower operating costs.
The findings are also encouraging for fleet operators. Batteries in high-mileage commercial EVs should remain reliable even after heavy use.
Car manufacturers and technology providers can benefit by updating their EV battery management software to take these findings into account. This would help to increase battery longevity under real-world conditions.
Fewer battery replacements will mean fewer batteries to recycle. Once removed from the vehicle, EV batteries can be used to store energy for homes or businesses for years. These findings suggest a longer and more reliable second life for the batteries.
In recent years, the electric vehicle transition has hit a couple of speedbumps. Cost-of-living pressures and uncertainty about charging have seen more Australians take up hybrids than pure electric vehicles.
These findings may help reassure drivers interested in electric vehicles but unsure about battery lifespan.
Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex
The website for the United States Agency for International Development (USAid), the world’s biggest aid donor, has gone dark.
Donald Trump’s new administration plans to place the autonomous agency under the control of the state department. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has now declared himself as head of the agency to “align” it with Trump’s priorities.
Several days ago, on January 26, Rubio said: “Every dollar we spend, every programme we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”
But the decision to freeze USAid, which is part of Trump’s policy to put “America first”, places everyone at risk. Organisations that provide vital care for vulnerable people around the world are being forced to halt operations. The boss of one such organisation said: “People will die.”
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a close adviser to Trump, is playing an active role in the destruction of USAid. He has claimed – without providing any evidence – that the agency is “beyond repair”. “It needs to die,” Musk wrote on X.
Musk, who leads the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), is gearing to cut trillions of dollars from the US budget. However, by seeing cuts to USAid as a solution, Trump and Musk are catering to an audience that has a fundamental misunderstanding about US foreign aid more generally.
Surveys demonstrate that Americans believe 25% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. In reality, the US gives about 0.2% of its gross national product (GNP), the total value of goods and services produced by a country, to foreign aid – or less than 1% of its federal budget. This is far below the UN target of 0.7% of GNP.
But, despite this, USAid provided 42% of all humanitarian aid globally in 2024. This included about US$72 billion (£58 billion) in aid in a wide range of areas, from helping people access clean water, sanitation, healthcare and energy, to providing disaster relief, shelter and food.
USAid also delivered programmes aimed at supporting democracy, civil society, economic development and landmine clearance in war zones, as well as working to prevent organised crime, terrorism and conflict. The gutting of USAid will have a profound impact on human security.
The Trump administration has granted a waiver for the continuation of “life-saving humanitarian assistance”. This includes a programme that helps 20 million people living with HIV/Aids access anti-retroviral drugs. But there are questions about the future of US Aids organisation, the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar).
To date, over 43 million people worldwide have died from Aids. But one of the biggest success stories of the George W. Bush administration was its launch of Pepfar in 2003. The World Health Organization says that Pepfar, working in partnership with USAid, has saved 26 million lives.
Pepfar employs more than 250,000 doctors, nurses and other staff across 55 countries. One of the functions that USAid performs is ordering and procuring the drugs used by Pepfar to keep the millions infected with HIV alive. It remains to be seen whether federal payments to USAid’s locally run partner organisations will be stopped.
We are, in any case, likely to see an uptick in other infectious diseases. USAid had been working to prevent current outbreaks of mpox and Marburg virus from spreading beyond Africa. It is not clear what the future is for these programmes.
And USAid’s work with malaria, a disease that kills about 450,000 children under the age of five each year, is facing uncertainty. From 2000 to 2021, USAid’s work helped to prevent 7.6 million deaths from malaria. Also in doubt is USAid’s work to develop and implement the malaria vaccine, which was considered a gamechanger for combating the disease.
At the same time, USAid responds to an average of 65 natural disasters each year. In 2024 alone, it responded to 84 separate crises across 66 different countries. The government is letting go all of the staff important for implementing these types of programmes.
Dozens of senior USAid officials have been placed on leave, while contractors working on the agency’s programmes have been furloughed. Up to 3,000 aid workers in Washington DC could reportedly be laid off this week.
What Trump’s team misunderstand is that the work of USAid is also vital for preserving American interests. China, which has poured more than US$1 trillion of assistance into infrastructure projects in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America since 2013, will now be given an opportunity to exert more influence around the world. The void in US aid is a gift for China in the battle for soft power.
White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, lists some of what she calls the ‘insane priorities’ that USAid has been spending money on.
Global aid sector in disarray
Foreign aid relies on certainty and transparency about the future of aid programmes. But the Trump administration has offered little clarity while US foreign aid programmes are all being reviewed. One aid organisation referred to the situation as an “absolute dumpster fire” due to the uncertainty.
There have already been reports of total confusion in health clinics previously supported by USAid, which were shut down without warning. Africa will probably be the region most negatively affected. Local workers in healthcare-related projects on the continent will lose their jobs, while nurses, doctors and healthcare workers across clinics will be unable to continue their vital work.
The Democrats have claimed that Trump does not have the legal authority to eradicate a congressionally funded independent agency. They have said court challenges are already in motion and have pledged to try to block approval of Trump’s state department nominations until the shutdown is reversed.
Trump did try to cut US foreign aid during his first term, but Congress refused. He then tried – and ultimately failed – to freeze the flow of aid appropriated by Congress. This time, Trump is not bothering to play by the rules.
Natasha Lindstaedt 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Clapham, Associate Professor of Education Policy, Nottingham Trent University
Ofsted, England’s education inspectorate, has released proposals for a new approach to inspecting schools and other education providers. The proposals are now under consultation, with parents, teachers, education professionals and learners invited to share their views.
These proposals mark the latest changes to Ofsted after the public outcry following the suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry in January 2023. The coroner’s report in December 2023 ruled that the Ofsted inspection had contributed to Perry’s suicide. But the proposals neglect key areas that we, having researched people’s experiences of Ofsted, believe should change. These include the behaviour of inspectors and the process of inspecting schools.
Crucially, the proposal document emphasises the continuing importance and authority of Ofsted in raising achievement in the school system. And in a recent speech on the proposals, education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “The improvements in inspection and accountability starting in the 90s have been instrumental for raising standards in our schools. With Ofsted’s role right at its heart. And to those who call for the abolition of a strong, independent, effective inspectorate, I have said before and I will say again: never.”
Our current research work, analysing written submissions of experiences of Ofsted to the education select committee, has found a stark picture of the inherently unfair and unhealthy nature of Ofsted inspections and the toll they take on teachers.
Ofsted’s chief inspector Martyn Oliver explains the proposed report cards.
Anticipating an Ofsted inspection informs almost everything teachers do, and under these proposals, this will not change. If Ofsted’s position of power and authority over schools remains and these problems stay unaddressed, it will continue to cause risk and harm to those working in the state education sector in England.
Report cards
Central to the proposed changes is the introduction of report cards, which will replace a system which gave schools a headline judgement of “inadequate”, “requires improvement”, “good” or “outstanding”. Instead, a range of aspects of a school’s remit – including leadership and governance, achievement, inclusion, attendance and personal development and wellbeing – will each be assessed on a five-point scale.
These range from “causing concern” (red on the report card) to “attention needed” (amber), “secure” (light green), “strong” (green) and “exemplary” (dark green).
These grading scales will also focus on how schools support disadvantaged and vulnerable pupils, and there will be more emphasis on the local circumstances which schools operate in. Whether a school meets its safeguarding responsibilities will be assessed not on a scale but as either “met” or “not met”.
Ofsted will also publish contextual data on the school. These data will include categories such as the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities, performance data, attendance and absence data along with socio-economic indicators for the area the school serves.
But concerns are already being raised. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the school leaders’ union the NAHT, has argued that the new system will repeat the high stakes of the previous single-word judgements.
Inspector behaviour and accountability
There are two specific areas where we believe the new proposals have particularly failed. The first concerns inspectors’ conduct.
The consultation document states that “professional dialogue between inspectors and leaders will be a priority”. But the appalling behaviour that has been alleged of some inspectors is not acknowledged, and there is no indication as to how this culture of harm is being addressed.
The second concerns the inspection process. There is no mention of Ofsted becoming more accountable. In her independent learning review for Ofsted, former chief inspector Dame Christine Gilbert recommended the institution of an improved complaints system for when a school believes an inspection outcome is unfair. But this is not mentioned in the proposals.
Neither is there any consideration of sharing the evidence base – the information gathered by Ofsted inspectors during their visit to a school – on which an inspection judgement is made. Presumably this would be too time consuming, as suggested by Amanda Spielman, another previous chief inspector of Ofsted.
It is perhaps unsurprising that Ruth Perry’s sister, Julia Waters, has commented that the risk of harm from Ofsted remains.
We would therefore seek far more than a simple rebrand of the previous Ofsted model. Only a root and branch reform of the inspectorate would address the fundamental issues affecting teachers and schools.
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.
The first weeks of the Donald Trump’s administration have been marked by a flurry of announcements and U-turns on US trade policy.
One of the first decrees centred on Trump’s favourite word: tariffs. He announced that US consumers and businesses would be taxed an extra 25% when they bought Canadian or Mexican products. (Canadian oil got off more lightly, with a 10% tariff.)
But because this is Donald Trump we’re talking about, it later emerged that none of this was actually happening, for now. It might be next month, or later, or maybe not at all.
And President Trump announced new import taxes will “definitely happen” on products from the European Union. If these do ever come to pass, it’s possible there may be a better deal for the UK.
The reason for the possible Great British exemption from new US import taxes is that the stated goal of these taxes is to reduce the US trade deficit. This deficit refers to the fact that the US buys much more from the rest of the world than the rest of the world buys from it.
And, depending on how we measure the financial flows coming in and out of tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, the UK is one of the few countries in a position to make the case that it actually has a trade deficit with the US (the UK buys more from the US than the US buys from it).
What about consumers?
Being able to avoid new US tariffs would be very good news for the UK. If the US imposed import taxes on UK products and services, it would be bad for their consumers, who end up paying more. But it would also be bad for UK industry. Moreover, the UK would likely retaliate and tax US products, ultimately hurting British consumers as well.
In theory, the UK miraculously escaping new US import taxes might even mean it indirectly benefits from a trade war between the US and the EU. If the UK can sell and buy more cheaply to both sides while they tax each other, it becomes more competitive. The UK would also get its imports more cheaply, and international businesses may want to establish subsidiaries in the UK.
It is interesting to imagine a world in which a medium-sized, free trade supporting country like the UK ends up the winner of a global commercial war between its two most important trading partners.
Things are not that simple however. Research shows that a major impact of tariffs is changes in global supply chains.
As the UK has learned the hard way with Brexit, modern supply chains are increasingly interconnected. British exports are typically made with components from the European continent, which are themselves made with Chinese inputs.
Additional costs anywhere in the chain result in more expensive products. Moreover, it is not clear that UK products made with EU and Chinese components would be exempt from US import tax.
This is a global problem. For every final product a UK consumer ends up buying, there are many firms trying to source the best possible components and materials to make it with. If the US levies a 100% tax on chips and semiconductors from Taiwan, this means that products from the US tech industry will become more expensive for UK firms to use. This is even more pertinent given that China has retaliated to the new 10% US tax on its products by limiting the export of metals the US uses to produce its own chips.
In this way it is easy to underestimate how sensitive supply chains are to small shocks, and what the butterfly effect of a trade war between two other countries might be on products bought and sold in the UK. So, while the UK would definitely be better off not being subject to US taxes, the main focus should be on helping to avoid global trade wars.
How to do this is not clear, because no one seems to understand what Trump really wants from his tariffs. One theory is that he wants to pass for a madman and bully other countries into committing to buy more US-manufactured products.
Or, in the case of Europe, to increase military spending by buying more US military equipment. In that case, tariffs would be short-lived and the impact limited. It will simply increase the incentives for international firms not to depend too much on the US.
Or perhaps Trump really has no idea what he is doing, seemingly pursuing the two opposing goals of keeping domestic prices low while attempting to reduce its trade imbalance with ever-increasing import taxes. In that case, the consequences for consumers all over the world would be very bad. This is in part because of the effect on supply chains, but also because when the US economy is in bad shape the entire world suffers.
Renaud Foucart 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.
But the 30-plants-a-week challenge circulating online suggests that, instead of only aiming to eat five servings a day, we should instead aim to eat 30 different plant foods per week to improve our health. Fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, wholegrains, herbs and spices would all count as a plant serving.
Some advocates of the approach have even created some ground rules and have generated a points system that gives a point to each different type of plant you consume. However, not every plant counts as a full point. For instance, herbs and spices only count as one-quarter of a plant point. Refined plant products, such as fruit juices or processed wholegrains (such as white bread), don’t count at all.
Current NHS dietary recommendations around fruits and vegetables (such as the five-a-day message) place the emphasis on quantity – ensuring people eat enough fruit, vegetables and wholegrains to get all the essential nutrients and fibre their body needs. But, the 30 plants approach shifts the focus to diversity – arguing that eating a wide variety of plant foods provides greater health benefits than eating the recommended amount of only a few select fruits and vegetables.
So does eating 30 plants a week offer any additional health benefits over eating five servings a day?
Exploring the science
The 30 plants a week challenge is based on the American Gut Project – a citizen science study of 10,000 participants from across the US, UK and Australia. The findings suggest that people who eat a greater variety of plant-based foods each week have a more diverse gut microbiome compared to those who eat fewer plants. The gut microbiome refers to the trillions of bacteria, viruses, fungi and microorganisms that live in our digestive tract.
So in simple terms, it looks like the more plant diversity we eat, the more diverse the population of microbes living in our gut are. This leads to better overall health.
But does eating 30 plants really provide a greater number of benefits compared to current public health messages? These recommend we eat at least five portions of fruit and veg daily, choose wholegrain carbohydrates and limit refined sugar, processed meats and foods as much as possible.
So, it looks like following either current public health recommendations or the 30 plants diet will improve microbial diversity and have benefits for health. While 30 is a meaningful and realistic target, it’s important to recognise that small, sustainable changes can also have a lasting health impact.
Diet changes
Like any trend, the 30 plants message isn’t without its drawbacks. One major concern is accessibility. Buying 30 different plant foods each week can be expensive – which could exacerbate existing health inequalities.
There are ways around these limitations, such as buying in bulk and freezing portions, using canned and frozen fruits, veggies, pulses and lentils and meal planning to reduce food waste.
However, these solutions often require extra resources such as storage, cooking space and time – which may not be possible for everyone.
There’s also a risk that the message could oversimplify the complexity of public health guidance – potentially overlooking the importance of individual nutrients and overall dietary balance.
On the other hand, there’s a strong argument that the 30 plants per week challenge is simply the same, old public health advice packaged in a slightly different, more engaging way. As a dietitian, I quite like that.
Current public health messages around food, nutrition and lifestyle are not landing. Despite the evidence for these guidelines, rates of lifestyle-related health problems are increasing. It’s not that these recommendations don’t work – it’s that as a population we struggle to follow them.
The 30-plants-a-week challenge is a positive message that encourages adding more variety – rather than restricting foods. If people are encouraged to eat more plant-based foods, they may naturally displace less nutritious choices – which is a win for health.
If you’re thinking of trying the 30-plants-a-week challenge, here are some easy ways to increase variety in your diet:
Swap your carbs: Swap white bread, rice or pasta for wholegrain bread, rice or pasta. You can also consider alternative wholegrain carbohydrates such as quinoa or wholegrain couscous.
Include nuts and seeds: Easily overlooked, but an effortless way to add diversity. A small handful is a portion.
Add pulses and lentils: Add lentils to a meat dish (such as spaghetti bolognese) for extra protein and more plant points.
Buy tinned and frozen foods: Stock up on frozen berries, mixed vegetables, canned beans and chickpeas to make plant variety easier to achieve and more affordable.
The challenge to eat 30 different plants is an exciting and positive way to potentially encourage nutritious choices. However, we don’t yet fully understand its acceptability or impact on food choices in real-world settings. While the scientific evidence strongly supports the benefits of plant diversity for health, it would be valuable to gather more research on its practical effectiveness before incorporating it into public health messaging.
Aisling Pigott receives a research award from RCBC Wales/Health Care Research Wales
Aisling Pigott is a non-executive director for the British Dietetic Association
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colleen Morgan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Archaeology and Heritage, University of York
Generative AI is often seen as the epitome of our times, and sometimes even as futuristic. We can use it to invent new art or technology, analyse emerging data, or simulate people, places and things. But interestingly, it is also having an impact on how we view the past.
Yet there are many issues with using AI imagery in archaeology – some of which are also found more broadly within generative AI use. These include its environmental impact and the violation of intellectual property (using training data created by humans).
But others are more specific to archaeology. As an academic who has worked extensively on “resurrecting” the past through digital technology, generative AI has both fascinating potential and enormous risk for archaeological misrepresentation.
Even before the use of AI, it was widely accepted within archaeology that visualisations of the past are highly fraught and should be treated with extreme caution. For example, archaeologist Stephanie Moser examined 550 reconstructions published in academic and popular texts on human evolution. Her review found highly biased depictions, such as only males hunting, making art and tools and performing rituals, while women were in more passive roles.
A similar study by Diane Gifford-Gonzalez revealed that “not one of 231 depictions of prehistoric males shows a man touching a child, woman, or an older person of either sex … no child is ever shown doing useful work.” These reconstructions do not reflect scientists’ nuanced understanding of the past. We know humans organised themselves in an incredible array of variety, with a multitude of gender roles and self-expression.
A recent DNA-based study, for example, showed that women were actually at the centre of societies in the iron age.
The stakes of representation in archaeology are high. For example, the hotly-debated, dark-skinned reconstruction of “Cheddar Man”, originally found in south-west England, was based on ancient DNA analysis. It made headlines for disrupting the perception that all human ancestors in the north were light-skinned.
Reconstructed head of the Cheddar Man based on the shape of his skull and DNA analysis, shown at the Natural History Museum in London. wikipedia, CC BY-SA
This and similar controversies reveal the iconic power of reconstructions, their political implications, and their ability to shape our understanding of the past.
While the Cheddar Man reconstruction demonstrates that research is iterative, such reconstructions are sticky. They have profound visual legacies and are not easily supplanted when new data becomes available.
This is exacerbated as they are incorporated into generative AI data sets.
Beyond the use of outmoded data, generative AI visualisations of the past can be extremely poor.
Even when more plausible details are included, they can be seamlessly integrated with other highly inaccurate elements. For example, it is impossible for viewers to disentangle the data-led from the so-called hallucinations (mistakes) produced by AI.
Highlighting uncertainty is of central importance and concern among archaeologists. Archaeological illustrator Simon James noted that reconstruction artists have used strategically placed clouds of smoke to obscure unknown elements.
As a digital archaeologist, I have made virtual reconstructions of many different sites and subjects. I know there is often estimation and guesswork involved in making holistic representations.
Indeed, photo-realistic accuracy is not always the paramount consideration in visualisation – particularly when exploring different hypotheses or addressing young audiences. But knowing what is backed by archaeological data and what is more speculative is key for authentic visual communication.
Pseudoarchaeology
This is particularly important at a time when pseudoarchaeology is increasingly prevalent in popular media, such as the Ancient Apocalypse show on Netflix. The celebrity host and author Graham Hancock asserts there was a lost ice age civilisation of Atlantis, with advanced technology. But this claim has been thoroughly repudiated by archaeologists.
Arguably, hoaxes will be much easier to perpetuate using generative AI.
Beyond the high potential for misinformation about archaeology, the use of generative AI for archaeological visualisations can actually be harmful for archaeological knowledge production.
My research has shown that crafting reconstructions and illustrations in archaeology is incredibly important for understanding and interpreting the past. Creating visualisations based on science – and indeed soundscapes, smellscapes and other interpretations based on multiple senses – is very helpful for generating new questions.
Drawing allows archaeologists to create more detailed mental models and therefore a better understanding of archaeological remains. By delegating this creation to AI, archaeologists lose a powerful tool for knowledge generation. Moreover, my collaborative work with artists has demonstrated the intriguing possibilities that creative approaches open up to tell new stories about the past.
Even with all of these problems, I encourage an engaged, critical, applied approach to understanding the impact of digital technologies on our investigation of the past. And this includes exploring the uses of generative AI for archaeological visualisation.
Archaeologists and non-specialists are able to leverage generative AI to creatively produce interpretive media. Indeed, some archaeologists are already exploring AI to generate hypotheses about ancient life. And we are teaching critical uses of AI to our archaeology students.
But what remains imperative is that archaeologists engage with and critique all visualisations – both those created by generative AI and using other media.
Colleen Morgan 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Fiona Murphy, Assistant Professor in Refugee and Intercultural Studies, Dublin City University
The White Cliffs of Dover have become associated with irregular migration via small boat.DaisyKDesigns/Shutterstock
The new Channel 4 programme Go Back to Where You Came From is unsettling viewing, almost unbearable at times. It takes six British citizens – some staunchly anti-immigration, others more open – and drops them into lives shaped by conflict and displacement.
The premise is to cultivate understanding of the refugee experience, to make the unimaginable tangible. But in doing so, the show risks turning forced displacement into spectacle, reducing suffering to an immersive learning experience for those with the privilege of ignorance.
The show opens with participants offering their views – filmed in their homes or standing at the cliffs of Dover, where one man declares: “What I’d do is, I’d set landmines up, and then any boat that comes within 50m of this beach, they’d get blown up.”
Then, two teams, two journeys. One is sent to Somalia, the other to Syria.
In Mogadishu, Nathan, Jess and Matilda navigate a city carved up by checkpoints, escorted by an American security team. Nathan surveys the streets like a man assessing a lost cause: a “shithole”, he mutters. Jess, fiercely anti-immigration, feels exposed – her fear magnified by the weight of unfamiliar eyes, the choreography of a life not her own. She wants to leave.
At a camp for internally displaced people, women speak of gender-based violence, of female genital mutilation, of lives spent in spaces never built for them. Jess listens, nods and files their words neatly into the folder of convictions she brought with her. She does not question; she confirms. The mindsets of Somalian men, she concludes, are the problem.
In Raqqa, Bushra, Chloe and Dave pick their way through streets reduced to rubble. Chloe complains about the rubbish, as if it were neglect rather than obliteration. “They should stay and clean it up,” she says. The children sifting through debris do not register. In a bombed-out home, a father speaks of safety, the only thing he wants for his children. The children do not speak.
The violence of ‘refuge’
Watching the show, I thought of the conversations I’ve had with asylum seekers and refugees on the island of Ireland as part of my research. Many speak of the quiet violence of exclusion – how “welcome” is so often a hollow gesture, how refuge can feel like another form of exile.
Many recount racial hatred in the streets, the fear woven into daily movements, the gnawing sense that they are barely tolerated, not wanted. Some have told me, with devastating clarity, that had they known what awaited them here – homelessness, suspicion, a life in bureaucratic limbo – they might never have fled at all. Not because home was safe, but because this isn’t living either.
These experiences are not anomalies. They are built into the asylum systems in the UK and Ireland, where deterrence is policy. As of mid-2024, 122.6 million people have been forcibly displaced worldwide, yet the UK hosts just 1% of them.
And “hosting” often takes the form of offshore detention, indefinite waiting and policies designed to make seeking refuge as inhospitable as possible. In Ireland, the failure is just as insidious: asylum seekers sleeping rough, vulnerability assessments in name only, the quiet withdrawal of care until people simply disappear from view.
After the first episode of the Channel 4 show, I am left wondering: what is the point of each participant’s journey? The documentary trades in empathy – tracking transformation by how much the participants feel, learn and change. But empathy, when it stops at the self, is just another performance. It asks: how have I been altered? Instead of: what must I do with what I now know?
This is the trap of a genre that packages suffering into something neatly consumable. As film researcher Pooja Rangan argues, humanitarian documentaries often render asylum seekers passive, their worth measured by how much sympathy they can elicit. Go Back to Where You Came From follows this script, focusing not on the agency of the displaced, but on the moral awakenings of those who continue to look away.
The real question is not whether the participants feel something, but whether feeling will ever translate into action – by them, or by us as viewers. To hold governments to account. To insist that refuge is a right, not a privilege. To refuse the quiet, grinding violence of neglect.
“Go back to where you came from” is a phrase hurled not just at refugees, but at anyone deemed out of place. The programme inverts it, sending its wielders on a reckoning. But in the end, they return. To safety, to comfort, to homes untouched by war or exile. Or, as one put it, back to the pub.
And yet, for those seeking refuge, the journey drags on – through border camps, detention centres, doorways, the freezing cold and the bureaucracy of the asylum system – while the world watches, then turns off their televisions.
Fiona Murphy receives funding from British Academy and the Irish Research Council
For a second year in a row, independent auditors verified that the Marine Corps’ financial records are materially accurate, complete, and compliant with federal regulations and issued an unmodified opinion for Fiscal Year 2024.
This year, Sailors from NAF Misawa and Commander, Task Force (CTF) 70 will sculpt the U.S. Navy F-35C Lighting II stealth fighter jet, which was recently forward deployed to Japan last year. Sailors selected for the team were chosen because of their superior work performance and dedication to the U.S. Navy both on and off-duty.
This year’s snow team will be led by Lt. Cmdr. Seth Koenig and Chief Aviation Ordnanceman Enrico Dagsindal, comprised of an eight-person team including Mass Communication Specialist First Class Caroline Lui, Mass Communication Specialist Second Class Matthew Fischer, Aviation Support Equipment Technician First Class Hernan Hernandez, Culinary Specialist Second Class Adallis Bookman, Religious Program Specialist Second Class David Johnson, and Builder Second Class Sawson Doty.
The team is scheduled to complete the snow sculpture by Feb. 3, spending the remainder of their time in Sapporo interacting with visitors at the Snow Festival until Feb. 7. Festival goers are encouraged to take pictures and engage in friendly conversation with Sailors at the site.
This is the 40th year the U.S. Navy has participated in the Sapporo Snow Festival, which has provided a unique opportunity for Sailors to experience Japanese culture and tradition and strengthen the close friendship between the U.S. Navy and citizens of Japan.
An investigation into the wounding of a man in Birkenhead on Tuesday afternoon will continue today.
A man suffered multiple stab wounds outside an address on Birkenhead Avenue at around 2pm.
North Shore Area Commander Inspector Stefan Sagar says the victim underwent surgery at Auckland City Hospital last night.
“The victim is now in a serious but stable condition in hospital, and we will be looking to speak with him in the coming days as we continue our enquiries.”
Police will be visible again in the Birkenhead community today with an area canvas as part of the investigation.
“From what we have established so far in our enquiries, we do not believe this is a random incident,” Inspector Sagar says.
“We are continuing to make enquiries into information about a vehicle that left the area, but at this point we do not have further information to release.”
Police acknowledge the Birkenhead community, with many people coming forward to assist the investigation.
“We have had good support from the neighbourhood, and this information is assisting us in progressing the investigation,” Inspector Sagar says.
“I know when these events take place in our communities that this can be unsettling, but we believe it is an isolated event and Police are continuing to work hard to identify and hold this offender to account.”
Police welcome further information to assist with the investigation.
Anyone that can assist enquiries can update Police online now or call 105.
Please use the reference number 250204/5489.
Information can also be provided anonymously via Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.
DENVER – Today, Governor Polis released the following statement on the deal between Altitude Sports and Comcast, allowing more Coloradans to watch the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche.
“After far too long a wait, Comcast and Altitude are finally putting Coloradans first, allowing us to watch our world-class Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche. This means that more Colorado fans and kids can grow up watching the greatness of players like Nikola Jokic, Jamal Murray, Nathan McKinnon, Cale Makar and many others without their families jumping through hoops. I’m so excited that this new deal means getting to watch and cheer on our incredible Colorado teams,” said Governor Jared Polis.
In 2019, Governor Polis sent a letter to Jim Martin, then President and CEO of Kroenke Sports & Entertainment, encouraging the company to reach a deal allowing Coloradans to watch their favorite teams at home on DISH and Comcast and has had several follow-up conversations with both sides.
ATLANTA (February 4, 2025) — Freshman Senator Kenya Wicks (D– Fayette) was recently appointed Deputy Whip of the Senate Minority Caucus
Sen. Kenya Wicks expressed enthusiasm at the appointment: “Serving as Deputy Whip as a freshman Senator is truly an honor. I greatly appreciate this vote of confidence from my fellow party members, and I want to thank Minority Whip Sen. Kim Jackson for this appointment. I am ready to get to work for this caucus by assisting with advocacy, planning for the rest of session and following through with our priorities.”
The full leadership board for the Minority Caucus includes:
Minority Leader – Sen Harold Jones, II – District 22 (Augusta)
Minority Whip – Sen. Kim Jackson – District 41 (Stone Mountain)
Minority Caucus Chair – Sen. Elena Parent – District 44 (Atlanta)
Minority Caucus Vice Chair – Sen. Sonya Halpern – District 39 (Atlanta)
Minority Caucus Finance Chair – Sen. Jason Esteves – District 35 (Atlanta)
Minority Caucus Secretary – Sen. Nan Orrock – District 36 (Atlanta)
Minority Deputy Whip – Sen. Kenya Wicks – District 34 (Fayetteville)
Sen. Wicks was also elected as the Vice Chair of the Clayton County Senate Delegation. Senators representing Clayton County include Sen. Gail Davenport (D–Jonesboro), Sen. Elena Parent (D–Atlanta) and Sen. Kenya Wicks (D–Fayette). The Senate Delegation of Clayton County collaborates to serve the best interests of Clayton County Residents.
The full leadership board for the Clayton County Delegation includes:
Chair – Sen Gail Davenport – District 17 (Jonesboro)
Vice Chair – Sen. Kenya Wicks – District 34 (Fayetteville)
Secretary – Sen. Elena Parent – District 44 (Atlanta)
###
Sen. Kenya Wicks represents the 34th Senate District, which includes portions of Clayton and Fayette Counties. She may be reached by email atKenya.Wicks@senate.ga.gov.
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James’ Office of Special Investigation (OSI) today released its report on the death of Rakim Tillery, who died on January 3, 2024 following an encounter with the New York State Police (NYSP) in Ramapo, Rockland County. Following a thorough investigation, which included interviews with witnesses, review of home and body-worn camera footage, and comprehensive legal analysis, OSI concluded that a prosecutor would not be able to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the officers’ actions were justified under New York law.
At approximately 2:53 p.m. on January 3, two NYSP troopers pulled over a car on the New York State Thruway based on a report about an incident that had taken place earlier the same day in Albany. The troopers were in two separate marked police vehicles, with their turret lights activated. The first trooper pulled over behind the car, and the second trooper pulled over behind the first trooper’s vehicle. As the troopers were getting out of their vehicles, the driver of the car, Mr. Tillery, was already out of his vehicle, armed with a firearm, and discharged his weapon at the troopers. One trooper discharged his service weapon in response, and Mr. Tillery fell to the ground. As the trooper approached Mr. Tillery, he got up, and a struggle ensued. Mr. Tillery grabbed for the trooper’s gun, and the second trooper discharged his service weapon three times, striking Mr. Tillery.
Under New York’s justification law, a police officer may use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend against the use of deadly physical force by another. In this case, the troopers had reason to believe Mr. Tillery had been involved in an earlier incident in Albany and had reason to stop Mr. Tillery based on the radio dispatch. When the troopers encountered Mr. Tillery, he discharged a firearm at officers and engaged in a struggle with one trooper, attempting to grab his service weapon. Under these circumstances, given the law and the evidence, a prosecutor would not be able to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the officers’ use of deadly physical force against Mr. Tillery was justified, and therefore OSI determined that criminal charges would not be pursued in this matter.
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today joined a coalition of 20 attorneys general in calling on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to demand further testimony from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director nominee Kash Patel following reports of a planned purge of thousands of FBI agents and staff involved in investigations and prosecutions related to the January 6, 2021 riots at the Capitol. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Attorney General James and the coalition expressed grave concern over reports that the Trump administration is planning to fire agents and staff who participated in January 6th investigations at the FBI, eliminating approximately 15% of the FBI workforce. The attorneys general warn that these actions could have dangerous consequences for the rule of law and public safety nationwide.
“This effort to defund the FBI to fulfill a political vendetta puts the American people at risk. The FBI is critical to keeping Americans safe from violent crime, terrorism, and threats to our democracy,” said Attorney General James. “Any effort to retaliate against career law enforcement officials for doing their jobs is unacceptable and a direct threat to our justice system. Before the Senate votes on Kash Patel’s confirmation, the American people deserve to know whether he plans to carry out a politically motivated purge of FBI agents and staff. Our nation’s safety depends on it.”
Reports indicate that more than a dozen January 6th prosecutors have already been dismissed and that the administration is considering the removal of at least six more high-ranking FBI officials. Additionally, the acting deputy attorney general has reportedly ordered the FBI to compile a list of all FBI employees who worked on January 6th investigations. If this list is used for its reported intent of firing all agents and staffers involved in the January 6th investigations and prosecutions, it could impact more than 6,000 FBI personnel and severely weaken federal law enforcement efforts across the country, in red and blue states alike.
At the time of Mr. Patel’s confirmation hearing, reports of the alleged FBI purge had not yet been made public. The attorneys general are urging the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to seek answers from Mr. Patel on these matters before the body votes to confirm his nomination. Senators, as representatives of the American people, should know what Mr. Patel plans to do with the list of FBI agents and staff that is being compiled before they cast their votes.
The attorneys general argue that purging more than 6,000 FBI agents and staff will have disastrous effects for public safety nationwide and will put communities in danger. FBI employees and staff protect the country from many of the public safety harms that the administration itself has identified as law enforcement priorities, including but not limited to fentanyl, cartels, and foreign terrorist organizations.
Members of the FBI’s Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces assist federal and local law enforcement agencies in stopping cartels from smuggling fentanyl and guns into our communities. These task forces also contributed to the recent convictions of five New York members of La Cosa Nostra. The FBI also runs the Joint Terrorism Task Force across the country, protecting Americans from terrorism and other security threats. The hardworking agents, prosecutors, and staff at the FBI keep Americans safe every day, and mass firings would have a disastrous effect, undoubtedly resulting in countless criminals roaming free.
Attorney General James and the coalition are calling on Congress to take immediate action to prevent this ridiculous attack on law enforcement and ensure that the FBI remains independent and fully operational. Congress has a responsibility to the nation to keep Americans safe and hold the administration accountable. The attorneys general urge Congress to start by calling Mr. Patel back before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the purported FBI purge before voting on his nomination.
Joining Attorney General James in sending this letter to Chairman Grassley are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
SACRAMENTO – In the wake of new concerns of immigration enforcement on school campuses, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today highlighted recent guidance to students, families, educators, and school officials to help ensure a safe and secure school environment for all. The first document provides practical guidance to school officials on how to respond if an immigration officer comes to campus. The second document provides guidance and model policies for K-12 public schools to assist them in complying with state law. The final document provides immigrant students and their families with information on their educational rights and protections under the law. These resources can be found in multiple languages at oag.ca.gov/immigrant/resources.
“All children have a constitutional right to access a public education, regardless of their immigration status,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Schools are meant to be a safe place for children to learn and grow. Unfortunately, the President’s recent orders have created fear and uncertainty in our immigrant communities. My office is committed to ensuring our educators have the tools and knowledge they need to respond appropriately if immigration officers come to their campus – and that immigrant students and families understand their rights and protections under the law. I encourage schools to keep our office apprised of immigration enforcement occurring on their campuses by emailing immigration@doj.ca.gov. We’re continuing to monitor this issue closely, and we will not hesitate to act if we believe this enforcement goes beyond federal authority under the law.”
Guidance for School Officials if an Immigration Officer Comes to Campus
Notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request, and advise the immigration officer that, before proceeding with the request, and absent exigent circumstances, you must first receive direction from the local educational agency administrator.
Ask to see, and make a copy of or note, the officer’s credentials (name and badge number), and the phone number of his/her supervisor.
Ask the officer for his/her reason for being on school grounds and to produce any documentation that authorizes school access. Make a copy of all documents provided by the officer.
If the officer does not declare that exigent circumstances exist, respond according to the requirements of the officer’s documentation.
While you should not consent to access by an immigration enforcement officer unless he/she declares exigent circumstances or has a federal judicial warrant, do not attempt to physically impede an officer, even if he/she appears to lack authorization to enter. If an officer enters the premises without consent, document his/her actions while on campus.
Notify parents or guardians as soon as possible (unless prevented by a judicial warrant or subpoena), and do so before an officer questions or removes a student for immigration-enforcement purposes (unless a judicial warrant has been presented).
Provide a copy of those notes, and associated documents collected from the officer to the local educational agency’s legal counsel, Superintendent, or other designated administrator.
Apprise the California Department of Justice of any attempt by a law-enforcement officer to access a school site or a student for immigration-enforcement purposes by emailing immigration@doj.ca.gov.
The complete Quick Reference for School Officials guide is available in English and Spanish.
Rights of Immigrant Students and Families
Right to a Free Public Education: All children have a right to equal access to free public education, regardless of their or their parents’/guardians’ immigration status, under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Information Required for School Enrollment: Schools must accept a variety of documents from the student’s parent or guardian to demonstrate proof of child’s age or residency and schools are not required to keep a copy of the document used as proof of a child’s age.
Confidentiality of Personal Information: Federal and state laws protect student education records and personal information. These laws generally require that schools obtain written consent from parents or guardians before releasing student information, unless the release of information is for educational purposes, is already public, or is in response to a court order or subpoena.
Right to File a Complaint: Your child has the right to report a hate crime or file a complaint to the school district if he or she is discriminated against, harassed, intimidated, or bullied because of his or her actual or perceived nationality, ethnicity, or immigration status.
The complete Guide for Students and Families is available English, Spanish, Chinese (Simplified), Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Through the BC Fast Pilot program, Innovate BC and the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC IRAP) are investing a combined total of $1.5M in funding across twelve B.C.-based companies to pilot innovation projects. Projects areas include wildfire management, critical minerals, water treatment, artificial intelligence and data analytics in applications to clean technology and agriculture, and more. The funding will support pilot testing for new technologies.
“Through BC Fast, local companies have the opportunity to show what they are capable of by creating new technology solutions to the challenges we’re facing in public health, resource management and so much more,” said Diana Gibson, Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation. “I look forward to watching these companies grow by selling to local and diversified international markets, and increase global awareness of the talent and business opportunities available in the B.C. tech ecosystem and our rapidly expanding knowledge economy.”
The BC Fast Pilot program helps regional small-medium sized enterprises design, build, and operate a pilot plant or small demonstration of their technology in real-world conditions. This allows B.C. technology companies to demonstrate the impact of their product, measure the value of their solution, and encourage customer adoption, with the goal of scaling their solutions while strengthening key industries, solving local and global challenges, and driving prosperity for British Columbians.
“Innovation transforms industries and helps them remain competitive in global markets, and through the BC Fast Pilot program, we’re supporting the growth of B.C. companies creating new solutions that aim to do just that,” said Peter Cowan, President + CEO of Innovate BC. “This year’s recipients, which are addressing critical areas such as emission reduction, wildfire management, and health sciences, emphasize the immense value in advancing entrepreneurship and the impact of innovation in creating a more prosperous, future-ready British Columbia. We’re proud to deliver this initiative in partnership with NRC IRAP, strengthening the region’s innovation economy and cementing B.C.’s reputation as a global leader in technology.”
Projects funded through this round of BC Fast Pilot are working to provide innovative solutions in support of high-impact sectors such as sustainability, resource management and public health, emphasizing pilot testing to validate effectiveness and scalability. One of this year’s recipients, FireSwarm Solutions, is working to enhance wildfire detection and management through advanced drone technology and is being piloted in Squamish. joni, piloting their project in both Victoria and Richmond, are addressing menstrual care accessibility in public spaces with an IOT-enabled technology.
This is the sixth round of funding through the BC Fast Pilot program, which was launched in 2019. Since the program’s inception, and including this year’s awardees, $11.4M has been invested into 87 B.C. pilot demonstrations.
“Through the BC Fast Pilot program and our partnership with Innovate BC, we are supporting Canadian innovators in bringing their ideas to life,” says Mitch Davies, President, National Research Council of Canada. “By enabling companies to demonstrate their technologies in practical applications, we are helping them gather valuable market insight. This in turn brings them closer to customer adoption, and to providing innovative cleantech solutions to address current challenges.”
Previous program participants include Open Ocean Robotics, which, since receiving funding in 2019/20, has partnered with the Royal Canadian Navy on marine innovation, expanded to Canada’s east coast, secured $800,000 from PacifiCan’s Business Scale-up and Productivity program, and landed major contracts with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Similarly, pH7 Technologies, a 2022/23 participant, secured $1.5M from PacifiCan, raised $16M USD in a Series A round, and was recognized as one of the Global Cleantech 100 companies in 2024 and 2025.
This funding prioritizes regional projects, with a focus on cleantech and projects that involve physical installations and are capital intensive in nature, and those that involve Indigenous communities or organizations.
To view and download digital assets relating to this announcement, please click here.
A Crown Agency of British Columbia, Innovate BC works to foster innovation across the province and bolster the growth of the local economy through delivering a wide range of programs that help companies start and scale, access talent and encourage technology development, commercialization, and adoption. Innovate BC also harnesses crucial data collection and research, and works to forge strategic industry and community partnerships that create more opportunities for B.C. innovators.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gustav Agneman, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Kulusuk village in East Greenland.Shutterstock/Muratart
In 2018, a colleague and I, together with a team of Greenlandic research assistants, conducted one of the most comprehensive surveys to date on public opinion in Greenland. We travelled to 13 randomly selected towns and settlements across the island nation, conducting in-person interviews with a representative sample of adult residents.
The survey explored a wide range of topics. We asked for views on climate change, economic matters – and the prospect of independence from Denmark. Until recently, this was the latest poll on what the people of Greenland thought about this issue.
Greenland, a former Danish colony, is currently an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. This political arrangement grants Greenland extensive self-rule, including control over most domestic affairs, as well as its own prime minister and parliament. However, Denmark retains authority over foreign policy, defence and monetary policy.
While our survey results were covered in Greenlandic and Danish media upon their release, they received scant international attention. This changed abruptly on January 15, when newly re-elected US president Donald Trump reposted an old news article about our results. The headline stated that two-thirds of Greenlandic citizens support independence.
Trump did not add a comment in the post but the insinuation was clear given his recent statements about annexing Greenland from Denmark: Greenlandic residents want independence from Denmark, and therefore, they might be open to other political or economic arrangements with the US.
“I think we’re going to have it,” Trump recently said after a phone call with the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, who told him the land was “not for sale”. Trump has in the past spoken of somehow “purchasing” Greenland but has since moved on towards speaking in more assertive terms about taking control of the territory.
Back in 2018, when we conducted the survey, Trump had not yet revealed any plans to annex the island nation. It was a scenario we could hardly even have imagined and therefore did not ask our participants about. As such, regardless of how Trump framed them, the survey results in no way indicated that the population harboured a desire to join the US.
In fact, a recent survey conducted by Sermitsiaq (a Greenlandic newspaper) and Berlingske (a Danish newspaper) directly addressed this question and found that only 6% of respondents wanted Greenland to leave Denmark and instead become part of the US.
In the study I published based on the 2018 data collection, I reported that a majority of the Greenlandic population aspired to independence. Two-thirds of the participants thought that “Greenland should become an independent country at some point in the future”.
Opinions were more divergent regarding the timing of independence. When asked how they would vote in an independence referendum if it were held today, respondents who stated a preference were evenly split between “yes” and “no” to independence.
The Act on Greenland Self-Government, passed in 2009, grants the Greenlandic government the legal authority to unilaterally call a referendum on separating from the political union with Denmark. According to the law, “the decision regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland”.
During the 15 years since its passage, the option to call a referendum has not been exercised. This is likely due to the potential economic consequences of leaving the union with Denmark.
Each year, Denmark sends a block grant that covers approximately half of Greenland’s budget. This supports a welfare system that is more extensive than what is available to most Americans. In addition, Denmark administers many costly public services, including national defence.
This backdrop presents a dilemma for many Greenlanders who aspire to independence, as they weigh welfare concerns against political sovereignty. This was also evident from my study, which revealed that economic considerations influence independence preferences.
For many Greenlanders, the island nation’s rich natural resources present a potential bridge between economic self-sufficiency and full sovereignty. Foreign investments and the associated tax revenues from resource extraction are seen as key to reducing economic dependence on Denmark. Presumably, these natural resources, which include rare earths and other strategic minerals, also help explain Trump’s interest in Greenland.
As Greenland’s future is likely to remain at the centre of a geopolitical power struggle for some time, it is crucial to remember that only Greenlanders have the right to determine their own path. What scarce information is available on their views suggests that while many aspire to independence, it is not driven by a desire to join the US.
Gustav Agneman 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ailsa Peate, Lecturer in Latin American and Museum Studies, University of Westminster
You would think that Jacques Audiard’s 13-time Oscar-nominated Emilia Pérez was the most watched film of the year given the discussion it has generated. The Mexican-set, French-made film’s opening weekend in Mexico tells a different story.
Emilia Pérez sees the eponymous antagonist-heroine experience a transformation, undergoing gender-affirming procedures in order to leave behind her former dangerous, violent life as a cartel leader in Mexico.
It came eighth at the box office in Mexico, which is hardly surprising. The effects of narco violence saw 613 murders and 626 disappearances between September and December 2024 in Sinaloa State in northwestern Mexico as its eponymous cartel’s factions fight for territory.
Considering the context in which it was released, little positive noise has been made about Emilia Pérez within Mexico given its sensationalist, reductive representations of violence. Internationally, its representation of trans experiences has been criticised.
Though well acted, it is thoughtless. The luxurious life Emilia lives as a trans woman is far detached from reality of most trans people in Mexico, where the average life expectancy for a trans person is 35.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
We follow Rita Mora Castro (Zoe Saldaña), an underappreciated lawyer who works hard only for men to take the credit. Rita is hired by cartel head Juan “Manitas” del Monte (Karla Sofía Gascón) to find a surgeon for her transition to start again as Emilia Pérez. After the transition, Emilia has Manitas declared dead, leaving behind her mourning wife, Jessi (Selena Gómez) and their two young sons who she has relocated to Switzerland for their safety.
After four years, Emilia tracks down Rita to have Jessi and the children moved back to Mexico, posing as Manitas’ distant relative. Emilia then works with Rita to launch a non-profit, “La Lucecita”, that helps the families of missing persons after Emilia becomes appalled by how many disappeared people there are in Mexico.
Emilia’s immediate reaction to such social injustice demonstrates a naivety on Audiard’s part. Despite Manitas having destroyed lives, Emilia wants to dignify them. We are asked to believe that she had no idea about these wretched, miserable souls. But thankfully, Emilia’s “La Lucecita” is here to rescue them. The NGO will find the remains of the disappeared, making them visible again. Good thing Emilia made all that (drug) money to fund the work…
Trailer for Emilia Pérez.
The sheer unbelievability of Pérez not knowing about the violent reverberations of her work aside, I was gratified to see the disappeared of Mexico centralised in the film. The stories of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala and Colombia usually dominate when it comes to the consequences of human rights abuses in the region.
Political prisoners, state terrorism, death flights and extrajudicial murders date back at least as far as the 1960s in Mexico, with the Indomitable Memory Museum in Mexico City doing fantastic work to highlight this history and dignify victims. In particular, the story of the Ayotzinapa 43, who were disappeared en route to Mexico City for an annual march against state corruption and human rights abuses in 2014.
But, considering its direction, Emilia Pérez takes on a white saviour narrative and our heroine simply throws (drug) money at the problem. Audiard’s (admitted) lack of serious thought given to violence ,wealth and power in this context is laughable. Ask “searcher” groups, who go looking for the remains of their disappeared loved ones, like Las Rastredoras de El Fuerte to conjure up money for their work at a fancy gala (and watch I Called for You in Silence, a heartbreaking documentary on their struggles) and see what the reaction is.
Emilia Pérez had the chance to add some nuance to the violence in Mexico today, to demonstrate that this does not exist in a vacuum. It had a chance to go beyond what the transfeminist philosopher Sayak Valencia and the expert in feminist visual culture Sonia Herrera Sánchez would term a kind of sensationalist, colonialist “pornomisery” to present gender fluidity and sexuality in a troubled and troubling context.
I was disappointed. I found it impossible to watch the film without seeing constant instances of what Sayak Valencia deems gore capitalism in action. “Death has become the most profitable business in existence,” according to Valencia.
She outlines that in the era of drug war Mexico (2006 to the present) power is the new capital in a moment where hyper-masculinity and levels of violence are out of control. The lifeless body signifies a capital of fear and power.
Rather than Emilia Pérez forming any coherent commentary on this, the film contributes to it – how much will Audiard make from a film about bodies, what is done to them and how they are destroyed by Mexico’s drug war? How many awards? How much (more) power gained?
Zoe Saldaña sings “El Mal” from Emilia Pérez.
Bodily transition – from living to dead; from male to female – is a motif in the film, and one used as a lazy plot device. Emilia is no longer Manitas; in fact, she’s Manitas’ antithesis, who, therefore, does good for society. This dichotomy between “giving woman” and “violent man” only serves to perpetuate outdated views of womanhood. Karla Sofía Gascón was strong in this role, though I must ask why a Mexican trans actress couldn’t have played Pérez. For instance, Nava Mau of Baby Reindeer.
We know that Emilia Pérez isn’t that bothered about nuance, being one reason the film has been so ripe for satire. It is a narco-telenovela-cum-queer musical from the perspective of a 72-year-old white French man.
If you are looking for a show or film that does what Emilia Pérez should have, I can only recommend the one-off series Somos, a thoughtful take on the 2011 Allende massacre to temper such thoughtless representation.
Ailsa Peate 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.
China’s new DeepSeek Large Language Model (LLM) has disrupted the US-dominated market, offering a relatively high-performance chatbot model at significantly lower cost.
The reduced cost of development and lower subscription prices compared with US AI tools contributed to American chip maker Nvidia losing US$600 billion (£480 billion) in market value over one day. Nvidia makes the computer chips used to train the majority of LLMs, the underlying technology used in ChatGPT and other AI chatbots. DeepSeek uses cheaper Nvidia H800 chips over the more expensive state-of-the-art versions.
ChatGPT developer OpenAI reportedly spent somewhere between US$100 million and US$1 billion on the development of a very recent version of its product called o1. In contrast, DeepSeek accomplished its training in just two months at a cost of US$5.6 million using a series of clever innovations.
But just how well does DeepSeek’s AI chatbot, R1, compare with other, similar AI tools on performance?
DeepSeek claims its models perform comparably to OpenAI’s offerings, even exceeding the o1 model in certain benchmark tests. However, benchmarks that use Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) tests evaluate knowledge across multiple subjects using multiple choice questions. Many LLMs are trained and optimised for such tests, making them unreliable as true indicators of real-world performance.
An alternative methodology for the objective evaluation of LLMs uses a set of tests developed by researchers at Cardiff Metropolitan, Bristol and Cardiff universities – known collectively as the Knowledge Observation Group (KOG). These tests probe LLMs’ ability to mimic human language and knowledge through questions that require implicit human understanding to answer. The core tests are kept secret, to avoid LLM companies training their models for these tests.
KOG deployed public tests inspired by work by Colin Fraser, a data scientist at Meta, to evaluate DeepSeek against other LLMs. The following results were observed:
The tests used to produce this table are “adversarial” in nature. In other words, they are designed to be “hard” and to test LLMs in way that are not sympathetic to how they are designed. This means the performance of these models in this test is likely to be different to their performance in mainstream benchmarking tests.
DeepSeek scored 5.5 out of 6, outperforming OpenAI’s o1 – its advanced reasoning (known as “chain-of-thought”) model – as well as ChatGPT-4o, the free version of ChatGPT. But Deepseek was marginally outperformed by Anthropic’s ClaudeAI and OpenAI’s o1 mini, both of which scored a perfect 6/6. It’s interesting that o1 underperformed against its “smaller” counterpart, o1 mini.
DeepThink R1 – a chain-of-thought AI tool made by DeepSeek – underperformed in comparison to DeepSeek with a score of 3.5.
This result shows how competitive DeepSeek’s chatbot already is, beating OpenAI’s flagship models. It is likely to spur further development for DeepSeek, which now has a strong foundation to build upon. However, the Chinese tech company does have one serious problem the other LLMs do not: censorship.
Censorship challenges
Despite its strong performance and popularity, DeepSeek has faced criticism over its responses to politically sensitive topics in China. For instance, prompts related to Tiananmen Square, Taiwan, Uyghur Muslims and democratic movements are met with the response: “Sorry, that is beyond my current scope.”
But this issue is not necessarily unique to DeepSeek, and the potential for political influence and censorship in LLMs more generally is a growing concern. The announcement of Donald Trump’s US$500 billion Stargate LLM project, involving OpenAI, Nvidia, Oracle, Microsoft, and Arm, also raises fears of political influence.
Additionally, Meta’s recent decision to abandon fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram suggests an increasing trend toward populism over truthfulness.
DeepSeek’s arrival has caused serious disruption to the LLM market. US companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic will be forced to innovate their products to maintain relevance and match its performance and cost.
DeepSeek’s success is already challenging the status quo, demonstrating that high-performance LLM models can be developed without billion-dollar budgets. It also highlights the risks of LLM censorship, the spread of misinformation, and why independent evaluations matter.
As LLMs become more deeply embedded in global politics and business, transparency and accountability will be essential to ensure that the future of LLMs is safe, useful and trustworthy.
Simon Thorne 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cannelle Tassin de Montaigu, Research Fellow, Ecology & Evolution, University of Sussex
Toxic substances used in flea and tick treatments pet owners give to their dogs and cats have been detected in birds’ nests, according to new UK research.
Fipronil and imidacloprid, two common insecticides distributed by vets in pipettes to kill or stunt fleas, were previously found in nearly all English rivers. These chemicals are known to harm aquatic insects, which has repercussions for the species that eat them. Birds are also known to ingest these insecticides in their food and water.
Our study now raises the risk of direct skin contact, as veterinary drugs were the most common insecticides colleagues and I found in bird nests. How do they get there – and what are they doing?
Many birds, including garden visitors such as blue tits and great tits, nest in tree hollows and nest boxes. To keep their eggs and chicks warm, these birds line their nests with soft materials such as fur. In fact, around 74% of European bird species use fur as nest insulation.
Across the UK, pet owners and wildlife enthusiasts leave brushed pet fur outside for birds to collect. But with around 80% of the country’s 22 million cats and dogs receiving regular flea and tick treatments, this well-meaning act can inadvertently expose birds to harm.
A previous study in the Netherlands found that insecticides used in flea treatment were appearing in birds’ nests. The study I led with colleagues is the first to identify the problem in the UK.
Banned on farms, used in homes
We examined 103 nests of blue tits and great tits and found the residue of 17 out of 20 insecticides commonly used as flea treatments in the UK. The most prevalent were fipronil, which we found in every single nest, imidacloprid and permethrin, which were both detected in 89% of nests.
All three of these chemicals are banned for use as pest control on EU farms due to their harmful effects on wildlife. Studies have shown that these insecticides can damage the nervous and reproductive systems of birds, and threaten their overall health. Yet they remain widely used in veterinary medicine.
We collected nests months after the breeding season, and so the concentrations of chemicals we found are likely to be lower than what was present in the nests during spring, when birds gather material for nests. This suggests that eggs and chicks were exposed during the whole breeding season.
The nests we found with higher concentrations of insecticides contained more unhatched eggs and dead chicks. Other factors could explain these deaths, such as predation. But the known dangers of these chemicals should make us question their wider impact on the environment. While more research is needed to fully understand their risks, the evidence already suggests that exposure could be harming nestlings, which are at a critical stage of development.
Flea and tick treatments either kill insects or halt their development. Nick Alias/Shutterstock
Scientists and conservationgroups are urging the UK government to conduct a more thorough environmental risk assessment of veterinary treatments, particularly those used on dogs and cats.
Public awareness will also be key to addressing the problem. Many pet owners do not know that their routine flea treatments affect wildlife. Small changes could help reduce this impact. For example, year-round flea treatment is not necessary, particularly in winter when fleas and ticks are less active.
If treatment is required then tablets could be a better choice as they do not involve direct skin contact for birds and would not wash away every time a pet swims or is bathed either. They may be excreted in faeces and contaminate the soil, however – that’s why a thorough environmental risk assessment is necessary.
Pet owners who enjoy helping birds can still leave out fur as nesting material, perhaps by saving the brushed fur from untreated pets during winter and putting it out the following spring.
As awareness of this issue grows, pet owners, scientists and policymakers can ensure that veterinary treatments do not come at the cost of the UK’s wildlife.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Source: United States of America – Department of State (video statements)
Secretary of State Marco A. Rubio holds a joint press availability with Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves in San Jose, Costa Rica, on February 4, 2025.
———-
Under the leadership of the President and Secretary of State, the U.S. Department of State leads America’s foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy, and assistance by advancing the interests of the American people, their safety and economic prosperity. On behalf of the American people we promote and demonstrate democratic values and advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world.
The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service and U.S. Agency for International Development.
Get updates from the U.S. Department of State at www.state.gov and on social media!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/statedept
X: https://x.com/StateDept
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/statedept
Flickr: https://flickr.com/photos/statephotos/
Subscribe to the State Department Blog: https://www.state.gov/blogs
Watch on-demand State Department videos: https://video.state.gov/
Subscribe to The Week at State e-newsletter: http://ow.ly/diiN30ro7Cw
State Department website: https://www.state.gov/
Careers website: https://careers.state.gov/
White House website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
Terms of Use: https://state.gov/tou
Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)
Kennedy Has Profited Off Spreading Vaccine Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), a member of the Senate Committee on Finance, issued the following statement after Senate Republicans voted to advance Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services:
“Despite Mr. Kennedy’s troubling track record of peddling misinformation and conspiracy theories, Senate Republicans have chosen to advance his nomination to the Senate Floor. Mr. Kennedy is not only a dangerous nominee that will undermine public health, but he also has no real plan to lower costs or improve care for Americans, and elevating him to the nation’s top health position puts American lives and livelihoods at risk.
“During his hearing, I asked Mr. Kennedy if he would stand up to President Trump to protect health care for children and families. Not only did he have a deep misunderstanding of Medicaid, he would not commit to defending it. It’s clear to me that he will answer to President Trump, not the American people.
“Republicans and Democrats alike raised concerns about Mr. Kennedy’s nomination, yet his nomination continues to move forward. The American people deserve better.”
Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, today introduced the No Red and Blue Banks Act to stop the federal government from awarding contracts to financial institutions that discriminate against companies based on the customers’ social policy.
“The government shouldn’t reward banks for discriminating against businesses because of their industry or politics. The No Red and Blue Banks Act would fight political bias among banks by refusing to reward bad actors with government contracts,”said Kennedy.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) cosponsored the bill.
The No Red and Blue Banks Act would prohibit the General Services Administration from giving government contracts to insured depository institutions that refuse business to lawful companies because of the companies’ social policy.
Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, today introduced a joint resolution of disapproval under Congressional Review Act (CRA) procedures for the Office of Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) rule that delays the bank merger approval process by adding more red tape that could lead to consumer uncertainty.
The Biden administration’s rule, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, amended the Bank Merger Act of 1960 to make it harder for the OCC to approve healthy bank mergers quickly. Kennedy’s resolution would reverse the Biden administration’s misguided rule so that banks can stay in business and serve hard working Americans.
“Big government shouldn’t stand in the way of healthy bank mergers that occur in the free market and serve consumers and job creators. In order to stabilize the banking industry and protect the Americans who depend on strong banks, Congress should quickly reverse the Biden administration’s bureaucratic rule,” said Kennedy.
Sens. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) joined the resolution.
Background:
Historically, federal bank regulators assumed that a potential merger passed muster. The burden of showing that a merger would harm business and consumers fell on the OCC and bank regulators.
The Biden administration’s rule shifted the burden to individual banks, making it harder for them to fulfill their obligations by making smart, strategic mergers.
Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today joined Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and 23 other senators in introducing a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Biden administration’s proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to implement a fee on methane emissions.
“Americans want our country to ‘drill, baby, drill’ to lower their energy costs. To restore American energy dominance, we need to beat back the anti-energy policies and taxes the Biden administration shackled us with,” said Kennedy.
The EPA’s proposed methane fee would effectively create a new tax on key parts of the American oil and gas business, including both onshore and offshore natural gas production and liquefied natural gas import, export and storage.
“When it comes to bringing down prices and making America energy secure again, we have our work cut out for us. The Biden-Harris administration imposed countless policies like the Natural Gas Tax that drive up the cost of production and limit the ability to fully utilize our nation’s abundant energy resources, and it will take real time and effort to undo the effects of their Green New Deal agenda. Through efforts like this CRA resolution, we are working to get our nation back on the right track, providing needed regulatory and tax relief to deliver real cost savings to American energy producers and consumers,” said Hoeven.
The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to overturn certain federal agency regulations and actions through a joint resolution of disapproval. If both houses of Congress approve such a joint resolution and the president signs it, or if Congress successfully overrides a presidential veto, the regulation at issue becomes invalid.
Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) introduced the resolution in the House.
“As part of his war on energy, former President Biden took radical steps to end fossil fuels during his administration which hurt the hardworking energy producers in my district who have worked diligently to increase production while fueling our allies abroad. Biden’s burdensome natural gas tax has handicapped technological innovation, reduced supplies of affordable energy, and increased both costs and emissions. With President Trump back in office, it is time to restore American energy dominance—which is why I am proud to lead this CRA to rescind this ill-conceived natural gas tax,” said Pfluger.
Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) cosponsored the resolution.
Source: United States Senator for North Dakota John Hoeven
02.04.25
WASHINGTON – Senator John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Congressman August Pfluger (R-Texas) today reintroduced their bicameral Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval to block implementation of the Biden administration’s Natural Gas Tax, which was passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats’ reckless tax-and-spend legislation in 2022.
“When it comes to bringing down prices and making America energy secure again, we have our work cut out for us. The Biden-Harris administration imposed countless policies like the Natural Gas Tax that drive up the cost of production and limit the ability to fully utilize our nation’s abundant energy resources, and it will take real time and effort to undo the effects of their Green New Deal agenda,” said Senator Hoeven, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “Through efforts like this CRA resolution, we are working to get our nation back on the right track, providing needed regulatory and tax relief to deliver real cost savings to American energy producers and consumers.”
“As part of his war on energy, former President Biden took radical steps to end fossil fuels during his administration which hurt the hardworking energy producers in my district who have worked diligently to increase production while fueling our allies abroad,” said Rep. Pfluger, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Biden’s burdensome natural gas tax has handicapped technological innovation, reduced supplies of affordable energy, and increased both costs and emissions. With President Trump back in office, it is time to restore American energy dominance – which is why I am proud to lead this CRA to rescind this ill-conceived natural gas tax.”
This legislation comes as part of Hoeven’s broader efforts in the new Congress and with the Trump administration to unlock America’s energy potential and rescind the wide array of costly taxes and regulations imposed under President Biden. Among other priorities, Hoeven is working to:
Improve access to taxpayer-owned energy resources.
Streamline the approval process for energy development and the construction of infrastructure needed to get energy to market.
Reduce the cost of production, fight inflation and bring down prices for American consumers.
The Hoeven-Pfluger bill is cosponsored by Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), John Ricketts (R-Neb.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). The full text of the legislation can be found here.
Source: United States Senator for Kansas – Jerry Moran
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) today announced the Senate passage of the bipartisan resolution designating the week beginning February 3, 2025, as “National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week.” This week is dedicated to the recognition of and support for the achievements of students pursuing postsecondary educational opportunities in Tribal Colleges and Universities.
“Tribal colleges and universities, like Haskell Indian Nations University, provide native students the opportunity to receive a higher education in an environment that prioritizes their heritage and culture,“ said Sen. Moran. “This legislation provides an opportunity to applaud and support the accomplishments of tribal students and their educators – both of which are deserving of our recognition”
“Our tribal colleges and universities play a vital role in Montana’s communities and provide incredible opportunities for higher education on or near Montana’s reservations,” said Sen. Daines. “I’m proud to introduce legislation so the hard work and great achievements of our Montana students, teachers and educational institutions can be recognized nationally.”
“I’m pleased the Senate passed my resolution designating this week as National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week,” said Sen. Heinrich. “This resolution recognizes the vital role of Tribal colleges and universities in creating opportunities for the next generation of Tribal leaders, upholding Tribal educational sovereignty, and preparing Native students for careers they can build their families around in their home communities.”
Read the full text of the resolution here.
In December, Sen. Moran released draft legislation that would federally charter Haskell Indian Nations University and transfer governance from the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) to the Haskell Board of Regents, while maintaining federal funding for the university.
The Senators were also joined by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Michael Bennett (D-Colo.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.).
