Blog

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

President Donald Trump’s nomination of his former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, was mired in controversy.

On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general.

When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.”

And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.”

A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.”

On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote.

Late in the evening of July 29, and after two more whistleblower complaints about Bove’s conduct had emerged, the U.S. Senate confirmed Bove’s nomination in a 50-49 vote.

As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time.

Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination was different in a crucial way.

Robert Bork

Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb.

“Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster.

This refers to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 appointment of Bork to the Supreme Court.

Reagan called Bork “one of the finest judges in America’s history.” Democrats viewed Bork, a federal appeals court judge, as an ideologically extreme conservative, with their opposition based largely on his extensive scholarly work and opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination.

Ronnie White

In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. White was the first Black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led some to believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime.

Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.”

White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.

Miguel Estrada

Republican President George W. Bush nominated Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2001.

Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court.

However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin.

Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired.

Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology.

According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.”

When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.”

Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge.

Bove stands out

As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns.

This is also true for Bove, who was opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservative ideologue.

But the main concerns about Bove were related to a belief that he is a Trump loyalist who shows little respect for the rule of law or the judicial branch.

This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.

This story, originally published on July 21, 2025, has been updated to reflect the Senate’s confirmation of Bove.

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

– ref. Emil Bove confirmed – his appeals court nomination echoed earlier controversies, but with a key difference – https://theconversation.com/emil-bove-confirmed-his-appeals-court-nomination-echoed-earlier-controversies-but-with-a-key-difference-261347

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Soroush Sabbaghan, Associate Professor, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

Scroll through social media and you’ll find numerous videos such as “How to Use AI to write your essay in 5 minutes” or “How to skip the readings with ChatGPT.”

The discourse surrounding AI in education is deafening and it’s almost entirely consumed by the question: How? How do we write the perfect prompt? How should educators integrate ChatGPT into academic work or detect its use?

This obsession with methods and mechanics is a dangerous distraction. By racing to master the “how,” we have skipped the two far more critical, foundational questions: why should we use these tools in the first place, and when is it appropriate to do so?

Answering the “how” is a technical challenge. Answering the “why” and “when” is a philosophical one. Until educators and educational leaders ground their approaches in a coherent philosophical and theoretical foundation for learning, integrating AI will be aimless, driven by novelty and efficiency rather than human development.

Two frameworks provide the essential lens we need to move beyond the hype and engage with AI responsibly: “virtue epistemology,” which argues that knowledge is not merely a collection of correct facts or a well-assembled product, but the outcome of practising intellectual virtues; and a care-based approach that prioritizes relationships.

Virtue over volume

The current “how-to” culture implicitly defines the goal of learning as the production of a polished output (like a a comprehensive report or a functional piece of code). From this perspective, AI is a miracle of efficiency. But is the output the point of learning?

Virtue epistemology, as championed by philosophers like Linda Zagzebski, suggests the real goal of an assignment is not just writing the essay itself — but the cultivation of curiosity, intellectual perseverance, humility and critical thinking that the process is meant to instil.

This reframes the “why” of using AI. From this perspective, the only justification for integrating AI into a learning process should be to support and sustain intellectual labour.

If a student uses AI to brainstorm counterarguments for a debate, they are practising intellectual flexibility as part of that labour. If another student uses AI to map connections between theoretical frameworks for a research paper, they are deepening conceptual understanding through guided synthesis.

When AI undermines ‘why’

However, when the “how” of AI is used to bypass the very struggle that builds virtue (by exercising intellectual labour, including analysis, deliberation and judgment), it directly undermines the “why” of the assignment. A graduate student who generates a descriptive list of pertinent research about a topic without engaging with the sources skips the valuable process of synthesis and critical engagement.

This stands in direct contrast to philosopher and educator John Dewey’s view of learning as an active, experiential process.

For Dewey, learning happens through doing, questioning and grappling with complexity, not by acquiring information passively. Assignments that reward perfection and correctness over process and growth further incentivize the use of AI as a shortcut, reducing learning to prompting and receiving rather than engaging in the intellectual labour of constructing meaning.

Care over compliance

If the “why” is about supporting human intellectual labour and fostering intellectual virtue, the “when” is about the specific, contextual and human needs of the learner.

This is where an “ethics of care” becomes indispensable. As philosopher Nel Noddings proposed, a care-based approach prioritizes relationships and the needs of the individual over rigid, universal rules. It moves away from a one-size-fits-all policy and toward discretionary judgment.

The question: “When is it appropriate to use AI?” cannot be answered with a simple rubric. For a student with a learning disability or severe anxiety, using AI to help structure their initial thoughts might be a compassionate and enabling act, allowing them to engage with the intellectual labour of the task without being paralyzed by the mechanics of writing. In this context, the “when” is when the tool removes a barrier to deeper learning.

Conversely, for a student who needs to develop foundational writing skills, relying on that same tool for the same task would be irresponsible. Deciding the “when” requires educators to know their learner, understand the learning goal and act with compassion and wisdom. It is a relational act, not a technical one.

Educators must ensure that AI supports rather than displaces the development of core capabilities.

AI as mediator

This is also where we must confront historian and philosopher Michel Foucault’s challenge to the idea of the lone, autonomous author. Foucault argued that the concept of the author functions to make discourse controllable and to have a name that can be held accountable. Our obsession with policing students’ authorship — a “how” problem focused on originality and plagiarism — is rooted in this system of control.

It rests on the convenient fiction of the unmediated creator, ignoring that all creation is an act of synthesis, mediated by language, culture and the texts that came before. AI is simply a new, more powerful mediator that makes this truth impossible to ignore.

This perspective reframes an educator’s task away from policing a fragile notion of originality. The more crucial questions become when and why to use a mediator like AI. Does the tool enable deeper intellectual labour, or does it supplant the struggle that builds virtue? The focus shifts from controlling the student to intentionally shaping the learning experience.

Reorienting AI through values and virtue

The rush to adopt AI tools without a philosophical framework is already leading us toward a more surveilled, less trusting and pedagogically shallow future.

Some educational systems are investing money in AI detection software when what’s needed is investing in redesigning assessment.

Policy is emerging that requires students to declare their use of AI. But it’s essential to understand that disclosure isn’t the same as meaningful conversations about intellectual virtue.

Answering the questions of why and when to use AI requires us to be architects of learning. It demands that we engage with thinking about learning and what it means to produce knowledge through the works of people like Dewey, Noddings, Zagzebski and others as urgently as we do with the latest tech blogs.

For educators, the responsible integration of AI into our learning environments depends on our commitments to cultivating a culture that values intellectual labour and understands it as inseparable from the knowledge and culture it helps generate.

It is time to stop defaulting to “how” and instead lead the conversation about the values that define when and why AI fits within meaningful and effective learning.

Soroush Sabbaghan receives funding from SSHRC.

– ref. AI can be responsibly integrated into classrooms by answering the ‘why’ and ‘when’ – https://theconversation.com/ai-can-be-responsibly-integrated-into-classrooms-by-answering-the-why-and-when-261496

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jay R. Malcolm, Professor Emeritus, Forestry, University of Toronto

Forest degradation is increasingly recognized as a major global threat. Such degradation refers to the gradual erosion of a forest’s ability to store carbon, support biodiversity and sustain livelihoods, including those of Indigenous Peoples.

International frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change now address degradation alongside deforestation.

While tropical forests have long been the focus, attention is also turning to temperate and boreal forests, where forest management is widespread and the potential for degradation is growing.

Some scientists have argued that if forest management is designed to be “ecologically sustainable,” then there should be little concern about degradation. But is this principle being upheld in practice? Our recent study in Ontario suggests otherwise.

Emulating natural forest disturbances

A widely used strategy to support ecological sustainability is to emulate natural disturbances; that is, to design human-caused disturbances so they fall within the range of variation observed in nature.

The ecological theory behind this approach is that species are adapted to cope with, or even benefit from, natural disturbances. In Canada’s managed boreal forests, for example, harvesting is explicitly designed to mimic natural fires, both in individual cutblocks and across the broader landscape.

In fact, this principle is enshrined in Ontario’s 1994 Crown Forest Sustainability Act that states:

“The long-term health and vigour of Crown forests should be provided for by using forest practice…that emulates natural disturbances and landscape patterns…”

The ecological sustainability of forest management is not a given: it is a hypothesis, and like any hypothesis, it must be tested. Are we actually managing forests in ecologically sustainable ways, or are we witnessing gradual forest degradation?

Our study examined the state of a 7.9 million hectare area of boreal forest in northeastern Ontario from 2012 to 2021 to test whether the provincial management regime was emulating natural disturbances, as required by law, or was instead prioritizing timber harvesting.

We used three indicators:

1) The rate at which forest was disturbed (including harvesting and fire).

2) The amount of relatively old forest (greater than 100 years old).

3) Modelled habitat for two species that have been used as indicators of sustainability: America marten and boreal caribou.

Our research did not find evidence that current practices in northeastern Ontario are emulating natural disturbances across the boreal landscape. Rather, the observed disturbance patterns appear to reflect strategies primarily focused on timber harvesting priorities.

What we found

A particular risk for boreal forests is a focus on timber production and economic returns over ecological goals. Such an approach is fundamentally at odds with the idea of emulating nature.

In particular, forests older than 100 years old have high ecological value in natural systems. They keep large amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere and provide habitat for myriad species. But if one is prioritizing timber, they are viewed as wasteful because they do not produce timber as rapidly as younger forests and are often targeted for removal. In that perspective, they are labelled “decadent.”

We found that the amount of forest disturbed per year was often higher than expected under natural fire regimes and, in some coniferous forest types, even exceeded the rates expected under a strategy that prioritized timber harvesting.

Relatively old forests were also much rarer than in natural landscapes: only 22 per cent of the forest in the study area was more than 100 years old compared to an average of 54 per cent in natural landscapes.

This amount was lower than even the most conservative threshold of natural variability.

Habitats for marten and caribou were similarly degraded and fragmented. Marten habitat covered just 36 per cent of the study landscape, compared to 76 per cent in a reconstructed natural landscape. For boreal caribou, habitat was even more compromised, covering only four per cent of the study area compared to 53 per cent in the natural landscape.

Strikingly, for caribou, levels of habitat disturbance — including disturbances from harvesting, fire and roads — exceeded 70 per cent of the landscape, jeopardizing the sustainability of the two caribou populations.

Surprisingly, the clearest evidence of forest management prioritizing timber occurred within zones meant explicitly to sustain caribou. Our modelling showed that such areas will contain even less caribou habitat in the future than they do today.

A path to an ecologically sustainable future

The Ontario government is currently revisiting its boreal management strategy — a welcome and timely development. But rather than relying solely on a virtual reality model (Boreal Forest Landscape Disturbance Simulator) to define natural landscapes as is currently the case, it is evident that policy must be grounded in empirical data from real, unmanaged forests.

Scientific research over the past several decades has identified forest management approaches that can deliver timber while also sustaining ecological services within natural bounds.

These strategies, however, rely on tools the province has yet to embrace, including longer harvest rotations, increased use of partial harvesting instead of over-relying on clearcutting, expanded areas set aside from logging, and explicit targets for amounts of forest up to 200 years of age or older.

Our findings indicate that forest degradation is already underway in the boreal forests of Ontario. Substantial changes to forest management are required to reverse this trend and safeguard the ecosystem services on which people and wildlife depend.

Jay R. Malcolm has received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Wahkohtowin Development GP Inc. (WDGP). The research also benefited from research on American marten habitat funded by Mitacs
and WDGP. WDGP played a role in defining the study area, but otherwise funders were not involved in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Justina C. Ray is President and Senior Scientist of Wildlife Conservation Society Canada.

– ref. Ontario’s forest management is falling short on key sustainability test – https://theconversation.com/ontarios-forest-management-is-falling-short-on-key-sustainability-test-261054

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matt Brooks, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Florida State University

Immigration has dominated recent public discourse about Florida, whether it be the opening of Alligator Alcatraz, a migrant detention facility in the middle of the Everglades, or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis declaring an “immigration emergency” for the state that has lasted more than two years.

As demographers – that is, people who count people – we’ve noticed that this conversation has proceeded largely without the benefit of a clear description of Florida’s immigrant population.

Here’s a snapshot.

How many immigrants are in Florida?

We used data from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics and the American Community Survey, conducted annually by the U.S. Census Bureau. Homeland Security provides estimates of the state’s undocumented population and annual counts of authorized arrivals. Census data allow us to describe the social and economic characteristics of Florida’s immigrant population.

In 2023, the most recent year for which the Department of Homeland Security provides publicly available data, an estimated 590,000 immigrants without legal status were living in Florida. This is the third-largest population of immigrants without legal status in the U.S., behind California and Texas. But in contrast to those two states, the number of immigrants entering Florida illegally has been shrinking since 2018.

On the other hand, DHS data points to recent growth in Florida’s population of immigrants with legal status. This represents a rebound from declines between 2016 and 2020.

In 2023, Florida welcomed 72,850 residents from outside the country. This is just 0.3% of Florida’s population that year. About 95% of these new Florida residents were admitted as lawful permanent residents, or green card holders. The remainder entered as refugees (3%) and people granted asylum (2%).

For comparison, U.S. Census Bureau estimates suggest roughly 640,000 people moved to Florida in 2023 from other states.

Who makes up Florida’s immigrant population?

The American Community Survey data tells us even more about Florida’s immigrant population. The survey estimates that 4,996,874 foreign-born individuals lived in Florida in 2023, up from 3,798,062 in 2013. These numbers include those who are in the U.S. legally and illegally and encompass both recent arrivals and long-term residents.

In 2023, about 22% of Florida residents – and nearly 7% of Florida children – were immigrants. An additional 29% of Florida children have at least one immigrant parent.

According to the American Community Survey, nearly half of Florida’s immigrants were born in Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Colombia or Mexico. Despite being born elsewhere, Florida’s immigrants in many ways resemble other Floridians: About 20% hold a bachelor’s degree, compared to 22% of nonimmigrant Floridians, and 13% of both groups have a graduate degree. Nearly all Florida immigrants, 89%, speak English, and the majority, 57%, are naturalized citizens.

Immigrants make up a disproportionate share of Florida’s workforce, particularly in essential sectors of the state’s economy. They account for more than 47% of Florida’s agricultural workers, 41% of hotel workers and 35% of construction workers.

Florida immigrants also work in sectors that many might not consider to be “immigrant jobs.” They constitute 33% of child care workers, 21% of school and university employees and 27% of the health care workers.

Across all sectors, immigrants have lower unemployment rates than nonimmigrants. Although available data cannot tell us the extent to which these numbers are bolstered by undocumented immigrants, the importance of Florida’s immigrants for the state’s economy is undeniable.

Florida’s population is growing at a faster rate than any other state in the country, boosted by people moving in from abroad and from other states. This growth both reflects and feeds the state’s economic vitality. Between 2019 and 2024, Florida’s GDP grew twice as fast as the nation’s as a whole.

Is Florida experiencing an “immigration emergency”? That’s for politicians to decide. Our research suggests that policies that discourage new arrivals or encourage – or force – migrants to leave could jeopardize Florida’s robust economy and the well-being of its population.

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

– ref. Unpacking Florida’s immigration trends − demographers take a closer look at the legal and undocumented population – https://theconversation.com/unpacking-floridas-immigration-trends-demographers-take-a-closer-look-at-the-legal-and-undocumented-population-261425

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA – By James N. Gregory, Professor of History, University of Washington

It has happened before: an upset victory by a Democratic Socialist in an important primary election after an extraordinary grassroots campaign.

In the summer of 1934, Upton Sinclair earned the kind of headlines that greeted Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory on June 24, 2025, in the New York City mayoral election.

Mamdani’s win surprised nearly everyone. Not just because he beat the heavily favored former governor Andrew Cuomo, but because he did so by a large margin. Because he did so with a unique coalition, and because his Muslim identity and membership in the Democratic Socialists of America should have, in conventional political thinking, made victory impossible.

This sounds familiar, at least to historians like me. Upton Sinclair, the famous author and a socialist for most of his life, ran for governor in California in 1934 and won the Democratic primary election with a radical plan that he called End Poverty in California, or EPIC.

The news traveled the globe and set off intense speculation about the future of California, where Sinclair was then expected to win the general election. His primary victory also generated theories about the future of the Democratic Party, where this turn toward radicalism might complicate the policies of the Democratic administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

What happened next may concern Mamdani supporters. Business and media elites mounted a campaign of fear that put Sinclair on the defensive. Meanwhile, conservative Democrats defected, and a third candidate split progressive votes.

In the November election, Sinclair lost decisively to incumbent Gov. Frank Merriam, who would have stood less chance against a conventional Democrat.

As a historian of American radicalism, I have written extensively about Sinclair’s EPIC movement, and I direct an online project that includes detailed accounts of the campaign and copies of campaign materials.

Upton’s 1934 campaign initiated the on-again, off-again influence of radicals in the Democratic Party and illustrates some of the potential dynamics of that relationship, which, almost 100 years later, may be relevant to Mamdani in the coming months.

California, 1934

Sinclair launched his gubernatorial campaign in late 1933, hoping to make a difference but not expecting to win. California remained mired in the Great Depression. The unemployment rate had been estimated at 29% when Roosevelt took office in March and had improved only slightly since then.

Sinclair’s Socialist Party had failed badly in the 1932 presidential election as Democrat Roosevelt swept to victory. Those poor results included California, where the Democratic Party had been an afterthought for more than three decades.

Sinclair decided that it was time to see what could be accomplished by radicals working within that party.

Reregistering as a Democrat, he dashed off a 64-page pamphlet with the futuristic title I, Governor of California and How I Ended Poverty. It detailed his plan to solve California’s massive unemployment crisis by having the state take over idle farms and factories and turn them into cooperatives dedicated to “production for use” instead of “production for profit.”

Sinclair soon found himself presiding over an explosively popular campaign, as thousands of volunteers across the state set up EPIC clubs – numbering more than 800 by election time – and sold the weekly EPIC News to raise campaign funds.

Mainstream Democrats waited too long to worry about Sinclair and then failed to unite behind an alternative candidate. But it would not have mattered. Sinclair celebrated a massive primary victory, gaining more votes than all of his opponents combined.

Newspapers around the world told the story.

“What is the matter with California?” The Boston Globe asked, according to author Greg Mitchell. “That is the farthest shift to the left ever made by voters of a major party in this country.”

Building fear

Primaries are one thing. But in 1934, the November general election turned in a different direction.

Terrified by Sinclair’s plan, business leaders mobilized to defeat EPIC, forming the kind of cross-party coalition that is rare in America except when radicals pose an electoral threat. Sinclair described the effort in a book he wrote shortly after the November election: “I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked.”

Nearly every major newspaper in the state, including the five Democratic-leaning Hearst papers, joined the effort to stop Sinclair. Meanwhile, a high-priced advertising agency set up bipartisan groups with names like California League Against Sinclairism and Democrats for Merriam, trumpeting the names of prominent Democrats who refused to support Sinclair.

Few people of any party were enthusiastic about Merriam, who had recently angered many Californians by sending the National Guard to break a Longshore strike in San Francisco, only to trigger a general strike that shut down the city.

The campaign against Sinclair attacked him with billboards, radio and newsreel programming, and relentless newspaper stories about his radical past and supposedly dangerous plans for California.

EPIC faced another challenge, candidate Raymond Haight, running on the Progressive Party label. Haight threatened to divide left-leaning voters.

Sinclair tried to defend himself, energetically denouncing what he called the “Lie Factory” and offering revised, more moderate versions of some elements of the EPIC plan. But the Red Scare campaign worked. Merriam easily outdistanced Sinclair, winning by a plurality in the three-way race.

New York, 2025

Will a Democratic Socialist running for mayor in New York face anything similar in the months ahead?

A movement to stop Mamdani is coming together, and some of what they are saying resonates with the 1934 campaign to stop Sinclair.

The Guardian newspaper has quoted “loquacious billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, who said he and others in the finance industry are ready to commit ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ into an opposing campaign.”

In 1934, newspapers publicized threats by major companies, most famously Hollywood studios, to leave California in the event of a Sinclair victory. The Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine and other media outlets have recently warned of similar threats.

And there may be something similar about the political dynamics.

Sinclair’s opponents could offer only a weak alternative candidate. Merriam had few friends and many critics.

In 2025, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who abandoned the primary when he was running as a Democrat and is now running as an independent, is arguably weaker still, having been rescued by President Donald Trump from a corruption indictment that might have sent him to prison. If he is the best hope to stop Mamdani, the campaign strategy will likely parallel 1934. All attack ads – little effort to promote Adams.

But there is an important difference in the way the New York contest is setting up. Andrew Cuomo remains on the ballot as an independent, and his name could draw votes that might otherwise go to Adams.

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, will also be on the ballot. Whereas in 1934 two candidates divided progressive votes, in 2025 three candidates are going to divide the stop-Mamdani votes.

Religion also looms large in the campaign ahead. The New York City metro area’s U.S. Muslim population is said to be at least 600,000, compared to an estimated 1.6 million Jewish residents. Adams has announced that the threat of antisemitism will be the major theme of his campaign.

The stop-Sinclair campaign also relied on religion, focusing on his professed atheism and pulling quotations from books he had written denouncing organized religion. However, a statistical analysis of voting demographics suggests that this effort proved unimportant.

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

– ref. When socialists win Democratic primaries: Will Zohran Mamdani be haunted by the Upton Sinclair effect? – https://theconversation.com/when-socialists-win-democratic-primaries-will-zohran-mamdani-be-haunted-by-the-upton-sinclair-effect-260168

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA – By David Joyner, Associate Dean and Senior Research Associate, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology

New technologies usually follow the technology adoption life cycle. Innovators and early adopters rush to embrace new technologies, while laggards and skeptics jump in much later.

At first glance, it looks like artificial intelligence is following the same pattern, but a new crop of studies suggests that AI might follow a different course – one with significant implications for business, education and society.

This general phenomenon has often been described as “AI hesitancy” or “AI reluctance.” The typical adoption curve assumes a person who is hesitant or reluctant to embrace a technology will eventually do so anyway. This pattern has repeated over and over – why would AI be any different?

Emerging research on the reasons behind AI hesitancy, however, suggests there are different dynamics at play that might alter the traditional adoption cycle. For example, a recent study found that while some causes of this hesitation closely mirror those regarding previous technologies, others are unique to AI.

In many ways, as someone who closely watches the spread of AI, there may be a better analogy: veganism.

AI veganism

The idea of an AI vegan is someone who abstains from using AI, the same way a vegan is someone who abstains from eating products derived from animals. Generally, the reasons people choose veganism do not fade automatically over time. They might be reasons that can be addressed, but they’re not just about getting more comfortable eating animals and animal products. That’s why the analogy in the case of AI is appealing.

Unlike many other technologies, it’s important not to assume that skeptics and laggards will eventually become adopters. Many of those refusing to embrace AI actually fit the traditional archetype of an early adopter. The study on AI hesitation focused on college students who are often among the first demographics to adopt new technologies.

There is some historical precedent for this analogy. Under the hood, AI is just a set of algorithms. Algorithmic aversion is a well-known phenomenon where humans are biased against algorithmic decision-making – even if it is shown to be more effective. For example, people prefer dating advice from humans over advice from algorithms, even when the algorithms perform better.

But the analogy to veganism applies in other ways, providing insights into what to expect in the future. In fact, studies show that three of the main reasons people choose veganism each have a parallel in AI avoidance.

Ethical concerns

One motivation for veganism is concern over the ethical sourcing of animal by-products. Similarly, studies have found that when users are aware that many content creators did not knowingly opt into letting their work be used to train AI, they are more likely to avoid using AI.

These concerns were at the center of the Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists strikes in 2023, where the two unions argued for legal protections against companies using creatives’ works to train AI without consent or compensation. While some creators may be protected by such trade agreements, lots of models are instead trained on the work of amateur, independent or freelance creators without these systematic protections.

Environmental concerns

A second motivation for veganism is concern over the environmental impacts of intensive animal agriculture, from deforestation to methane production. Research has shown that the computing resources needed to support AI are growing exponentially, dramatically increasing demand for electricity and water, and that efficiency improvements are unlikely to lower the overall power usage due to a rebound effect, which is when efficiency gains spur new technologies that consume more energy.

One preliminary study found that increasing users’ awareness of the power demands of AI can affect how they use these systems. Another survey found that concern about water usage to cool AI systems was a factor in students’ refusal to use the technology at Cambridge University.

Personal wellness

A third motivation for veganism is concern for possible negative health effects of eating animals and animal products. A potential parallel concern could be at work in AI veganism.

A Microsoft Research study found that people who were more confident in using generative AI showed diminished critical thinking. The 2025 Cambridge University survey found some students avoiding AI out of concern that using it could make them lazy.

It is not hard to imagine that the possible negative mental health effects of using AI could drive some AI abstinence in the same way the possible negative physical health effects of an omnivorous diet may drive some to veganism.

How society reacts

Veganism has led to a dedicated industry catering to that diet. Some restaurants feature vegan entrees. Some manufacturers specialize in vegan foods. Could it be the case that some companies will try to use the absence of AI as a selling point for their products and services?

If so, it would be similar to how companies such as DuckDuckGo and the Mozilla Foundation provide alternative search engines and web browsers with enhanced privacy as their main feature.

There are few vegans compared to nonvegans in the U.S. Estimates range as high as 4% of the population. But the persistence of veganism has enabled a niche market to serve them. Time will tell if AI veganism takes hold.

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

– ref. ‘AI veganism’: Some people’s issues with AI parallel vegans’ concerns about diet – https://theconversation.com/ai-veganism-some-peoples-issues-with-ai-parallel-vegans-concerns-about-diet-260277

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Richard Green, Astronomer Emeritus, Steward Observatory, University of Arizona

Outdoor lighting for buildings, roads and advertising can help people see in the dark of night, but many astronomers are growing increasingly concerned that these lights could be blinding us to the rest of the universe.

An estimate from 2023 showed that the rate of human-produced light is increasing in the night sky by as much as 10% per year.

I’m an astronomer who has chaired a standing commission on astronomical site protection for the International Astronomical Union-sponsored working groups studying ground-based light pollution.

My work with these groups has centered around the idea that lights from human activities are now affecting astronomical observatories on what used to be distant mountaintops.

Hot science in the cold, dark night

While orbiting telescopes like the Hubble Space Telescope or the James Webb Space Telescope give researchers a unique view of the cosmos – particularly because they can see light blocked by the Earth’s atmosphere – ground-based telescopes also continue to drive cutting-edge discovery.

Telescopes on the ground capture light with gigantic and precise focusing mirrors that can be 20 to 35 feet (6 to 10 meters) wide. Moving all astronomical observations to space to escape light pollution would not be possible, because space missions have a much greater cost and so many large ground-based telescopes are already in operation or under construction.

Around the world, there are 17 ground-based telescopes with primary mirrors as big or bigger than Webb’s 20-foot (6-meter) mirror, and three more under construction with mirrors planned to span 80 to 130 feet (24 to 40 meters).

The newest telescope starting its scientific mission right now, the Vera Rubin Observatory in Chile, has a mirror with a 28-foot diameter and a 3-gigapixel camera. One of its missions is to map the distribution of dark matter in the universe.

To do that, it will collect a sample of 2.6 billion galaxies. The typical galaxy in that sample is 100 times fainter than the natural glow in the nighttime air in the Earth’s atmosphere, so this Rubin Observatory program depends on near-total natural darkness.

Any light scattered at night – road lighting, building illumination, billboards – would add glare and noise to the scene, greatly reducing the number of galaxies Rubin can reliably measure in the same time, or greatly increasing the total exposure time required to get the same result.

The LED revolution

Astronomers care specifically about artificial light in the blue-green range of the electromagnetic spectrum, as that used to be the darkest part of the night sky. A decade ago, the most common outdoor lighting was from sodium vapor discharge lamps. They produced an orange-pink glow, which meant that they put out very little blue and green light.

Even observatories relatively close to growing urban areas had skies that were naturally dark in the blue and green part of the spectrum, enabling all kinds of new observations.

Then came the solid-state LED lighting revolution. Those lights put out a broad rainbow of color with very high efficiency – meaning they produce lots of light per watt of electricity. The earliest versions of LEDs put out a large fraction of their energy in the blue and green, but advancing technology now gets the same efficiency with “warmer” lights that have much less blue and green.

Nevertheless, the formerly pristine darkness of the night sky now has much more light, particularly in the blue and green, from LEDs in cities and towns, lighting roads, public spaces and advertising.

The broad output of color from LEDs affects the whole spectrum, from ultraviolet through deep red.

The U.S. Department of Energy commissioned a study in 2019 which predicted that the higher energy efficiency of LEDs would mean that the amount of power used for lights at night would go down, with the amount of light emitted staying roughly the same.

But satellites looking down at the Earth reveal that just isn’t the case. The amount of light is going steadily up, meaning that cities and businesses were willing to keep their electricity bills about the same as energy efficiency improved, and just get more light.

Natural darkness in retreat

As human activity spreads out over time, many of the remote areas that host observatories are becoming less remote. Light domes from large urban areas slightly brighten the dark sky at mountaintop observatories up to 200 miles (320 kilometers) away. When these urban areas are adjacent to an observatory, the addition to the skyglow is much stronger, making detection of the faintest galaxies and stars that much harder.

When the Mt. Wilson Observatory was constructed in the Angeles National Forest near Pasadena, California, in the early 1900s, it was a very dark site, considerably far from the 500,000 people living in Greater Los Angeles. Today, 18.6 million people live in the LA area, and urban sprawl has brought civilization much closer to Mt. Wilson.

When Kitt Peak National Observatory was first under construction in the late 1950s, it was far from metro Tucson, Arizona, with its population of 230,000. Today, that area houses 1 million people, and Kitt Peak faces much more light pollution.

Even telescopes in darker, more secluded regions – like northern Chile or western Texas – experience light pollution from industrial activities like open-pit mining or oil and gas facilities.

The case of the European Southern Observatory

An interesting modern challenge is facing the European Southern Observatory, which operates four of the world’s largest optical telescopes. Their site in northern Chile is very remote, and it is nominally covered by strict national regulations protecting the dark sky.

AES Chile, an energy provider with strong U.S. investor backing, announced a plan in December 2024 for the development of a large industrial plant and transport hub close to the observatory. The plant would produce liquid hydrogen and ammonia for green energy.

Even though formally compliant with the national lighting norm, the fully built operation could scatter enough artificial light into the night sky to turn the current observatory’s pristine darkness into a state similar to some of the legacy observatories now near large urban areas.

This light pollution could mean the facility won’t have the same ability to detect and measure the faintest galaxies and stars.

Light pollution doesn’t only affect observatories. Today, around 80% of the world’s population cannot see the Milky Way at night. Some Asian cities are so bright that the eyes of people walking outdoors cannot become visually dark-adapted.

In 2009, the International Astronomical Union declared that there is a universal right to starlight. The dark night sky belongs to all people – its awe-inspiring beauty is something that you don’t have to be an astronomer to appreciate.

Richard Green is affiliated with the International Astronomical Union and the American Astronomical Society, as well as DarkSky International.

– ref. Light pollution is encroaching on observatories around the globe – making it harder for astronomers to study the cosmos – https://theconversation.com/light-pollution-is-encroaching-on-observatories-around-the-globe-making-it-harder-for-astronomers-to-study-the-cosmos-260387

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Elaine Lai, Lecturer in Civic, Liberal, and Global Education, Stanford University

In a story in the Buddhist canon, a grief-stricken mother named Kisa Gautami loses her only child and carries the body around town, searching for some way to resurrect the child.

When she encounters the Buddha, he asks her to collect several mustard seeds from a family that has never experienced death. Not surprisingly, Kisa Gautami is unable to find a single such family. She buries her child and decides to cultivate a spiritual life.

I thought of Kisa Gautami’s story when I first encountered the 2020 Korean documentary “Meeting You,” in which virtual reality technology is used to reunite a grieving mother, Jang Ji-sung, with her deceased 7-year-old daughter, Nayeon. While the virtual reunion was moving to witness, I wondered whether it was truly helping the mother to heal, or whether it was deepening an avoidance of grief and of the truth.

Since the documentary first aired, the business of digitally resurrecting the deceased has grown significantly. People are now using AI to create “grief bots,” which are simulations of deceased loved ones that the living can converse with. There has even been a case where an AI-rendered video of a deceased victim has appeared to deliver a court statement asking for the maximum sentence for the person who took their life.

As a Buddhist studies scholar who has experienced several bereavements this year, I have turned to Buddhist teachings to reflect on how creating a digital afterlife for loved ones may inadvertently enhance our suffering, and what alternative ways of grieving Buddhism might offer.

Buddhism’s view on suffering

According to Buddhist thought, the root of all suffering is clinging to illusions. This clinging creates karma that perpetuates negative cycles – for oneself and others – which endure lifetimes. In Mahayana Buddhism, the path to liberate oneself from this suffering begins by becoming a bodhisattva, someone who devotes their life to the liberation of self and others. Mahayana Buddhism, which introduced the idea of celestial bodhisattvas, is the most widely practiced form of Buddhism, particularly in East Asia and the Tibetan Himalayan regions.

In the “37 Practices of All the Bodhisattvas,” the 14th-century author Gyelse Tokme Zangpo wrote:

The practice of all the bodhisattvas is to let go of grasping
When encountering things one finds pleasant or attractive,
Consider them to be like rainbows in the summer skies –
Beautiful in appearance, yet in truth, devoid of any substance.

A digital avatar of the deceased may provide temporary comfort, but it may distort reality in an unhealthy way and intensify our attachment to an illusion. Interactions with a griefbot that responds to our every request may also diminish our memories of the deceased by creating an inauthentic version of who they were.

Grief as a catalyst for compassion

In the tradition of Buddhism that I specialize in, called the Great Perfection – a tradition of Vajrayana Buddhism, which is a branch of Mahayana – uncomfortable feelings such as grief are considered precious opportunities to cultivate spiritual insight.

In a text called Self-liberating Meditation, a 19th century mendicant teacher of the Great Perfection known as Patrul Rinpoche wrote: “No matter what kind of thoughts arise – be they good or bad, positive or negative, happy or sad – don’t indulge them or reject them, but settle, without altering, in the very mind that thinks.”

The Great Perfection contends that all of our emotions are like temporary clouds, and that our true nature is awareness, like the blue sky behind the clouds. Grief and other challenging emotions should not be altered or suppressed but allowed to transform in their own time.

In a culture where we are taught that negative emotions should be eliminated or pushed aside, not pushing away grief becomes a practice of great kindness toward oneself. By cultivating this awareness of our emotions, grief becomes a catalyst for compassion toward others. In Buddhism, compassion is the seed of awakening to the truth of interdependence – the fact that none of us exist as discreet beings but are deeply interconnected with all other beings and life forms.

Communal rituals

Compassion manifests outwardly in community rituals that process grief, such as the 49-day Buddhist service, common to the Great Perfection and other Buddhist traditions.

Many Buddhists believe that it takes 49 days for the consciousness of the deceased to transition into their next life. During this time, the family sets up a special altar and recites prayers for the deceased, often with the support of ordained monks and nuns. Practicing generosity toward others is also recommended to accumulate merit for the deceased.

These communal rituals provide much-needed outlets, time and support for processing grief and having it witnessed by others. The time and attention given to the grief process sharply contrasts to the situation in the United States, where bereavement leave is often limited to three to five days.

Deepening relationship with impermanence

In opting for digital avatars, we may undermine what Buddhism would consider to be critical moments for genuine transformation and connection.

When I think of the family and friends who have passed away this year, I empathize with the desire to hear their voices again, or to have conversations that provide closure where there was none. Rather than turning to a technological fix that promises a reunion with the deceased, I choose to deepen my relationship with impermanence and to savor the fleeting moments that I have with those I love now.

As Kisa Gautami’s story shows, the desire to bring back the dead is not new, but there is great benefit in allowing grief to run its course, including a felt sense of compassion for oneself and all others who have ever experienced similar forms of grief.

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

– ref. It is becoming easier to create AI avatars of the deceased − here is why Buddhism would caution against it – https://theconversation.com/it-is-becoming-easier-to-create-ai-avatars-of-the-deceased-here-is-why-buddhism-would-caution-against-it-261445

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Elizabeth Sharda, Associate Professor of Social Work, Hope College

I wrap up my workday and head for home, making a quick stop to grab the supplies my sixth grader needs for a project due this week and some ingredients for a quick dinner.

Once home, I check the sixth grader’s school website and discover a missing assignment. Bringing this up sparks a minor meltdown. I summon the emotional energy to help her calm down and problem-solve. My husband arrives home with our high schooler, who’s discouraged by something that happened at soccer practice. We’ll have to process that later.

Around the dinner table, we realize that both kids have sports practices Thursday, on opposite ends of town, at the same time as a mandatory parent meeting at school. And now I’m ready for my own meltdown.

On this particular evening, my family wasn’t navigating anything unique or especially catastrophic. Scenes like this play out nightly in homes across the United States. In fact, my family’s circumstances offer the protections of multiple forms of privilege. Certainly others have more difficult circumstances.

Why is it still so hard?

For a long time, I felt ashamed for being overwhelmed by parenthood. How do others seem to have it all together? Of course, the highlight reel of social media only fueled this comparison game. I often felt that I was falling short, missing some hack that others had found for not feeling constantly exhausted.

The reality is I’m far from alone in experiencing what social scientists term parenting stress. Defined as the negative psychological reaction to a mismatch between the demands of parenting and the resources available, parenting stress has become increasingly prevalent over the past five decades. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly half of all parents in the U.S. said their stress was completely overwhelming on most days.

Stress like this has an impact: Parents who experience high levels of parenting stress have decreased mental health and feel less close with their children.

I began researching parental stress and well-being when, several years after becoming a parent, I left my job as a social worker and entered a Ph.D. program. Through this process, I learned something that changed my perspective entirely: Parents today experience such high levels of stress because people have never traditionally raised children in isolation. And yet, we are more isolated than ever.

It clicked: Parents don’t need to do more or try harder. We need connection. We don’t need more social media posts on the “top three ways to keep your family organized.” We need a paradigm shift.

The myth of family self-reliance

Throughout human history, people primarily lived in multigenerational, multifamily arrangements. Out of necessity, our hunter-gatherer ancestors relied upon their clan-mates to help meet the needs of their families, including child-rearing. Research over time and across cultures suggests that parents are psychologically primed to raise children in community – not in isolated nuclear family units.

Anthropologists use the term alloparents – derived from the Greek “allo,” meaning “other” – to describe nonparent adults who provide care alongside that provided by parents.

Research suggests that alloparenting contributes to child well-being and even child survival in populations with high rates of child mortality. A 2021 study of a present-day foraging population in the Philippines found that alloparents provided an astounding three-quarters of the care for infants and an even greater proportion of the care for children ages 2 to 6.

In contrast, the ideal of the nuclear family is incredibly recent. It developed with industrialization, peaking in the 1950s and 1960s. Despite the significant changes in family structure – such as an increase in single-parent households – since that period, the paragon of the self-reliant nuclear family persists.

And yet, support from others is a key factor in family resilience. The familiar adage “It takes a village to raise a child” is, in fact, bolstered by social support research among parents in general, as well as those of children with special needs.

Parenting with collective care

Social support, while often viewed as a singular phenomenon, is actually a constellation of actions, each with its own unique function. Social scientists specify at least three types of support:

• Tangible: Material or financial resources or assistance
• Emotional: Expressions of care, empathy and love
• Informational: Provision of information, advice or guidance

Different parenting challenges call for different types of support. When my husband and I realized we had three commitments in a single evening, we didn’t need advice on managing our family’s calendar; we needed someone to take our kid to practice – that’s tangible support. When my tween was blowing up over homework, I didn’t need someone to bring us dinner; I needed to remember what I learned from a book on parenting adolescent girls – that’s informational support.

To move away from the myth of family self-reliance and back toward an ideal of collective care would take a paradigm shift, requiring intervention at every level, from federal to state to family. A 2024 Surgeon General’s Advisory on parenting stress called it an urgent public health issue and provided recommendations for government leaders, service systems and communities. Systemic strategies like providing access to high-quality mental health care, expanding programs like Head Start that support parents and caregivers, and investing in social infrastructure like public libraries and parks could all help reduce parenting stress in the U.S.

Personal steps toward a paradigm shift

Parenting stress is not a problem that can be solved solely by the individuals experiencing it. But here are five ways you can start making the shift toward collective care in your own life:

1. Take stock of your network. Assess not only in terms of the number of supporters, but what types of support they offer. Do you have plenty of people to talk to, but no one who would bring you a meal or give your kid a ride? Identify gaps and consider ways to round out your “village.”
2. Start small. Introduce yourself to your retired neighbor. Sit next to another parent at your kid’s sporting event. Talk to the babysitter you regularly see at the playground. Supportive relationships don’t just happen; they are grown.
3. Offer help to others. While it seems counterintuitive, people who give support to others experience greater well-being and even longevity compared with those who don’t. Helping others also creates the opportunity for reciprocity. Those you support may be more likely to return the favor in the future.
4. Normalize asking for help and taking it when offered. For many people, asking for support is hard. It requires dropping the facade and letting people in on your struggles. However, people are often more willing to help than you might assume. Further, allowing others to help you gives them permission to voice their own needs in the future.
5. Consider your caregiving expectations. The way others care for your children may not mirror your way entirely. Consider what are nonnegotiable practices for your family – such as limits on screen time – and what is worth loosening up on – like veggies at every meal – if it means you have more alloparents helping you out.

None of these suggestions are easy. They take time, vulnerability and courage. In our society of rugged individualism and nuclear family self-reliance, parenting through a lens of collective care is downright countercultural. But perhaps it’s closer to how we, as humans, have raised children throughout the millennia.

Elizabeth Sharda has received research funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Faculty Development Fund. She serves on the board of directors for Michigan Fosters, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing support to families involved in the child welfare system.

– ref. Parents don’t need to try harder – to ease parenting stress, forget self-reliance and look for ways to share the care – https://theconversation.com/parents-dont-need-to-try-harder-to-ease-parenting-stress-forget-self-reliance-and-look-for-ways-to-share-the-care-253076

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Cora Sutherland, Interim Assistant Director, Center for Water Policy, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Offshore wind power could provide far more electricity than the U.S. uses for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. But the federal government has recently stopped approving offshore projects in the ocean.

Another option is available, though: the Great Lakes, where we are based as water policy researchers, and where state agencies rather than federal officials are the trustees of the lakes. A January 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump attempts to stop all federal permits for offshore and onshore wind power pending a review of federal wind leasing and permitting practices.

But the states, not the federal government, handle leases and permits for wind power on the Great Lakes, though federal agencies are involved in the overall process. It is unclear how this executive order might impede federal action, but at the very least states could lay the groundwork now to be prepared to act when the next shift in federal priorities arrives.

A 2023 analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that the Great Lakes states have enough offshore wind power potential to provide three times as much electricity as all eight Great Lakes states use currently, which would mean plenty left over to meet increasing demand or send power elsewhere in the country.

States are looking for opportunities

States have been forging their own paths separate from federal clean energy policy for decades. All eight Great Lakes states have state clean energy goals, and five of them – Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin – have a goal to achieve 100% clean or renewable energy by 2040 or 2050.

The challenge is not just to transform the current energy supply. As transportation and other sectors electrify, that increases electricity demand. As artificial intelligence proliferates, tech companies need more and more electricity and water for their data centers. By 2028, data centers are projected to consume nearly 12% of the country’s total usage, which requires massive increases in production in the Great Lakes and other key locations.

Companies and states are looking high and low to find enough electricity to meet the rising demand. They are extending the lives of coal-fired power plants and building new gas-fired power plants. Elon Musk’s xAI company has even been powering an artificial intelligence data center in Tennessee with massive generators that add air pollution without permits.

Government and industry are also looking to other sources, such as investing in nuclear fusion advancement and building geothermal plants.

A brief history

In the 2000s and 2010s, the Great Lakes Commission Wind Collaborative, Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the Michigan Great Lakes Wind Council began to sketch out regulations for offshore wind in the Great Lakes and to identify locations that might be suitable for the turbines.

In 2012, the Obama administration agreed to collaborate with five Great Lakes states – Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania – to streamline a permitting process for offshore wind development. Multiple projects were proposed off the shores of Michigan, Ohio and Ontario, Canada, though Ontario banned offshore wind projects in 2011.

Since then, momentum has stalled. One effort, the Icebreaker project off Cleveland, was approved and survived various legal challenges, but the project backers paused it indefinitely in 2023 due to the economic impacts of the legal delays.

Community activists are split, with some embracing offshore wind in the Great Lakes as part of a clean energy future and others vocally opposing it, citing environmental, health and economic concerns.

As of mid-2025, the Great Lakes were home to no offshore wind turbines.

Big potential, big unknowns

States continue to explore the possibility of offshore wind power in the Great Lakes. In early 2025, Illinois legislators again introduced a bill to create a pilot wind project off Chicago in Lake Michigan.

Also in 2025, Pennsylvania legislators introduced a bill to facilitate offshore wind power in Lake Erie. If adopted, the law would map which areas are fit to be leased for development by avoiding nearshore areas, shipping lanes and migration pathways. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance is pushing the province to lift its moratorium and reconsider offshore wind in Canadian waters.

A lot of details remain unknown. New York state supports offshore wind in the ocean but says “Great Lakes Wind does not provide the same electric and reliability benefits” by comparison. Ocean wind tends to be closer to areas where electricity demand is high, which can make those projects more cost-effective.

New York also concluded in 2022 that despite the combined 144.5 terawatt-hours of annual technical potential in state waters in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, “numerous practical considerations … would need to be addressed before such projects can be successfully commercialized.”

To further explore the concerns New York’s report and others have raised, in 2024, with National Science Foundation funding, we collaborated with a team of researchers looking at a wide range of issues, including engineering, environmental effects and law. That effort resulted in articulating research questions whose answers would clarify how realistic different aspects of offshore wind could be in the Great Lakes, such as:

• How does ice that forms in freshwater affect the structural integrity of turbines?
• Are floating turbines a better fit than traditional fixed-bottom turbines to reach the higher wind speeds in the deeper parts of the lakes and out of view from shore?
• If turbine components and installation vessels can’t fit through the St. Lawrence Seaway, could they be built in the region and drive economic development?
• Can turbines be located in places that improve fisheries and avoid migratory paths of birds and bats?
• How can states establish leasing and permitting programs that maximize environmental, social and economic benefits?

State jurisdiction is an opportunity

In the oceans, U.S. states have jurisdiction from shore out three miles, with the federal government’s jurisdiction continuing out for hundreds of miles beyond that. So offshore project sites in the oceans are leased by the federal government.

The Great Lakes are different. The state governments hold the lakes’ waters and submerged lands in trust for the public. And state jurisdiction extends from shore all the way out to the boundary of a neighboring state’s jurisdiction or the international boundary with Canada.

Regulation of planning, site selection, leasing and other elements of offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes are the responsibility of one or another U.S. state. The federal government’s role is secondary, conducting environmental reviews and protecting navigation, but could still result in slowing state-led projects.

In research we published in 2024 and 2025, we explain that states could evaluate and select offshore wind projects based on a range of social and environmental benefits, in addition to financial considerations. For instance, they could look for designs that provide fish habitat or seek corporate partners that agree to train local workers, manufacture turbines and ships near the lakes, and provide cheaper electricity to local consumers.

Despite all the unknowns, we encourage greater support for research to harness the potential of offshore wind energy in the Great Lakes to be a renewable resource for states, the region and the nation as a whole.

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

– ref. Great Lakes offshore wind could power the region and beyond – https://theconversation.com/great-lakes-offshore-wind-could-power-the-region-and-beyond-261311