Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jeffrey To, Psychology PhD Researcher, Intergroup Relations and Implicit Biases, McGill University
This week, Google announced it’s halting its DEI hiring initiatives. But DEI training is fleeting and hiring practices need to address systems, not individuals. (Tom Barrett/Unsplash), CC BY
In Canada, however, some companies remain committed to DEI. For example, KPMG Canada conducted 50 DEI training sessions for its 35,000 employees in 2022 and plans to continue its DEI efforts into 2025.
But is this the best way forward?
As a PhD student researching implicit bias, I am examining how DEI training and programs can go awry. For example, one study suggests that while DEI programs can reduce prejudice in some cases, programs that exert control over people may backfire. This happens because they place responsibility for bias and discrimination on individuals when research suggests it is the biased systems that deserve more scrutiny.
We’ve all experienced a moment where we met someone and perhaps without thinking, felt a sense of threat or unfamiliarity. These spontaneous reactions are known as implicit biases. Over the years, researchers have linked these biases to unfair treatment of individuals who differ from us.
Historically, psychologists have considered bias intrinsic to oneself, similar to personality or IQ. However, newer approaches are challenging this view.
Personality tests such as the Big Five show reasonable forecasting ability for job outcomes. However, Implicit Association Tests — a common tool used to measure implicit biases — show only weak relevance to actual discriminatory behaviour. In other words, a white person who holds implicit biases against racialized immigrants, for example, might not necessarily act on those biases.
Recent studies now suggest that biases are better understood as environmental factors, not individual traits. For example, one study demonstrated that implicit biases correlate with behaviour. But this connection only holds when analyzing groups of people within a specific region. In regions where anti-Black biases are more prevalent among white residents, higher rates of police violence against Black individuals are observed.
One key takeaway from implicit bias research is that interventions targeting individual biases often provide only temporary results because bias is embedded within systems.
So, what can organizations do to address systemic bias more effectively?
Let’s look at hiring as an example.
Instead of requiring hiring managers to participate in diversity training, organizations could implement hiring criteria that minimize the influence of race and gender bias in the hiring process. Some research suggests tailoring job descriptions to appeal to underrepresented groups. For example, HR postings that increase the transparency of qualifications or focus on benefits can attract more women for roles in traditionally male-dominated fields.
Policing is another area where systemic change can mitigate bias. Studiesshow police officers are more likely to stop, question, arrest or use force against Black people than white people.
Rather than mandating police officers undergo diversity training to educate them about their biases — something that has only a fleeting effect — a restructuring of the policies and procedures around stops and frisks would reduce bias’s impact.
As DEI programs face increasing scrutiny and skepticism, and many employees feel frustrated by ineffective and repetitive online training, there is a growing need to reframe DEI as systems-focused work. If diversity, equity and inclusion are truly the goals, the solution lies in rebuilding the systems that shape our society.
Jeffrey To receives funding from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Creating a genuine sense of belonging can reshape workplace culture, boost engagement and overall business success.(Shutterstock)
Longstanding workplace issues such as mistreatment, the normalization of toxic behaviour and a lack of accountability for workplace culture have fuelled a growing trend known as revenge quitting.
This phenomenon, on the rise since the 2000s, sees employees leaving their jobs not just for better opportunities, but as a form of protest and self-preservation against unfair treatment.
Companies that want to address this issue have much to gain, but they must go beyond diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or human resources strategies. Creating a genuine sense of belonging can reshape workplace culture, boost engagement and overall business success.
When employees resign as a final act of protest against toxic workplace conditions, the impact on organizations can be significant. One of the most obvious consequences is financial loss. Sudden departures lead to expenses related to recruiting, hiring, training, as well as lost productivity and project disruptions.
The abrupt departure of employees also sends a powerful message to remaining staff, potentially leading to decreased morale, trust and engagement.
Employees who ‘revenge quit’ do so not just for better opportunities, but as a form of protest and self-preservation against unfair treatment. (Shutterstock)
High-profile cases of revenge quitting can also damage an organization’s reputation, affecting customer relationships and investor confidence.
My research has found that when employees feel a genuine sense of belonging, they are more engaged and loyal, they produce more innovative and creative solutions, and they are more reliable and productive.
Moreover, belonging buffers against workplace stressors that lead to toxic behaviours by reducing feelings of isolation, mitigating burnout and encouraging active listening before making decisions. This, in turn, decreases the likelihood of employees making abrupt, retaliatory exits.
Employees want to work for companies that respect their individuality and value their contributions. High-performing teams thrive when there is clear accountability, fair conflict resolution and a culture of feedback and learning. Addressing toxic behaviours early helps maintain trust and reduces the risk of retaliatory quitting.
It’s also essential to distinguish between belonging and merely fitting in. True belonging is a reciprocated behaviour between employees and the organization, not solely the employee’s responsibility. Organizations that focus only on forcing employees to “fit in” overlook the systemic changes required to foster true benefits.
Belonging requires an active commitment to the five core indicators of belonging: comfort, connection, psychological safety and well-being. Each indicator is essential in reducing the desire to disengage or quit out of frustration or retaliation.
Pillar 1: Comfort
Workplace comfort is essential for focus, cognitive function and productivity. While physical factors like temperature, noise and ergonomics matter, social comfort is more critical. Social comfort comes from clear expectations, defined workflows and recognizing individual talents within a team.
Unprecedented inequality and other geopolitical risks are causing an increase in revenge quitting and similar behaviours. (Shutterstock)
When the economy becomes volatile, it can force organizations to deviate from their original strategic plans in an effort to stay afloat. When this happens, comfort is the first thing to erode in a workplace, which allows toxicity to go unchecked.
For example, when economic shifts force leaders to pivot, employees may have to scrap their work. If leadership lacks alignment in the new strategic actions, expectations will rise while clarity drops, creating stress and conflict. Leaders should reset expectations, restore social comfort and ensure collaboration rather than competition.
Pillar 2: Connections
Strong social relationships in the workplace can buffer against stress and enhance resilience. Connection is fostered through mentorship programs, collaboration and informal networking.
In remote and hybrid work settings, ensuring employees feel connected to their teams through structured check-ins and virtual social space is critical.
Connections increase engagement and build emotional attachment, which reduces the risk of employees leaving. Employees who experience meaningful interactions with colleagues and leaders are more engaged and less likely to feel alienated.
Pillar 3: Contributions
Employees need to feel that their work is meaningful and valued. Recognition activates the brain’s reward system, which reinforces motivation and increases engagement. When employees feel unappreciated, resentment builds. When this happens repetitively, it can lead employees to disengage from their work, and eventually depart.
Equally important is offering opportunities for employees to contribute beyond their job descriptions, whether through special projects or mentoring. A workplace that values and acknowledges contributions fosters commitment and decreases the likelihood of employees resigning.
Pillar 4: Psychological safety
Ensuring employees’ ideas and concerns are met with curiosity and understanding is crucial for retention. In fear-based workplaces, stress inhibits cognitive function and creativity.
The workforce has changed, with employees now prioritizing workplaces where they feel respected, valued and safe. Companies that fail to adapt will continue to lose experienced, talented workers — not because the job market is more competitive, but because employees refuse to tolerate environments that undermine their dignity.
Leaders need to recognize that creating a culture of belonging isn’t about checking a DEI box — it’s about ensuring employees have every reason to stay and grow within their organizations.
Andrea Carter 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 – Canada – By Tohid Didar, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Nano-biomaterials, Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, McMaster University
More than 30 per cent of the world’s food is wasted each year.(Shutterstock)
Outdated, imprecise and often incorrect labelling systems — such as printed expiry dates — contribute to these huge problems, leading to the unnecessary disposal of safe, healthy food, increased greenhouse gas emissions and financial losses.
Addressing these crises requires bold investment in sustainable technologies that are already tested and available. These include smart food-packaging innovations that provide real-time food quality monitoring in every package. This would allow producers, retailers and consumers to receive up-to-date information through the package itself.
Real-time information
Unlike traditional expiration-date labels that communicate only time, food packaging innovations use advanced sensors and artificial intelligence to measure spoilage indicators such as pH balance, bacterial growth and biogenic amines. This allows for dynamic and up-to-the-minute tracking of food freshness.
These systems would increase food safety and prevent food fit for consumption from being thrown out. The early and highly specific warnings they provide would also reduce the need for costly and labour-intensive testing when problems occur.
Despite the promise of these scientifically proven systems, getting them into the marketplace is a significant challenge.
Corporations often resist smart packaging due to higher costs and tight profit margins in the highly competitive food sector.
Applying smart technologies in food packaging design can help consumers make more informed choices. (Shutterstock)
By quantifying the potential savings — such as reduced spoilage, fewer recalls, less food-related illness and lower legal liabilities — public and private stakeholders can understand why it’s valuable to share the cost of these innovations.
These technologies also align nicely with growing consumer demand for sustainability and transparency in food systems.
Reducing food waste through smart food packaging would lower greenhouse gas emissions, conserve agricultural resources and reduce the strain on global supply chains.
Such innovations can help improve food availability, especially in underserved regions where food insecurity is most acute, fostering healthier and more resilient communities.
Governments can further incentivize smart food-packaging adoption through tax benefits, subsidies, or funding for companies to integrate real-time monitoring technologies. Such measures would make this beneficial change more economically viable for corporations.
Empowering consumers
Smart food packaging would also empower consumers to make informed decisions. Innovations such as AI-enabled apps that predict food freshness from smartphone photos can help households reduce waste by determining the safety of food without needing to open the package.
Smart packaging and apps could take the guesswork out of predicting food freshness. (Shutterstock)
Smart packaging platforms should prioritize universal applications that work across food types, rather than niche, highly customized systems.
For developing nations disproportionately affected by food insecurity, smart packaging technologies can be transformative, extending shelf life and improving distribution efficiency.
Collaboration across industry, academia and government is vital to getting these solutions into broad use.
Profit and societal benefits
Researchers and innovators must work with corporations to develop proven prototypes into cost-effective, high-performance technologies, while policymakers need to create frameworks to incentivize adoption. Investments must prioritize not just economic returns but also long-term societal benefits.
As a researcher developing smart food packaging platforms, I have seen firsthand how interdisciplinary partnerships accelerate the translation of bold ideas into practical solutions. I have led research teams that have developed technologies such as Lab-in-a-Package and sprayable bacteriophage microgels. These innovations simultaneously improve food safety and reduce waste.
Addressing food insecurity demands a holistic, sustainable approach that brings together technological innovation, supportive policies and societal awareness. By investing in smart, scalable solutions, we can transform our food systems to ensure less food is wasted.
Tohid Didar receives funding from MITACs and NSERC to develop smart food packaging technologies.
Street traders play an important role in tourism in South Africa. They provide affordable goods to tourists while generating employment for others. Some even source products locally, such as beadwork, traditional masks, woven baskets and various other souvenirs, creating linkages with domestic producers.
Most of these traders are migrants from outside South Africa.
South Africa is regarded as the preferred destination for migration in Africa. Migrancy scholars Jonathan Crush and Vincent Williams point to tourism and entry statistics from Statistics South Africa, visa overstay and deportation data, and refugee figures from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to support the new movements of refugees since the fall of apartheid.
On arriving in the country, many enter the informal economy to make a living. Often this involves taking up self-employed entrepreneurial activities such as selling goods on street corners.
South Africa’s tourism hubs present significant trading opportunities. In 2023, the country attracted 8.48 million international tourists. Though still 41.1% below pre-pandemic levels, this was an improvement. Tourism contributed 3.5% to GDP in 2022, when it outperformed industries like agriculture and construction.
But traders face tough conditions. The sector’s informality means policymakers can easily overlook it. Traders lack formal recognition and have limited access to resources.
This should change.
To improve their conditions, several measures could be helpful, including:
well-maintained designated trading areas that are equipped with essential amenities like shelter and storage
simplifying the process for obtaining the necessary permits and licences to increase their legal protections and operational stability.
These measures must be the result of discussions with the traders.
Our view is informed by research we conducted on informal traders over two years (2022 and 2023) in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg. Our focus was on the ability of the traders to adapt during times of crisis and economic downturn.
We found that the traders showed high levels of resilience and ingenuity to survive under tough conditions. But resilience can’t conquer all. The long-term sustainability of informal trading ventures hinges on external factors. They include government support and functioning institutions such as law and order that can help them manage challenges such as xenophobia.
The traders
Our study involved 35 qualitative interviews and 363 completed quantitative questionnaires. Three quarters of the respondents were foreign.
Traders from east and west Africa were dominant in Cape Town while Zimbabwean traders were dominant in Johannesburg.
Most informal traders (67%) were the sole income earners for their families, supporting multiple dependants. Before starting their businesses, only 47.5% had formal employment in roles like teaching, cleaning, or sales. Most traders had been operating for over 14 years. Monthly gross incomes averaged US$580, with Johannesburg traders earning more than those in Cape Town and Durban.
On face value these amounts seem higher than earnings of informally employed wage workers such as day labourers. However, these are gross figures, so comparisons with other occupations or cost of living must be treated with caution.
Resilience and ingenuity
The stories the traders shared with us are a testament to resilience and ingenuity. Migrant traders’ adaptability and joint commitment underscore their resilience, a key factor in overcoming economic and social crises.
Informal trading in the tourism sector drives local economies by providing tourists with authentic cultural experiences through locally crafted products. Traders’ activities create employment opportunities, including jobs for individuals working at the stalls and trolley pushers assisting with setup. Their incomes also support entire families.
Migrant traders also bring an entrepreneurial spirit to South Africa’s economy. Our research revealed that, unlike some of their South African counterparts who may access social grants, migrant traders often diversify their product offerings quicker and more extensively to adapt to changing market demands. This included introducing clothing alongside crafts or selling locally sourced goods (like items used by traditional healers) during economic downturns.
Their ability to adapt and innovate, even in difficult circumstances, contributes to the resilience of the broader tourism sector. Migrant traders quickly resumed operations after the pandemic. They used strategies like shared payment devices to improve efficiency, and community networks to weather economic shocks, so that tourism-related goods and services remained available.
Blind spot for policy makers
The sector’s informality leaves it overlooked by policymakers.
During the pandemic, formal businesses received government relief, but informal traders were largely excluded. For migrants, the absence of support was even more pronounced, as they lacked access to social safety nets available to South African citizens.
By supporting informal traders, particularly migrants, South Africa can enhance the sustainability of its tourism sector. This support could take various forms:
Policy recognition: Acknowledging the vital role of informal traders in tourism and integrating them into local economic development plans.
Practical policy responses: Examples include improving visible policing and cleaning up beach precincts, especially in Durban. This would reduce crime, increase tourist visits and improve the lives of street traders.
Access to resources: Providing grants or loans tailored to informal businesses.
Skills development: Offering training programmes to strengthen business acumen and innovation.
Community engagement: Promoting social cohesion to reduce xenophobic attitudes and fostering partnerships between local and migrant traders.
Next steps
The stories of South Africa’s informal migrant traders are ones of perseverance and potential. They remind us that resilience is not only an individual trait but a communal effort.
By recognising and supporting these traders, South Africa would be investing in a more inclusive, robust tourism sector.
As South Africa seeks to revive its tourism industry through the Tourism Sector Recovery Plan, the contributions of informal traders, local and migrant alike, cannot be overlooked. These entrepreneurs are shaping the fabric of the industry, one craft and one customer at a time. Supporting them is not just an act of kindness; it is a strategic move for the nation’s economic future.
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.
Most Australians can look forward to a comfortable retirement. More than three in four retirees own their own home, most report feeling comfortable financially, and few suffer financial stress.
But our new Grattan Institute report paints a sobering picture for one group: retirees who rent in the private market. Two-thirds of this group live in poverty, including more than three in four single women who live alone.
Retirees who rent often have little in the way of retirement savings: more than half have less than A$25,000 stashed away. And a growing number of older Australians are at risk of becoming homeless.
But our research also shows just how much we’d need to boost Commonwealth Rent Assistance to make housing more affordable and ensure all renters are able to retire with dignity.
Today’s renters, tomorrow’s renting retirees
Home ownership is falling among poorer Australians who are approaching retirement.
Between 1981 and 2021, home ownership rates among the poorest 40% of 45–54-year-olds fell from 68% to just 54%. Today’s low-income renters are tomorrow’s renting retirees.
Age pensioners need at least $40,000 in savings to afford to spend $350 a week in rent, together with the Age Pension and Rent Assistance. That’s enough to afford the cheapest 25% of one-bedroom homes in capital cities.
But Australians who are renting as they approach retirement tend to have little in the way of retirement savings. 40% of renting households aged 55-64 have net financial wealth less than $40,000.
Rent assistance is too low
Our research shows that Commonwealth Rent Assistance, which supplements the Age Pension for poorer retirees who rent, is inadequate.
A single retiree needs at least $379 per week to afford non-housing essentials. marikun/Shutterstock
A typical single retiree needs at least $379 per week to afford essential non-housing costs such as food, transport and energy.
But we found a single pensioner who relies solely on income support can afford to rent just 4% of one-bedroom homes in Sydney, 13% in Brisbane, and 14% in Melbourne, after covering these basic living expenses.
With Rent Assistance indexed to inflation, rather than low-income earners’ housing costs, the maximum rate of the payment has increased by 136% since 2001, while the rents paid by recipients have increased by 193%.
A boost is needed
Our analysis suggests that to solve this problem, the federal government should increase the maximum rate of Rent Assistance by 50% for singles and 40% for couples.
The payment should also be indexed to changes in rents for the cheapest 25% of homes in our capital cities.
These increases would boost the maximum rate of Rent Assistance by $53 a week ($2,750 a year) for singles, and $40 a week ($2,080 a year) for couples.
This would ensure single retirees could afford to spend $350 a week on rent, enough to rent the cheapest 25% of one-bedroom homes across Australian capital cities, while still affording other essentials.
Similarly, retired couples would be able to afford to spend $390 a week on rent, enough to rent the cheapest 25% of all one- and two-bedroom homes.
Unlikely to push up rents
One common concern is that increasing Rent Assistance will just lead landlords to hike rents. But we find little evidence that this is the case.
International studies suggest that more than five in six dollars of any extra Rent Assistance paid would benefit renters, rather than landlords.
In Australia, there’s little evidence that recent increases in Rent Assistance have pushed up rents.
Our analysis of NSW rental bond lodgement data suggests areas with higher concentrations of Rent Assistance recipients did not see larger rent increases in the year after the payment was boosted.
That’s not surprising. Rent Assistance is paid to tenants, not landlords, which means tenants are likely to spend only a small portion of any extra income on housing.
Since rates of financial stress are even higher among younger renters, we propose that any increase to Rent Assistance should also apply to working-age households.
Boosting Rent Assistance for all recipients would cost about $2 billion a year, with about $500 million of this going to retirees.
Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the federal and Victorian governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website.
The weekend byelection in the outer suburban seat of Werribee saw the widely-anticipated slap-in-the-face to Victorian Labor, which is absolutely on the nose. The question is: to what degree were electors venting against federal Labor too?
With an abundance of caution, the Albanese government would do best to assume it was being given a substantial kick.
Even if the largest slice of the about 10% two-party swing was prompted by state factors, including the sheer arrogance of the byelection (a state treasurer departing mid-term), we know federal Labor is doing badly in Victoria.
There is certainly enough of a message in the result in Werribee (which on present numbers Labor is expected to just retain) to flag a potential serious erosion of federal seats come the national election.
One challenge for federal Labor is to turn Victorian voters’ attention away from state matters, to focus squarely on the choice between Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton.
Labor needs to minimise the extent to which Victorians use the federal election to take out their anger towards the Allan government. So far, only the Werribee voters have had the chance to get some of that frustration out of their systems. The federal opposition will seek to milk feelings about the Allan government.
Regardless of that, we know Dutton has become more acceptable in Victoria than he was a couple of years ago.
As things stand, Labor is set to lose federal seats in this state where the Liberals have struggled, and the state Liberal organisation has been a shambles. It is a matter of how many.
While the Liberals will be delighted with the Werribee result, the hardheads will note that although the Labor primary vote fell nearly 17% the Liberal vote only rose 3.7%. Partly this might reflect the fact that in Labor heartland, the disillusioned voters wanted to protest but not jump the aisle to the Liberals. Nevertheless, there is the message, applicable federally, that the Liberals need to be attracting more primary votes, not just relying on Labor losing them to independents and small parties.
Once again, we see reflected in this byelection the relative collapse of the two party system. Labor polled 28.7% of the primary vote; the Liberals 29%. fewer than six in ten voters supported one of the major parties.
Depending on your viewpoint, you can see the decline of the two party system as a portend of future instability in our politics, or the continued indication of a fresh new direction. Federally, the present money is on minority government.
In Saturday’s other Victorian byelection, the Liberals wrested the inner city seat of Prahran from the Greens. There was no Labor candidate.
The Greens, on 36.2% of the vote, attempt to take comfort that the swing against them on primary votes was only 0.6%. But a loss is a loss, whatever the margin, and this setback, on top of those in the recent ACT and Queensland elections, must put fears into the party about the fate of the three Queensland federal seats it won in 2022.
With some Labor supporters deeply pessimistic and some Liberals wildly optimistic, both sides are trying to manage expectations about where the election battle stands nationally.
Labor finds some heart from comparing Newspoll’s now and at comparable points before changes of government.
The Dutton opposition in the first Newspoll of 2025 was on 51% of the two-party vote.
By contrast, in the first Newspoll of 1996, the Howard opposition had a two-party vote of 54%.
Newspoll in August 2007 (about 100 days before the election) saw the Rudd opposition on 56%. In May 2013, with about 100 days to voting, the Abbott opposition was polling 55% in two-party terms. The first Newspoll of 2022 had the Albanese opposition on 56%.
Governor Michele Bullock will deliver the next big marker on the political calendar when the Reserve Bank announces next week whether it will cut interest rates.
If it does, there will be a frenzy of speculation about the election being held in April, which would mean scrapping the scheduled March 25 budget.
Quite how Albanese would explain this, when he and his ministers say every other day how much work is being done on that budget, is unclear. Those in Labor who are in the camp of a May election say the government needs time for an interest rate cut to flow through.
Only one man determines the timing, and he’s on record recently saying the date remained “fluid”.
Michelle Grattan 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 – Africa – By Henning Melber, Extraordinary Professor, Department of Political Sciences, University of Pretoria
Sam Nujoma was an outstanding Namibian leader who personified more than anybody else the country’s liberation struggle history and independence. His death at the age of 95 marks the end of an era. But his legacy will live on.
Together with Andimba Toivo ya Toivo, he was central in the foundation of the national liberation movement, South West Africa People’s Organisation (Swapo).
Samuel (Sam) Shafishuna (“lightning”) Daniel Nujoma was born on 12 May 1929 at Etunda near Okahao in northern Namibia in today’s Omusati region, the eldest of 11 children. His childhood was devoted to helping care for his siblings, the family cattle and cultivating the land. From 1937 to 1943 he completed primary school at the Finnish Missionary School at Okahao.
Namibia was then South West Africa, a former German colony, administered by apartheid South Africa since December 1920. Aged 17, he became a contract worker in the harbour town of Walvis Bay. From 1949 he worked as a cleaner at South African Railways in Windhoek. For most of his age group, contract labour in the settler economy was the only way out of subsistence agriculture.
In 1959 Nujoma co-founded the Ovamboland People’s Organisation, marking a new chapter of organised resistance against settler-colonial rule. At the time, African residents in the capital Windhoek lived mainly in the so-called Old Location. It was close to the centre of town, while contract workers were accommodated in a separate compound.
Their residents were supposed to relocate to a distant new township, Katutura. Protests against the forced removal escalated on 10 December 1959. Police opened fire, killing 11 and seriously wounding 44.
This was a turning point in the organised resistance. Political activists faced increased repression. Nujoma left for exile in February 1960 to campaign internationally, not least at the United Nations in New York.
In April 1960 the Ovamboland People’s Organisation became Swapo and Nujoma its first president. He remained in office until 2007. In 1967, Swapo resorted to armed resistance against the South African occupation.
The organisation became the family and Nujoma its patriarch. As Raymond Suttner, a scholar and political analyst, observed:
Any involvement in a revolution has an impact on conceptions of the personal.
A warfare of more than 20 years cost thousands of lives. The military component played a big role in Swapo’s struggle history. This is illustrated in the movement’s official narrative To Be Born A Nation.
While never trained for combat, Nujoma liked to pose as the military leader. Testimony to this is the dominant statue of the “unknown soldier” at the Heroes Acre, modelled as Nujoma.
Just as enlightening is Nujoma’s autobiography, ending with independence on 21 March 1990. Its title Where Others Wavered is from one of his statements in the late 1970s:
When the history of a free and independent Namibia is written one day, Swapo will go down as having stood firm where others have wavered: that it sacrificed for the sacred cause of liberation where others have compromised.
(Nujoma’s account) brings into sharp relief the career of a formidable political activist who displayed enormous courage, determination and will to survive against considerable odds.
Heading the state
Nujoma was appointed Namibia’s first head of state by the Constituent Assembly. His initial term (1990-1995) was characterised by efforts to build the nation and foster reconciliation in a deeply divided settler colonial society.
He accepted a constitutionally enshrined status quo when it came to the privileges of the white minority. Continued socioeconomic disparities under political majority rule signified a process in which political power was traded and transferred while fundamental social inequalities were guarded by the protection of existing property relations.
In August 1999 Nujoma declared a first state of emergency when a failed secession in what was then called the Caprivi Strip came as a shock attack. The subsequent treatment of the suspected secessionists was anything but reconciliatory. It resulted in the country’s only political refugees so far.
To allow Nujoma a third term in office (2000-2005), the National Assembly adopted a first constitutional amendment in late 1998. The justification was that his initial appointment was not based on a direct vote by the electorate. The clause was restricted to Nujoma.
Handing over the torch
There were doubts if Nujoma would vacate office. In 2004 he declared:
One cannot ignore the call by the people, because the people are the ones who make the final decision.
This fuelled speculations that he might be tempted to opt for a referendum, banking on an anticipated majority willing to grant him another term.
Facing internal Swapo opposition, Nujoma opted for the party’s unity and announced his retirement at the end of his term. This paved the way for three candidates competing for his replacement.
But, he was adamant that his long-time confidante Hifikepunye Pohamba would become his successor. A heavy-handed approach to bulldoze him through resulted in a break-away new party.
In such a context retirement is a foreign word. One can leave office but remain a leader. Nujoma’s word and view counted in policy implementation – both at party and national government levels. Although his direct impact gradually subsided, he remained an iconic influencer.
Achievements despite the limits to liberation
Many leaders of African countries were shaped by resistance to colonial oppression. This was no romantic picnic, but required perseverance and tough decisions. It came at a cost. Military mindsets and strict hierarchies were fostering authoritarian tendencies.
These are not the best ingredients for civilian rule. But achieving sovereignty elevated the struggle to new levels. Since the end of white minority rule and South African occupation, Namibian people are governed by those they elected democratically.
Nujoma was on the commanding heights of Namibia’s liberation struggle for over half a century. He decided to retire as captain in time. Namibians owe it to him and others for paving the way for a democratic state guided by the rule of law.
This is adequately symbolised in his statue erected at Windhoek’s Independence Museum. Dressed in civilian clothes, Nujoma proudly holds up the Namibian constitution. It might be the best visual recognition of all of his ultimate contribution to Namibian society.
Since independence, the struggle for more equality continues by civil means. Tatekulu (big man) Sam Nujoma deserves credit for his role in this remarkably peaceful transition towards a multi-party democracy in which politically motivated violence rarely occurs. He will always have centre stage in Namibia’s hall of fame.
New Zealand should be robust in its response to the “unacceptable” situation in Gaza but it must also back its allies against threats by the US President, says an international relations academic.
Otago University professor of international relations Robert Patman said the rest of the world also “should stop tip-toeing” around President Donald Trump and must stand up to any threats he makes against allies, no matter how outlandish they seem.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters told RNZ that New Zealand would not comment on the plan until it was clear exactly what was meant, but said New Zealand continued to support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.
Dr Patman said the president’s plan was “truly shocking and absolutely appalling” in light of the devastation in Gaza in the last 15 months.
It was not only “tone deaf” but also dangerous, he added, with the proposal amounting to “the most powerful country in the world — the US — dismantling an international rules=based system that [it] has done so much to establish”.
“This was an extraordinary proposal which I think is reckless and dangerous because it certainly doesn’t help the immediate situation. It probably plays into the hands of extremists in the region.
“There is a view at the moment that we must all tiptoe round Mr Trump in order not to upset him, while he’s completely free to make outrageous suggestions which endanger people’s lives.”
Professor Robert Patman . . . Trump’s plan for Gaza “truly shocking and absolutely appalling”. Image: RNZ
Winston Peters’ careful position on a potential US takeover of Gaza was “a fair response . . . but the Luxon-led government must be clear the current situation is unacceptable” and oppose protectionism, he said.
“[The government ] wants a solution in the Middle East which recognises both the Israeli desire for security but also recognises the political right to self determination of the Palestinian people — in other words the right to have a state of their own.”
New Zealand should also speak out against Trump’s threats to annex Canada, “our very close ally”, he said.
He was “not suggesting New Zealand be provocative but it must be robust”, Dr Patman said.
Greens also respond to Trump actions The Green Party said President Trump had been explicit in his intention to take over Gaza, and New Zealand needed to make its position crystal clear too.
Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the Prime Minister needed to stand up and condemn the plan as “reprehensible”.
“President Trump’s comments have been pretty clear to anybody who is able to read or to listen to them, about his intention to forcibly displace, or to see displaced, about 1.8 million Gazans from their own land, who have already been made refugees in their own land.”
France, Spain, Ireland, Brazil and other countries had been “unequivocal” in their condemnation of Trump’s plan, and NZ’s Foreign Affairs Minister should be too, she added.
“New Zealanders value justice and they value peace, and they want to see our leadership represent that, on the international stage. So [these were] really disappointing and unfortunately unclear comments from our Deputy Prime Minister.”
Yesterday Foreign Minister Winston Peters told RNZ that New Zealand still supported a two-state solution, but said he would not comment on Trump’s Gaza plan until officials could grasp exactly what this meant.
Dozens of countries have expressed “unwavering support” for the ICC in a joint statement, after the US President imposed sanctions on its staff.
The 125-member ICC is a permanent court that can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression against the territory of member states or by their nationals.
The United States, China, Russia and Israel are not members.
Trump has accused the court of improperly targeting the US and its ally, Israel.
Neither New Zealand nor Australia had joined the statement, but in a statement to RNZ the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it had always supported the ICC’s role in upholding international law and a rules-based system.
University of Victoria law professor Alberto Costi said currently New Zealand is at little risk of sanctions and there’s no need for a stronger approach.
“At this stage there is no reason to be stronger. New Zealand is perceived as a state that believes in a rules-based order and is supportive of the work of the ICC.
“So there’s not much need to go further but it’s a space to watch in the future, should these sanctions become a reality.
“But as far as New Zealand is concerned, at the moment there is no need to antagonise anyone at this stage.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
A national Palestine advocacy group has hit back at critics of its “genocide hotline” campaign against soldiers involved in Israel’s war against Gaza, saying New Zealand should be actively following international law.
“Why is concern for the sensitivities of soldiers from a genocidal Israeli campaign more important than condemning the genocide itself?,” asked PSNA national chair John Minto in a statement.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow and the New Zealand Jewish Council have made statements “protecting” Israeli soldiers who come to New Zealand on “rest and recreation” from the industrial-scale killing of 47,000 Palestinians in Gaza until a truce went into force on January 19.
“We are not surprised to see such a predictable lineup of apologists for Israel and its genocide in Gaza from lining up to attack a PSNA campaign with false smears of anti-semitism,” Minto said.
He said that over 16 months Peters had done “absolutely nothing” to put any pressure on Israel to end its genocidal behaviour.
“But he is full of bluff and bluster and outright lies to denounce those who demand Israel be held to account.”
Deny illegal settler visas Minto said that if Peters was doing his job as Foreign Minister, he would not only stop Israeli soldiers coming to Aotearoa New Zealand — as with Russian soldiers in the Ukraine war — he would also deny visas to any Israeli with an address in an illegal Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Whlle the commission said it had received 90 complaints about the hotline, it had also received eight complaints about immigration policy allowing Israeli soldiers to enter New Zealand under the visa waiver scheme that applies to Israel.
“Our campaign has nothing to do with Israelis or Jews — it is a campaign to stop Israeli soldiers coming here for rest and recreation after a campaign of wholesale killing of Palestinians in Gaza,” Minto said.
“To imply the campaign is targeting Jews is disgusting and despicable.
“Some of the soldiers will be Druse, some Palestinian Arabs and others will be Jews.”
The five-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab, shot 355 times by Israeli soldiers on 29 January 2024. Image: @Onlyloren/Instagram
Israeli soldiers are facing a growing risk of being arrested abroad for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza, with around 50 criminal complaints filed so far in courts in several countries around the world.
Earlier this month, a former Israeli soldier abruptly ended his holiday in Brazil and was “smuggled” out of the country after a Federal Court ordered police to open a war crimes investigation against him. The man fled to Argentina.
A complaint lodged by the Belgium-based Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) included more than 500 pages of court records linking the suspect to the demolition of civilian homes in Gaza.
‘Historic’ court ruling against soldier The foundation called the Brazilian court’s decision “historic”, saying it marked a significant precedent for a member country of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to enforce Rome Statute provisions domestically in the 15-month Israeli war on Gaza.
The foundation is named in honour of five-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab who was killed on 29 January 2024 by Israel soldiers while pleading for help in a car after her six family members were dead.
According to The New Arab, the foundation has so far tracked and sent the names of 1000 Israeli soldiers to the ICC and Interpol, and has been pursuing legal cases in a number of countries, including Belgium, Brazil, Cyprus, France, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, together with a former Hamas commander, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Minto accused the New Zealand Jewish Council of being “deeply racist” and said it regularly “makes a meal of false smears of anti-semitism”.
“It’s deeply problematic that this Jewish Council strategy takes attention away from the real anti-semitism which exists in New Zealand and around the world.
“The priority of the Jewish Council is to protect Israel from criticism and protect it from accountability for its apartheid policies, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
“We are demanding that accountability.”
NZ ‘going through the motions’ In a later statement, PSNA said the government had begun to “go through the motions” of questioning Israeli soldiers at the border but it was just a “look busy policy – too little too late”.
NZ requires Israelis to disclose IDF service details as condition for entry – a similar policy to Australia. Image: Times of Israel screenshot APR
Immigration questioning Israeli of soldiers about their military service in Gaza at the New Zealand border was revealed in a Times of Israel report today which said:
“New Zealand’s government immigration authority has begun to require Israelis applying for a visa to report details of their military service as a condition for entry, and at least one person has been denied admission after doing so.”
PSNA’s Minto said the government must also uphold the ICJ advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 which called on global governments to end support for Israel’s illegal occupation.
“This means we should also deny entry to every Israeli wanting to visit here who has an address in an illegal Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” Minto added.
By the time US President Donald Trump announced tariffs on China and Canada last Monday which could kickstart a trade war, New Zealand’s diplomats in Washington, DC, had already been deployed on another diplomatic drama.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz had said on social media it was “difficult to treat New Zealand as a normal ally . . . when they denigrate and punish Israeli citizens for defending themselves and their country”.
He cited a story in the Israeli media outlet Ha’aretz, which has a reputation for independence in Israel and credibility abroad.
But Ha’aretz had wrongly reported Israelis must declare service in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) as part of “new requirements” for visa applications.
Winston Peters replied forcefully to Cruz on X, condemning Ha’aretz’s story as “fake news” and demanding a correction.
Winston Peters puts Ted Cruz on notice over the misleading Ha’aretz story. Image: X/RNZ
But one thing Trump’s Republicans and Winston Peters had in common last week was irritating Mexico.
His fellow NZ First MP Shane Jones had bellowed “Send the Mexicans home” at Green MPs in Parliament.
Winston Peters then told two of them they should be more grateful for being able to live in New Zealand.
‘We will not be lectured’ On Facebook he wasn’t exactly backing down.
“We . . . will not be lectured on the culture and traditions of New Zealand from people who have been here for five minutes,” he added.
While he was at it, Peters criticised media outlets for not holding other political parties to account for inflammatory comments.
Peters was posting that as a politician — not a foreign minister, but the Mexican ambassador complained to MFAT. (It seems the so-called “Mexican standoff” was resolved over a pre-Waitangi lunch with Ambassador Bravo).
But the next day — last Wednesday — news of another diplomatic drama broke on TVNZ’s 1News.
“A deal that could shatter New Zealand’s close relationship with a Pacific neighbour,” presenter Simon Dallow declared, in front of a backdrop of a stern-looking Peters.
TVNZ’s Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver reported the Cook Islands was about to sign a partnership agreement in Beijing.
“We want clarity and at this point in time, we have none. We’ve got past arrangements, constitutional arrangements, which require constant consultation with us, and dare I say, China knows that,” Peters told 1News.
Passports another headache Cook Islands’ Prime Minister Mark Brown also told Barbara Dreaver TVNZ’s revelations last month about proposed Cook Island passports had also been a headache for him.
“We were caught by surprise when this news was broken by 1News. I thought it was a high-level diplomatic discussion with leaders to be open and frank,” he told TVNZ this week.
“For it to be brought out into the public before we’ve had a time to inform our public, I thought was a breach of our political diplomacy.”
Last week another Barabara Dreaver scoop on 1News brought the strained relationship with another Pacific state into the headlines:
“Our relationship with Kiribati is at breaking point. New Zealand’s $100 million aid programme there is now on hold. The move comes after President [Taneti] Maamau pulled out of a pre-arranged meeting with Winston Peters.”
The media ended up in the middle of the blame game over this too — but many didn’t see it coming.
Caught in the crossfire “A diplomatic rift with Kiribati was on no one’s 2025 bingo card,” Stuff national affairs editor Andrea Vance wrote last weekend in the Sunday Star-Times.
“Of all the squabbles Winston Peters was expected to have this year, no one picked it would be with an impoverished, sinking island nation,” she wrote, in terms that would surely annoy Kiribati.
“Do you believe Kiribati is snubbing you?” RNZ Morning Report’s Corin Dann asked Peters.
“You can come to any conclusion you like, but our job is to try and resolve this matter,” Peters replied.
Kiribati Education Minister Alexander Teabo told RNZ Pacific there was no snub.
He said Kiribati President Maamau — who is also the nation’s foreign minister — had been unavailable because of a long-planned and important Catholic ordination ceremony on his home island of Onotoa — though this was prior to the proposed visit from Peters.
Public dispute “regrettable’ Peters told the same show it was “regrettable” that the dispute had been made public.
On Newstalk ZB Peters was backed — and Kiribati portrayed as the problem.
“If somebody is giving me $100m and they asked for a meeting, I will attend. I don’t care if it’s my mum’s birthday. Or somebody’s funeral,” Drive host Ryan Bridge told listeners.
“It’s always very hard to pick apart these stories (by) just reading them in the media. But I have faith and confidence in Winston Peters as our foreign minister,” PR-pro Trish Shrerson opined.
So did her fellow panellist, former Labour MP Stuart Nash.
“He’s respected across the Pacific. He’s the consummate diplomat. If Winston says this is the story and this is what’s happening, I believe 100 percent. And I would say, go hard. Winston — represent our interests.”
‘Totally silly’ response But veteran Pacific journalist Michael Field contradicted them soon after on ZB.
“It’s totally silly. All this talk about cancelling $104 million of aid is total pie-in-the-sky from Winston Peters,” he said.
“Somebody’s lost their marbles on this, and the one who’s possibly on the ground looking for them is Winston Peters.
“He didn’t need to be in Tarawa in early January at all. This is pathetic. This is like saying I was invited to my sister’s birthday party and now it’s been cancelled,” he said.
Not a comparison you hear very often in international relations.
“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still-viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls [from] being used as bases without Washington approval,” he added.
Kiribati ‘hugely disrespectful’ But TVNZ’s Barbara Dreaver said Kiribati was being “hugely disrespectful”.
In a TVNZ analysis piece last weekend, she said New Zealand has “every right to expect better engagement than it has been getting over the past year.”
Dreaver — who was born in and grew up in Kiribati and has family there — also criticised “the airtime and validation” Kwansing got in the media in New Zealand.
“She supports and is part of a government that requires all journalists — should they get a visa to go there — to hand over copies of all footage/information collected,” Dreaver said.
Kwansing hit back on Facebook, accusing Dreaver of “publishing inane drivel” and “irresponsible journalism causing stress to locals.”
“You write like you need a good holiday somewhere happy. Please book yourself a luxury day spa ASAP,” she told TVNZ’s Pacific Affairs reporter.
“Despite this media issue, the government of Kiribati remains convinced the strong bonds between Kiribati and New Zealand will enable a resolution to this unfortunate standoff,” it said.
Copping the blame Another reporter who knows what it’s like to cop the blame for reporting stuff diplomats and politicians want to keep out of the news is RNZ Pacific’s senior journalist and presenter Lydia Lewis.
Last year, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese questioned RNZ’s ethics after she reported comments he made to the US Deputy Secretary of State at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga — which revealed an until-then behind closed doors plan to pay for better policing in the Pacific.
She’s also been covering the tension with Kiribati.
Is the heat coming on the media more these days if they candidly report diplomatic differences?
TVNZ Pacific senior journalist and presenter Lydia Lewis . . . “both the public and politicians are saying the media [are] making a big deal of things.” Image: RNZ Pacific
“There’s no study that says there are more people blaming the media. So it’s anecdotal, but definitely, both the public and politicians are saying the media (are) making a big deal of things,” Lewis told Mediawatch.
“I would put the question back to the public as to who’s manufacturing drama. All we’re doing is reporting what’s in front of us for the public to then make their decision — and questioning it. And there were a lot of questions around this Kiribati story.”
Lewis said it was shortly before 6pm on January 27, that selected journalists were advised of the response of our government to the cancellation of the meeting with foreign minister Peters.
Vice-President an alternative But it was not mentioned that Kiribati had offered the Vice-President for a meeting, the same person that met with an Australian delegation recently.
A response from Kiribati proved harder to get — and Lewis spoke to a senior figure in Kiribati that night who told her they knew nothing about it.
Politicians and diplomats, naturally enough, prefer to do things behind the scenes and media exposure is a complication for them.
But we simply wouldn’t know about the impending partnership agreement between China and the Cook Islands if TVNZ had not reported it last Monday.
And another irony: some political figures lamenting the diplomatically disruptive impact of the media also make decidedly undiplomatic responses of their own online these days.
“It can be revealing in the sense of where people stand. Sometimes they’re just putting out their opinions or their experience. Maybe they’ve got some sort of motive. A formal message or email we’ll take a bit more seriously. But some of the things on social media, we just take with a grain of salt,” said Lewis.
“It is vital we all look at multiple sources. It comes back to balance and knowledge and understanding what you know about and what you don’t know about — and then asking the questions in between.”
Big Powers and the Big Picture Kwansing objected to New Zealand media jumping to the conclusion China’s influence was a factor in the friction with New Zealand.
“To dismiss the geopolitical implications with China . . . would be naive and ignorant,” Dreaver countered.
Michael Field pointed to an angle missing.
“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls being used as bases without Washington approval,” he wrote in his Substack.
In the same article in which Vance called Kiribati “an impoverished, sinking island nation” she later pointed out that its location, US military ties and vast ocean territory make it strategically important.
Questions about ‘transparency and accountability’ “There’s a lot of people that want in on Kiribati. It has a huge exclusive economic zone,” Lewis said.
She said communication problems and patchy connectivity are also drawbacks.
“We do have a fuller picture now of the situation, but the overarching question that’s come out of this is around transparency and accountability.
“We can’t hold Kiribati politicians to account like we do New Zealand government politicians.”
“I don’t want to give Kiribati a free pass here but it’s really difficult to get a response.
“They’re posting statements on Facebook and it really has raised some questions around the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability for all journalists . . . committed to fair media reporting across the Pacific.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown says New Zealand is asking for too much oversight over its deal with China, which is expected to be penned in Beijing next week.
Brown told RNZ Pacific the Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship was reciprocal.
“They certainly did not consult with us when they signed their comprehensive partnership agreement [with China] and we would not expect them to consult with us,” he said.
“There is no need for New Zealand to sit in the room with us while we are going through our comprehensive agreement with China.
“We have advised them on the matter, but as far as being consulted and to the level of detail that they were requiring, I think that’s not a requirement.”
Brown is going to China from February 10-14 to sign the “Joint Action Plan for a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership”.
The Cook Islands operates in free association with New Zealand. It means the island nation conducts its own affairs, but Aotearoa needs to assist when it comes to foreign affairs, disasters, and defence.
NZ seeks more consultation New Zealand is asking for more consultation over what is in the China deal.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters said neither New Zealand nor the Cook Island people knew what was in the agreement.
“The reality is we’ve been not told [sic] what the nature of the arrangements that they seek in Beijing might be,” he told RNZ Morning Report on Friday.
In 2023, China and Solomon Islands signed a deal on police cooperation as part of an upgrade of their relations to a “comprehensive strategic partnership”.
Brown said he had assured New Zealand “over and over” that there would be no impact on the countries’ relationship and “no surprises”, especially on security aspects.
“But the contents of this agreement is something that our team are working on with our Chinese counterparts, and it is something that we will announce and provide once it is signed off.”
He said it was similar to an agreement New Zealand had signed with China in 2014.
Deep sea mining research Brown said the agreement was looking for areas of cooperation, with deep sea mining research being one area.
However, he said the immediate area that the Cook Islands wanted help with was a new interisland vessel to replace the existing ageing ship.
Brown has backed down from his controversial passport proposal after facing pressure from New Zealand.
He said the country “would essentially punish any Cook Islander that would seek a Cook Islands passport” by passing new legislation that would not allow them to also hold a New Zealand passport.
“To me that is a something that we cannot engage in for the security of our Cook Islands people.
“Whether that is seen as overstepping or not, that is a position that New Zealand has taken.”
A spokesperson for Peters said the two nations did “not see eye to eye” on a number of issues.
Relationship ‘very good’ However, Brown said he always felt the relationship was very good.
“We can agree to disagree in certain areas and as mature nation states do, they do have points of disagreement, but it doesn’t mean that the relationship has in any way broken down.”
On Christmas Day, a Cook Islands-flagged vessel carrying Russian oil was seized by Finnish authorities. It is suspected to be part of Russia’s shadow fleet and cutting underwater power cables in the Baltic Sea near Finland.
Peters’ spokesperson said the Cook Islands shipping registry was an area of disagreement between the two countries.
Brown said the government was working with Maritime Cook Islands and were committed with aligning with international sanctions against Russia.
When asked how he could be aligned with sanctions when the Cook Islands flagged the tanker Eagle S, Brown said it was still under investigation.
“We will wait for the outcomes of that investigation, and if it means the amendments and changes, which I expect it will, to how the ship’s registry operates then we will certainly look to make those amendments and those changes.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
Byelections occurred on Saturday in the Victorian state seats of Prahran and Werribee. The Liberals gained Prahran from the Greens by a 51.6–48.4 margin, a 13.6% swing to the Liberals since the 2022 state election.
Primary votes were 36.2% Liberals (up 4.8%), 36.2% Greens (down 0.6%), 12.8% for independent Tony Lupton, the Labor member for Prahran from 2002 to 2010, and 5.3% for another independent. Labor did not contest after winning 26.8% in 2022.
The primary vote swings between the Greens and Liberals only explain 2.7% of the 13.6% two-candidate swing. In 2022, Labor preferences would have flowed strongly to the Greens, but at the byelection Lupton recommended preferences to the Liberals on his how-to-vote material. The Greens’ share of overall preferences plunged from nearly 80% in 2022 to 44%.
In Werribee, Labor leads the Liberals by 50.6–49.4, a 10.4% swing to the Liberals since 2022. Primary votes are 29.0% Liberals (up 3.7%), 28.7% Labor (down 16.7%), 14.7% for independent Paul Hopper (up 8.8%), 7.5% Greens (up 0.7%), 7.3% Victorian Socialists (up 3.7%), 5.5% Legalise Cannabis (new) and 4.4% Family First (up 1.9%).
Labor’s primary vote slumped in Werribee, but the Liberals were not the main beneficiary. There were just enough preferences from left-wing sources (Greens, Socialists and Legalise Cannabis) to put Labor over the line.
The large majority of outstanding votes at these byelections will be postals. In postals counted so far in Werribee, the Liberals lead by 53–47, and they will need to increase that margin on remaining postals to erase Labor’s current lead. But later postals are usually better for left-wing parties than earlier ones.
In Prahran, the Liberals lead the Greens on postals counted so far by 65–35. Later postals will probably be better for the Greens, but the Liberals will still win this byelection.
In Prahran, the Greens should have been able to overcome a shift against them on preferences with an improved primary vote. Losing this seat, which they have held since the 2014 state election, is a dismal result for the Greens.
Labor is likely to retain Werribee, but the slump in the Labor primary vote validates the recent Victorian Resolve poll that had Labor’s statewide primary vote at just 22% and the Liberals in a clear election-winning position.
Victorian upper house reform delayed again
Since winning government at the November 2014 election, Labor has done nothing to reform the upper house electoral system. The upper house still uses group ticket voting (GTV), which is no longer used in any other Australian jurisdiction.
GTV was scrapped in New South Wales before the 2003 election, federally before 2016, in South Australia before 2018 and in Western Australia before this year’s March election. Other jurisdictions have never used GTV.
The artificially strong preference flows produced by GTV can allow parties with very low vote share to win seats through preference deals by overtaking parties with a much higher vote. In a system where voters direct their own preferences, this does not occur.
Analyst Kevin Bonham wrote on Friday that the parliamentary Victorian Electoral Matters Committee had recommended scrapping GTV, but the government has delayed any response until after the Committee publishes its final report in December. By this time, it will be difficult to make changes so that they can be implemented for the November 2026 election.
Adrian Beaumont 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 – USA – By Patrick J. Schena, Professor of Practice and International Business, Tufts University
U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order to create a U.S. sovereign wealth fund on Feb. 3, 2025Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
Could the United States soon be joining the likes of Norway, Kuwait and Mongolia in having a national reserve to invest on projects of strategic interest? If President Donald Trump gets his way, then perhaps so.
This was not entirely unexpected. After all, the idea had been floated in September 2024 not only by the Trump team, but also by President Joe Biden’s Treasury Department.
Many at the time, including myself, deemed it far-fetched at best. But with the initiative now gaining traction, the time is certainly ripe to imagine what a U.S. sovereign wealth fund might look like.
What is a sovereign wealth fund?
In their most basic form, sovereign wealth funds are pools of government savings, usually accumulated over many years through the sale of commodities, traded goods, government-owned companies and land-use rights, among other sources.
They share a variety of objectives, such as stabilizing government finances, ensuring the funding of retirement or education programs, saving for future generations or even managing state-owned corporations.
They generally diversify investment across assets, geographies and sectors, including some, such as sports and entertainment in the case of Saudi Arabia, that are aligned with national development goals.
Sovereign wealth funds are usually associated with great wealth – Norway’s “oil fund” is estimated to be worth US$1.7 trillion. With regard to scale, Norway is hardly alone. And Norway’s fund is typical in another respect: sovereign wealth funds are often based in smaller countries with outsized natural resources, like Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, or even tiny Guyana in the Caribbean.
In reality, most sovereign wealth funds are more modest in size relative to their gross domestic products.
How long have SWFs been around?
Sovereign wealth funds are hardly new. The so-called modern era of sovereign wealth funds dates to the early 1950s with the creation of the Kuwait Investment Board.
But some government investment funds, such as the Texas Permanent School Fund, established in 1854, long predate the Kuwait Investment Board.
As is evident in the case of Texas, there are many such funds already operating in the U.S., including those in Alaska, New Mexico and Wyoming – all of which identify as “sovereign wealth funds.” These, of course, are state funds, but the term “sovereign” is generously applied.
Sovereign wealth funds often invest outside of their geographies, not only to diversify returns but to avoid stimulating higher inflation that may result from investing at home.
In fact, the U.S. has benefited from investments by other countries’ sovereign wealth funds. Developed market economies like the U.S. are attractive destinations for investment, given the relative strength of their institutions and the scale and liquidity of their financial markets.
Still, over the last decade there has been a rapid expansion in the number of sovereign wealth funds investing domestically, particularly in support of strategic national goals. Some of these include funds in Ireland, India and Indonesia.
Their investment programs target critical sectors and national “champions,” with a goal to mobilize foreign capital for co-investment in local markets.
Soccer superstar Cristiano Ronaldo plays for Al-Nassr, in which Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund has a controlling stake. Abdullah Ahmed/Getty Images
The fundamental questions of a fund
What could a U.S. sovereign wealth fund look like? Would it be well funded? And if so, how? Through taxes, treasury bond proceeds, budget transfers, tariffs?
Would it invest globally or domestically? Could it be used to reinforce the Social Security system? Will it be used to tackle the dual deficits of budget and trade? Or will it have a strategic mandate – to enhance national security, energy security or climate security?
These are all fundamental questions that must be carefully examined; creating a sovereign wealth fund should not be a backroom exercise. It needs to be conducted openly, with expert input and public deliberation.
The process belies even more challenging organizational and governance decisions concerning the legal structure, ownership and management of the fund, the independence of its governing board, and its distance from government influence in its decisions.
After all, the history of sovereign wealth funds is not without failed attempts. Take Malaysia’s 1MDB, which was usurped for political and personal gain and became a multibillion-dollar corruption scandal, or Venezuela’s macrostabilization and development funds, which were both effectively exhausted.
In these cases – and others – the breakdown can be connected to failures in governance, both in design and culture, and ultimately traced back to politics.
Where does the US start?
It is interesting to note that it was George W. Bush’s Treasury Department during the financial crisis in 2008 that was most influential in encouraging sovereign wealth funds to define a framework of governance practices and principles.
Known as the Santiago Principles, this set of 24 precepts, agreed to in 2008, are intended to ensure transparent and sound governance with adequate operational controls, risk management and accountability.
To be successful and in line with the Santiago Principles, a U.S. sovereign wealth fund would have to be grounded in a functional governance structure that allows investment projects to be evaluated based on commercial merit.
It would also need to be free of political interference and operate openly, transparently and at arm’s length from any personal or professional interests of any related parties.
Where would it invest?
The next thing to consider is the fund’s investment objectives and strategy. Trump has suggested that such a fund could be used to buy TikTok. But would that represent a strategic investment that advances the national competitiveness of the U.S.?
Perhaps instead, a sovereign wealth fund might be better placed investing a majority of its capital in private markets and core infrastructure in the U.S. under a focused strategic mandate that directs money to key national priorities.
Essential here is for the fund to be “additional.” That is to say it would invest in projects that other investors would not be able to finance on their own due to scale, difficulty or duration. In essence, the fund would “crowd in” investors, rather than crowding them out.
And what about funding?
Perhaps the most critical question still remains: Where will the money come from?
Increased taxes are a nonstarter due to political will and, of course, Trump’s campaign commitments.
Treasury bond issuances would only increase U.S. debtedness and likely lead to higher inflation. Allocations from the government’s own budget also seem to be a non-starter, as U.S. budget deficits have long been well-entrenched.
Malaysia’s 1MDB financed the Tun Razak Exchange tower, the tallest building in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. But it was also the source of the biggest corruption scandal in Malaysian history. Ore Huiying/Getty Images
A more practical option may be a take on the traditional private equity limited partnership. In this model, the U.S. serves as general partner and joins other institutional investors – including other sovereign wealth funds – to invest in the fund.
As general partner, the U.S. would appoint a management team that would select and manage the investments – for a fee, of course. Its mandate would be to target strong market returns, while advancing the strategic national interests of the U.S.
The National Investment and Infrastructure Fund in India is one such example. This approach would require a smaller initial capital commitment from the U.S. and give the manager discretion over where and how to deploy capital. Needless to say, the call for strong foundational governance is reinforced under such a plan.
To be clear: The challenges, constraints and risks of launching a U.S. sovereign wealth fund are orders of magnitude greater than similar endeavors in Guyanaor Suriname.
Imagining the creation of a fund is certainly feasible. But ensuring the fund will genuinely enhance the intergenerational welfare of all Americans may still be far-fetched.
Patrick J. Schena has not in the last 4 years received grant funding to support his research. He collaborates in areas of mutual research interests with the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds for which he receives no compensation.
“OCCRP is a deep state operation. “OCCRP is connected to the CIA. “OCCRP was tasked by USAID to overthrow President Donald Trump.”
How did we end up getting this kind of attention? Old fashioned investigative journalism.
We wrote a simple story in 2019 about how Rudy Giuliani went to Ukraine for some opposition research and ended up working with people connected to organised crime who misled him.
Unbeknown to us, a whistleblower found the story online and added it to a complaint that was the basis of President Trump’s first impeachment. We also wrote a story about Hunter Biden‘s business partners and their ties to organised crime but that hasn’t received the same attention.
Journalism has become a blood sport. It’s harder and harder to tell the truth without someone’s interests getting stepped on.
OCCRP prides itself on being independent and nonpartisan. No donor has any say in our reporting, but we often find ourselves under attack for our funding.
It’s not just political interests but organised crime, businesses, enablers, and other journalists who regularly attack us. What’s common in all of these attacks is that the truth doesn’t matter and it will not protect you.
Few attack the facts in our reporting. Instead we’re left perplexed by how to respond to wild conspiracy theories, outright disinformation, and hyperbolic hatred.
At the same time, we’ve lost 29 percent of our funding because of the US foreign aid freeze. This includes 82 percent of the money we give to newsrooms in our network, many of which operate in places [Pacific Media Watch: Such as in the Pacific] where no one else will support them.
This money did not only fund groundbreaking, prize-winning collaborative journalism but it also trained young investigative reporters to expose wrongdoing. It’s money that kept journalists safe from physical and digital attacks and supported those in exile who continued to report on crooks and dictators back in their home countries.
OCCRP now has 43 less journalists and staff to do our work.
Next week, we’ll take on another set of powerful actors to defend the public interest. And another set the week after that.
We are determined to stay in the fight and keep reporting on organised crime and the corrupt who enable and benefit from it. But it’s getting harder and we need help.
President Donald Trump has frozen billions of dollars around the world in aid projects, including more than $268 million allocated by Congress to support independent media and the free flow of information.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has denounced this decision, which has plunged NGOs, media outlets, and journalists doing vital work into chaotic uncertainty — including in the Pacific.
In a statement published on its website, RSF has called for international public and private support to commit to the “sustainability of independent media”.
Since the new American president announced the freeze of US foreign aid on January 20, USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has been in turmoil — its website is inaccessible, its X account has been suspended, the agency’s headquarters was closed and employees told to stay home.
South African-born American billionaire Elon Musk, an unelected official, whom Trump chose to lead the quasi-official Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has called USAID a “criminal organisation” and declared: “We’re shutting [it] down.”
Later that day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he was named acting director of the agency, suggesting its operations were being moved to the State Department.
Almost immediately after the freeze went into effect, journalistic organisations around the world — including media groups in the Pacific — that receive American aid funding started reaching out to RSF expressing confusion, chaos, and uncertainty.
Large and smaller media NGOs affected The affected organisations include large international NGOs that support independent media like the International Fund for Public Interest Media and smaller, individual media outlets serving audiences living under repressive conditions in countries like Iran and Russia.
“The American aid funding freeze is sowing chaos around the world, including in journalism. The programmes that have been frozen provide vital support to projects that strengthen media, transparency, and democracy,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF USA.
President Donald Trump . . . “The American aid funding freeze is sowing chaos around the world, including in journalism,” says RSF. Image: RSF
“President Trump justified this order by charging — without evidence — that a so-called ‘foreign aid industry’ is not aligned with US interests.
“The tragic irony is that this measure will create a vacuum that plays into the hands of propagandists and authoritarian states. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is appealing to the international public and private funders to commit to the sustainability of independent media.”
USAID programmes support independent media in more than 30 countries, but it is difficult to assess the full extent of the harm done to the global media.
Many organisations are hesitant to draw attention for fear of risking long-term funding or coming under political attacks.
According to a USAID fact sheet which has since been taken offline, in 2023 the agency funded training and support for 6200 journalists, assisted 707 non-state news outlets, and supported 279 media-sector civil society organisations dedicated to strengthening independent media.
The USAID website today . . . All USAID “direct hire” staff were reportedly put “on leave” on 7 February 2025. Image: USAID website screenshot APR
Activities halted overnight The 2025 foreign aid budget included $268,376,000 allocated by Congress to support “independent media and the free flow of information”.
All over the world, media outlets and organisations have had to halt some of their activities overnight.
“We have articles scheduled until the end of January, but after that, if we haven’t found solutions, we won’t be able to publish anymore,” explains a journalist from a Belarusian exiled media outlet who wished to remain anonymous.
In Cameroon, the funding freeze forced DataCameroon, a public interest media outlet based in the economic capital Douala, to put several projects on hold, including one focused on journalist safety and another covering the upcoming presidential election.
An exiled Iranian media outlet that preferred to remain anonymous was forced to suspend collaboration with its staff for three months and slash salaries to a bare minimum to survive.
An exiled Iranian journalist interviewed by RSF warns that the impact of the funding freeze could silence some of the last remaining free voices, creating a vacuum that Iranian state propaganda would inevitably fill.
“Shutting us off will mean that they’ll have more power,” she says.
USAID: the main donor for Ukrainian media In Ukraine, where 9 out of 10 outlets rely on subsidies and USAID is the primary donor, several local media have already announced the suspension of their activities and are searching for alternative solutions.
“At Slidstvo.Info, 80 percent of our budget is affected,” said Anna Babinets, CEO and co-founder of this independent investigative media outlet based in Kyiv.
The risk of this suspension is that it could open the door to other sources of funding that may seek to alter the editorial line and independence of these media.
“Some media might be shut down or bought by businessmen or oligarchs. I think Russian money will enter the market. And government propaganda will, of course, intensify,” Babinets said.
RSF has already witnessed the direct effects of such propaganda — a fabricated video, falsely branded with the organisation’s logo, claimed that RSF welcomed the suspension of USAID funding for Ukrainian media — a stance RSF has never endorsed.
This is not the first instance of such disinformation.
Finding alternatives quickly This situation highlights the financial fragility of the sector.
According to Oleh Dereniuha, editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian local media outlet NikVesti, based in Mykolaiv, a city in southeast Ukraine, “The suspension of US funding is just the tip of the iceberg — a key case that illustrates the severity of the situation.”
Since 2024, independent Ukrainian media outlets have found securing financial sustainability nearly impossible due to the decline in donors.
As a result, even minor budget cuts could put these media outlets in a precarious position.
A recent RSF report stressed the need to focus on the economic recovery of the independent Ukrainian media landscape, weakened by the large-scale Russian invasion of February 24, 2022, which RSF’s study estimated to be at least $96 million over three years.
Moreover, beyond the decline in donor support in Ukraine, media outlets are also facing growing threats to their funding and economic models in other countries.
Georgia’s Transparency of Foreign Influence Law — modelled after Russia’s legislation — has put numerous media organisations at risk. The Georgian Prime Minister welcomed the US president’s decision with approval.
This suspension is officially expected to last only 90 days, according to the US government.
However, some, like Katerina Abramova, communications director for leading exiled Russian media outlet Meduza, fear that the reviews of funding contracts could take much longer.
Abramova is anticipating the risk that these funds may be permanently cut off.
“Exiled media are even in a more fragile position than others, as we can’t monetise our audience and the crowdfunding has its limits — especially when donating to Meduza is a crime in Russia,” Abramova stressed.
By abruptly suspending American aid, the United States has made many media outlets and journalists vulnerable, dealing a significant blow to press freedom.
For all the media outlets interviewed by RSF, the priority is to recover and urgently find alternative funding.
How Fijivillage News reported the USAID crackdown by the Trump administration. Image: Fijivillage News screenshot APR
Fiji, Pacific media, aid groups reel shocked by cuts In Suva, Fiji, as Pacific media groups have been reeling from the shock of the aid cuts, Fijivillage News reports that hundreds of local jobs and assistance to marginalised communities are being impacted because Fiji is an AUSAID hub.
According to an USAID staff member speaking on the condition of anonymity, Trump’s decision has affected hundreds of Fijian jobs due to USAID believing in building local capacity.
The staff member said millions of dollars in grants for strengthening climate resilience, the healthcare system, economic growth, and digital connectivity in rural communities were now on hold.
The staff member also said civil society organisations, especially grantees in rural areas that rely on their aid, were at risk.
Pacific Media Watch and Asia Pacific Report collaborate with Reporters Without Borders.
Ecuadorean President Daniel Noboa moved quickly to impose the rule of law immediately after his surprise election victory in 2023. In the short-term, the results of the country’s youngest ever leader were impressive, including a reported 18% decline in murder in 2024. The president’s administration also reportedly increased drug seizures by over 30% – up from 188 tons in 2023 to 250 tons last year. Despite what some observers describe as a year of chaos, this has made him popular among many Ecuadorians.
A central thrust of the president’s tough-on-crime strategy involves the imposition of states of emergency and the consolidation of security institutions under his control. Launched in early January 2024, the so-called Bloque de Seguridad strategy integrates the police, armed forces and ministries of interior and national defence. Prisons have also been declared “security zones” and are firmly under the control of the police and military. The president promises to do more of the same if he is re-elected on Feb. 9, 2025.
The risks of militarized security
While the militarization of public security has helped reduce sky-high homicide rates, this is only part of the story. Incidents of extortion and kidnapping actually increased last year, suggesting that far from being dismantled, several criminal organizations may be changing their tactics. The head of the national agency responsible for fighting violent crime, DINASED, claims that criminal groups are diversifying into new illicit economies in order to survive.
One of the limitations of the Ecuadorian government’s response to organized crime is the absence of preventive measures to keep young people from joining criminal groups in the first place. While there is ample support to crack down on criminals, there is appetite for social, educational, and economic initiatives to encourage at-risk to avoid crime altogether. If there is any home of weakening the structures and networks of crime in the longer-term, more comprehensive strategies are needed.
Another concern is that militarized security responses could give rise to new armed groups, including paramilitaries. While there is still limited evidence of paramilitary activity in Ecuador, the risk is real. Afterall, there is a tradition of so-called “autodefense” and “militia” across the Americas. Meanwhile, researchers have documented over 160 “criminal sanctuaries” (especially in the country’s Guayas and Esmeraldas provinces) where local gangs offer protection in return for “law and order”.
A related worry among analysts is that harsh crackdown on criminal groups while improving some aspects of public security, may unintentionally contribute to structural transformation of the organized crime landscape. In Ecuador, as in other parts of Latin America, the risks appear to be particularly acute within the prison system itself. Indeed, over the past five years, criminal groups embedded in the penitentiary system have expanded operations nationwide.
As in countries like Colombia and Mexico, Ecuador’s criminal networks are using violence to coerce and corrupt local politicians. In some cases, crime groups force local authorities to pay them in return for “protection”. Over time this degrades the latter’s authority and legitimacy and entrenches a kind of criminal governance. The so-called “Metastasis scandal” is revealing. Last year, Ecuador’s Attorney General accused 13 people, including politicians and prosecutors, of being involved in the largest case of corruption and drug trafficking in the country’s history.
Despite repeated police and military interventions to assert control over Ecuador’s penitentiaries, there are still signs of lively criminal economies within the prison walls. Some of these appear to persist on account of involvement of corrupt police and prison guards officials. And even as the Noboa administration cracks down on criminal entities such as Los Choneros, Los Lobos and Los Tiguerones, their fragmentation has resulted in hyper-violent internal power struggles.
Ecuador was under a state of emergency for more than 250 days in 2024. The latest state of emergency, issued in January this year, grants broad powers to security forces and calls for the deployment of the national police and armed forces into affected areas and prisons. It also permits inspections, searches, and seizures without a warrant, curbs privacy controls and facilitates arbitrary surveillance. Curfews between 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. are enforced in over 22 municipalities.
Not surprisingly, human rights groups have sounded the alarm, linking the government’s hardline approach to violations of civil liberties on the street and in prisons. Social movements in Guayaquil and towns along the coast have carried-out protests, even as criminal violence escalates. Working in highly insecure conditions, rights activists and defenders continue to mobilize, though public support for Noboa’s law and order approach remains high.
The enduring appeal of ‘mano dura’ in the Americas
The spread and influence of transnational organized crime is generating complex challenges across Latin America. On the one hand, it is contributing to rising violence in countries with historically low homicide rates including Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Peru. On the other hand, it is generating rising insecurity in countries that are experiencing stable or declining homicide rates such as Brazil, Colombia, Panama and across Central America and the Caribbean.
The hyper-aggressive response of certain governments to organized crime is getting considerable attention. The approach adopted by Nayib Bukele in El Salvador since 2022 is widely admired, including by officials in the new Trump administration in the U.S. Similar approaches were also put in place in neighboring Honduras as well as by Noboa in Ecuador. As admiration of Bukele grows, so to the attraction to so-called “mano dura” – or “iron fist” – measures across the region, including the imposition of states of emergency.
Ecuador’s states of emergency are already generating reverberations across South America. On the one hand, they are being watched closely by political authorities in neighboring countries: if they are seen to be effective, then they will likely be emulated. On the other hand, they are also being monitored by civil society and human rights activists who are deeply concerned that such approaches may be emulated in ways that undermine basic freedoms and liberties.
There are other practical ways in which Ecuador’s states of emergency are generating regional impacts. The fragmentation of criminal organizations means that some are relocating to areas far from state control, including near frontiers and neighboring countries. This could lead to so-called “contagion”, “displacement” or “balloon” effects, including across international borders. This could lead to a surge in criminal economies, as well as other externalities such as population displacement and migration.
Ecuador’s next president must adopt a comprehensive approach to tackling organized crime. Disrupting the country’s 22 criminal groups will require cooperation with international partners to take-on the Colombian, Mexican, and Albanian drug trafficking and money laundering networks that back them. It will also involve reversing the infiltration of criminal networks into politics, many of which are corrupting politicians, prosecutors, police and prison guards. Preventive measures targeting impacted communities and poorly managed prisons are likewise essential if Ecuador stands a chance of changing course.
Os autores não prestam consultoria, trabalham, possuem ações ou recebem financiamento de qualquer empresa ou organização que se beneficiaria deste artigo e não revelaram qualquer vínculo relevante além de seus cargos acadêmicos.
American rapper Doechii turned heads on the Grammy Awards red carpet on Feb. 2 in a striking Thom Browne ensemble: an off-the-shoulder corset suit dress with exaggerated hips, paired with a crisp white shirt and grey tie.
The look was both classic and undeniably subversive — a fitting image for the transformation of the fashion world since the early 2000s. Not too long ago, the idea of a rap artist spotlighting a luxury tailor’s creation would have seemed jarring.
Streetwear and high fashion once lived in separate worlds. Luxury brands sold exclusivity; haute couture, hand-stitched gowns and fine tailoring. Streetwear, on the other hand, was about authenticity and everyday life, with deep ties to subcultures around skateboarding and hip-hop.
While designers at major high fashion houses occasionally took inspiration from street style in the 1990s and early 2000s — for instance, borrowing stylistic innovations from hip-hop and grunge — high fashion brands kept streetwear brands and designers at a distance.
When Harlem designer Daniel R. Day — better known as Dapper Dan — repurposed Louis Vuitton and Gucci prints into custom streetwear pieces in the late 1980s, luxury labels sued him out of business. When Supreme used Louis Vuitton’s monogram on its skateboards in 2000, the fashion house hit them with a cease-and-desist order.
Yet, Doechii’s four custom Thom Browne looks for the Grammys highlight how close hip-hop culture and high fashion now are.
This emerging style blended streetwear staples with luxury fashion production, values and beliefs. Designers crafted hoodies in Italy, integrated sneakers and tees into showstoppingrunwaypresentations. Like high fashion houses, they anchored their collections around artists and elevated conceptual work, transforming streetwear-inspired design into an art form.
By mixing streetwear’s authenticity with high fashion exclusivity, brands like Fear of God, Hood by Air and Off-White gained the respect of luxury consumers and critics alike while retaining street culture’s cool factor.
High fashion embraces streetwear
By the mid-2010s, the same high-fashion elite that once kept streetwear at a distance began to see its commercial and cultural potential. Major fashion houses like Burberry and Dior experimented with limited-edition collaborations with streetwear designers, borrowing not just an aesthetic but also distribution tactics like “drops” — a limited, time-sensitive product release by fashion brands.
This strategy not only refreshed their brand image, but also expanded their appeal to new audiences. It reflected a broader culture shift where luxury is increasingly characterized by authenticity, shared community and pop culture relevance, rather than old-money status signals.
These shifts opened the door for artists and figures from hip-hop and adjacent creative fields to take on prominent roles. Artists Rihanna, Frank Ocean and Kendrick Lamar have fronted high fashion campaigns, and rappers like A$AP Rocky and Travis Scott have walked the runway for high fashion houses and worked on high fashion collections, leading critics to claim that “rappers are fashion’s new royalty.”
Doechii’s watershed moment
The influence of streetwear on luxury was on full display at this year’s Grammys. When Doechii accepted her groundbreaking award — becoming only the third female artist to earn a Grammy for Best Rap Album — she wore another Thom Browne creation: a cropped, short-sleeved grey jacket with a tie, paired with dramatically structured and tiered balloon pants.
Once considered an unlikely pairing, Doechii’s choice of a luxury label famed for its avant-garde suits reflected the dismantling of a boundary long separating high fashion from hip-hop culture.
During her acceptance speech, Doechii addressed tearing down another boundary:
“So many Black women out there that are watching me right now and I want to tell you … Don’t allow anybody to project any stereotypes on you, that tell you that you can’t be here, that you’re too dark or that you’re not smart enough or that you’re too dramatic or you’re too loud. You are exactly who you need to be, to be right where you are, and I am a testimony.”
Her fashion choice and her message ran in parallel: just as her Thom Browne looks reflected a broader cultural shift, one in which a once-marginalized culture has claimed space at the pinnacle of luxury, her words underscored the continued need to break down societal barriers that have sidelined Black women.
Tensions behind the scenes
Despite the celebratory tone surrounding luxury’s embrace of streetwear, deeper tensions persist behind the scenes. The key question is not just about influence but about who wields control and reaps the financial benefits.
Rather than merely adopting streetwear’s aesthetics, high fashion has strategically absorbed it, spotlighting select designers to project an image of inclusivity while ensuring that the status hierarchy remains intact.
This process offers genuine opportunities for a few, but ultimately reinforces existing power dynamics, allowing luxury brands to appear progressive while maintaining their dominance and capturing the value created by the less powerful.
As the fashion industry evolves, it must address issues of cultural appropriation and elite capture to and ensure that the voices behind these influential styles receive due recognition and compensation.
But for consumers on the outside looking in, Doechii’s Grammys moment illustrates a power shift. High fashion, once sealed-off and hierarchical, has become more open, fluid and reflective of diverse backgrounds and artistic visions.
Pierre-Yann Dolbec receives funding from Concordia University, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec.
Elon Musk’s role as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, is on the surface a dramatic effort to overhaul the inefficiencies of federal bureaucracy. But beneath the rhetoric of cost-cutting and regulatory streamlining lies a troubling scenario.
Musk has been appointed what is called a “special government employee” in charge of the White House office formerly known as the U.S. Digital Service, which was renamed the U.S. DOGE Service on the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term. The Musk team’s purported goals are to maximize efficiency and to eliminate waste and redundancy.
That might sound like a bold move toward Silicon Valley-style innovation in governance. However, the deeper motivations driving Musk’s involvement are unlikely to be purely altruistic.
One historical parallel in particular is striking. In 1600, the British East India Company, a merchant shipping firm, began with exclusive rights to conduct trade in the Indian Ocean region before slowly acquiring quasi-governmental powers and ultimately ruling with an iron fist over British colonies in Asia, including most of what is now India. In 1677, the company gained the right to mint currency on behalf of the British crown.
As I explain in my upcoming book “Who Elected Big Tech?” the U.S. is witnessing a similar pattern of a private company taking over government operations.
Yet what took centuries in the colonial era is now unfolding at lightning speed in mere days through digital means. In the 21st century, data access and digital financial systems have replaced physical trading posts and private armies. Communications are the key to power now, rather than brute strength.
A security officer blocks U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, right, from entering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters on Feb. 6, 2025, in an effort to meet with DOGE staff. Al Drago/Getty Images
The data pipeline
Viewing Musk’s moves as a power grab becomes clearer when examining his corporate empire. He controls multiple companies that have federal contracts and are subject to government regulations. SpaceX and Tesla, as well as tunneling firm The Boring Company, the brain science company Neuralink, and artificial intelligence firm xAI all operate in markets where government oversight can make or break fortunes.
Through DOGE, all these oversight mechanisms could be weakened or eliminated under the guise of efficiency.
But the most catastrophic aspect of Musk’s leadership at DOGE is its unprecedented access to government data. DOGE employees reportedly have digital permission to see data in the U.S. government’s payment system, which includes bank account information, Social Security numbers and income tax documents. Reportedly, they have also seized the ability to alter the system’s software, data, transactions and records.
Multiple media reports indicate that Musk’s staff have already made changes to the programs that process payments for Social Security beneficiaries and government contractors to make it easier to block payments and hide records of payments blocked, made or altered.
But DOGE employees only need to be able to read the data to make copies of Americans’ most sensitive personal information.
The genius – and danger – of this strategy lies in the fact that each step might appear justified in isolation: modernizing government systems, improving efficiency, updating payment infrastructure. But together, they create the scaffolding for transferring even more financial power to the already wealthy.
Musk’s authoritarian tendencies, evident in his forceful management of X and his assertion that it was illegal to publish the names of people who work for him, suggest how he might wield his new powers. Companies critical of Musk could face unexpected audits; regulatory agencies scrutinizing his businesses could find their budgets slashed; allies could receive privileged access to government contracts.
This isn’t speculation – it’s the logical extension of DOGE’s authority combined with Musk’s demonstrated behavior.
Critics are calling Musk’s actions at DOGE a massive corporate coup. Others are simply calling it a coup. The protest movement is gaining momentum in Washington, D.C., and around the country, but it’s unlikely that street protests alone can stop what Musk is doing.
Who can effectively investigate a group designed to dismantle oversight itself? The administration’s illegal firing of at least a dozen inspectors general before the Musk operation began suggests a deliberate strategy to eliminate government accountability. The Republican-led Congress, closely aligned with Trump, may not want to step in; but even if it did, Musk is moving far faster than Congress ever does.
Destroy the republic, build a startup nation?
Taken together, all of Musk’s and Trump’s moves lay the foundation for what cryptocurrency investor and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan calls “the network state.”
The idea is that a virtual nation may form online before establishing any physical presence. Think of the network state like a tech startup company with its own cryptocurrency – instead of declaring independence and fighting for sovereignty, it first builds community and digital systems. By the time a Musk-aligned cryptocurrency gained official status, the underlying structure and relationships would already be in place, making alternatives impractical.
Converting more of the world’s financial system into privately controlled cryptocurrencies would take power away from national governments, which must answer to their own people. Musk has already begun this effort, using his wealth and social media reach to engage in politics not only in the U.S. but also several European countries, including Germany.
A nation governed by a cryptocurrency-based system would no longer be run by the people living in its territory but by those who could could afford to buy the digital currency. In this scenario, I am concerned that Musk, or the Communist Party of China, Russian President Vladimir Putin or AI-surveillance conglomerate Palantir, could render irrelevant Congress’ power over government spending and action. And along the way, it could remove the power to hold presidents accountable from Congress, the judiciary and American citizens.
The question facing Americans, therefore, isn’t whether government needs modernization – it’s whether they’re willing to sacrifice democracy in pursuit of Musk’s version of efficiency. When we grant tech leaders direct control over government functions, we’re not just streamlining bureaucracy – we’re fundamentally altering the relationship between private power and public governance. I believe we’re undermining American national security, as well as the power of We, the People.
The most dangerous inefficiency of all may be Americans’ delayed response to this crisis.
Allison Stanger receives funding from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Brown, Professor of Film and Television, Head of Screen, Assistant Head of School, Westminster School of Media and Communications, University of Westminster, University of Westminster
The ageist and sexist trope of the cougar, milf, or Mrs Robinson – a desperate older woman pursuing a relationship with a younger, less interested man – is being challenged by a spate of Hollywood movies pairing older women with younger men.
For generations, the idealised relationship on screen has been for an older man and a younger woman. This casting practice dates back to Hollywood’s silent era and mirrors global cultural norms. The real average age gap in the west, meanwhile, is much narrower than the silver screen would have you believe, standing at 2.2 years in the US.
Mirroring what we see in the cinema, however, research on heterosexual relationship preferences in Europe, published in December, indicated that men prefer relationships with younger women. And that preferred gap increases as men age. In contrast, women prefer a smaller age gap as they age. And in their 60s, they tend to prefer a slightly younger partner.
The history of Hollywood age gaps
Many Hollywood classics feature significant age gaps. Debbie Reynolds starred opposite a 40-year-old Gene Kelly when she was just 19 in Singin’ in the Rain (1952). Kim Novak was paired with 50-year-old James Stewart in Vertigo (1958) when she was just 25. And Maria Schneider was only 19 when she was coupled with Marlon Brando, then 49, for Last Tango in Paris (1972).
Reynolds and Schneider have both spoken about the abusive on-set power dynamics that ensued. Reynolds felt assaulted when Kelly “shoved his tongue” down her throat, and Schneider accused both Brando and director Bernardo Bertolucci of sexual assault.
More recent, and now notorious pairings, which demonstrate the ubiquity of double digit age differences include 30-year-old Catherine Zeta-Jones and 69-year-old Sean Connery in Entrapment (1990). A 27-year-old Eva Mendes paired with 47-year-old Denzel Washington in Training Day (2001). And 22-year-old Gemma Arterton as the romantic interest of 40-year-old Daniel Craig in Quantum of Solace (2008).
Actor Laura Dern has reflected that the 20-year age gap between her and Sam Neill in Jurassic Park (1993), which was considered the norm in the 1990s, now feels “completely inappropriate”.
Flipping the script
Audiences are tiring of Hollywood’s habit of pairing younger stars with men old enough to be their fathers and are calling for change.
The casting of Cillian Murphy and Florence Pugh in Oppenheimer (2023) received a backlash for the 20-year age gap between the two actors. This came particularly as the film featured lingering nudity of Pugh, and the age gap was ten years greater than the real life age gap between the characters they play.
When Hollywood has depicted an inversion of this age gap dynamic in the past, it’s generally been done to demonise the older woman. One of the most renowned examples is The Graduate (1967). The film starred Dustin Hoffman as a 21 year old at the mercy of a middle-aged seducer Mrs Robinson (Anne Bancroft). Mrs Robinson is at the periphery of the story and portrayed as a sad, fading beauty in competition with her daughter who eventually “wins” the man.
This depiction of a bitter older woman is being challenged by a surge of recent films that centre characters over 40. Babygirl (2025) stars 57-year-old Nicole Kidman as a CEO in a relationship with an intern 30 years her junior, defying gendered stereotypes and sexual power dynamics.
Similarly, Anne Hathaway, 41 in The Idea of You, falls for a 24-year-old pop star. Unlike the daughter in Mrs Robinson, who is perceived as the competition, her character’s daughter has her back and acknowledges the double standards women face when the age gap is this way around.
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.
Even so, 2024 was referred to dismissively by some as “the year of the cougar” following the release of two Netflix romcoms, A Family Affair (again with Nicole Kidman, this time paired with 36-year-old Zac Efron) and Lonely Planet (with 57-year-old Laura Dern and 34-year-old Liam Hemsworth).
Despite this online mockery, the trend looks set to continue. The upcoming Bridget Jones sequel, Mad About the Boy, will show Bridget (played by Renée Zellweger who is now in her 50s) dating a 29-year-old Leo Woodall. Meanwhile I Want Your Sex, set to release in late 2025, will star Olivia Wilde, 40, opposite Cooper Hoffman, 21.
Women still only make up 23% of writers and directors in Hollywood. Interestingly, the recent films featuring older women and younger men couples have more women in key creative roles behind the scenes.
Lonely Planet and Babygirl were written and directed by women (Susannah Grant and Halina Reijn). A Family Affair and May December were written by women (Carrie Solomon and Samy Burch). And I Want Your Sex and Mad About the Boy have a mix of genders on their writing teams.
The need for more women to be involved in the creative decision-making to amplify women’s voices is crucial. Research shows that women make up only 35% of speaking parts and roles for women start to nose-dive post 30.
No wonder then that Reese Witherspoon, Amy Adams and Kerry Washington are just a few of the Hollywood actresses who have established production companies to tell stories that reflect the wide range of women’s experiences, sexual desires and vulnerabilities – and celebrate the complexity and diversity of their relationships.
Lucy Brown 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.
January 2025 was the hottest on record – a whole 1.7°C above pre-industrial levels. If many climate-watchers expected the world to cool slightly this year thanks to the natural “La Niña” phenomena, the climate itself didn’t seem to get the memo. In fact, January 2025’s record heat highlights how human-driven ocean warming is increasingly overwhelming these natural climate patterns.
La Niña is a part of the El Niño southern oscillation, a climate fluctuation that slowly sloshes vast bodies of water and heat between different ocean basins and disrupts weather patterns around the world. El Niño was first identified and christened by Peruvian fishermen who noticed a dismal drop in their catch of sardines that coincided with much warmer than usual coastal waters.
El Niño is now well known to be part of a grander climate reorganisation that also has a reverse cool phase, La Niña. As vast swathes of the eastern Pacific cool down during La Niña, this has knock on effects for atmospheric weather patterns, shifting the most vigorous storms from the central Pacific to the west and disrupting the prevailing winds across the globe.
This atmospheric reaction also helps to amplify the sea surface temperature changes. Typically, La Niña will lower the global temperature by a couple of tenths of a degree Celsius.
In 2024 the Pacific swung from moderate El Niño conditions to a weak La Niña. However, this time around, it’s apparently not enough to stop the world warming – even temporarily. So what’s different this time?
Each La Niña cycle is unique
Scientists aren’t entirely surprised. Each El Niño and La Niña cycle is unique. Following an surprisingly lengthy “triple dip” La Niña starting in 2020, the El Niño that developed in 2023 was also unusual, struggling to stand out against globally warm seas. The switch to a weak La Niña has only slightly cooled a narrow band along the equatorial Pacific, while surrounding waters have remained unusually hot.
Recent research shows human caused warming of the ocean is accelerating – so a year on year rise in temperature is itself getting bigger – and this is dominating to an ever greater extent over El Niño and other natural oscillations in the climate. This means that even during La Niña – when equatorial eastern Pacific waters are cooler than normal – the rest of the world’s oceans have remained remarkably warm.
More carbon, less reflection
There is also a sense of inevitability as greenhouse gas levels continue to grow, even despite the demise of El Niño. During El Niño years, the land tends to absorb less carbon from the atmosphere as large continental areas, such as parts of South America, temporarily dry out causing less plant growth and more carbon-emitting plant decay.
La Niña tends to have the opposite effect. In the strong La Niña of 2011, so much extra rain fell on the normally dry lands of Australia and parts of South America and southeast Asia that sea levels dropped as the land held on to this excess moisture borrowed temporarily from the ocean. This meant more carbon was taken from the atmosphere to feed extra plant growth. But despite the switch to La Niña, the rate of rise in atmospheric carbon in 2024 and January 2025 remains above the already high levels of previous years.
To this we can also add the diminishing effects of particle pollution from industry, big ships and other sources of “aerosols”, which in some regions had added a reflective haze in the atmosphere meaning the world absorbed less sunlight. Clean air policies introduced over time have made the world less smoggy, but they also seem to have caused clouds to reflect less sunlight back to space, adding to global heating.
As industrial activity continues to spew greenhouse gases into the air, while air cleansed of particle pollution causes more sunlight to reach the ground, this growing heating effect is beginning to drown out natural fluctuations, tipping the balance toward record warmth and worsening hot, dry and wet extremes.
The long-term trend is clear
But, just as one swallow doesn’t make a summer, a single month is not reflective of the overall trajectory of climate change. Changing weather patterns from week to week can rapidly shift temperatures especially over big landmasses, which warm up and cool down more quickly than the oceans (it takes a long time to boil up water for your vegetables but not long to super heat an empty pan).
Large areas of Europe, Canada and Siberia experienced much less cold weather than is normal for January (by up to about 7°C). Parts of South America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica also experienced above average temperatures. Along with the balmy oceans, this all contributed to an unexpectedly warm start to 2025.
While this particular warm January isn’t necessarily cause for immediate alarm, it suggests natural cooling phases may become less effective at temporarily offsetting the impact of rising greenhouse gas levels on global temperatures. And to limit the scale of the inevitable, ensuing climate change, there is a clear, urgent need to rapidly and massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to properly account for the true cost of our lifestyles on societies and the ecosystems that underpin them.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Richard P. Allan 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.
Following Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the US needs to “take back” the Panama canal from Chinese control, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, visited Panama to demand the country reduce China’s influence. On the surface, it seems Rubio has succeeded.
On February 3, the Panamanian authorities withdrew from the China’s international infrastructure programme, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This makes Panama the first Latin American country both to endorse and to end cooperation with the BRI.
On February 4, local lawyers urged the country’s supreme court to cancel the concession given to Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Port Holdings which allows it to operate two ports at either end of the Panama canal. They say it violates the country’s constitution since it contains excessive tax breaks and cedes significant land areas to the port company. The Panamanian authorities are reportedly still considering this.
But what is the reality of China’s presence in the canal, and what does increased US scrutiny mean for Xi Jinping’s signature project?
The Panama canal is a key passage for US trade and military. The US accounts for 74% of canal cargo. However, while Trump’s fears of losing the canal may be understandable, his assertions about China’s influence are exaggerated.
The Panamanian government administers the canal through the Panama Canal Authority. Since 1997, CK Hutchison Port Holdings Limited, a Hong Kong-listed conglomerate with interests in over 53 ports in 24 countries, has operated the Port of Balboa and Port of Cristobal on either end of the canal. These are two out of five ports in the vicinity.
CK Hutchison Holdings Limited is one of the world’s leading port investors and is owned by billionaire Li Ka-shing. The company and projects have no direct ties with the BRI.
The primary risks concerning China’s influence over the canal, as outlined by the US, are the potential for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control the canal and “shut it down”.
Washington has also expressed concerns that the CCP’s access to dual-use port technology allows it to gather intelligence about US ships, such as transshipment patterns and naval routes. It also fears that China can exert an “economic chokehold” on the US in terms of the imposition of rate hikes on transit fees.
The first two points encompass the potential for China to use ports for naval purposes. But while the People’s Liberation Army navy has access to Chinese-owned ports under domestic laws and policies, they require host country permission to use Chinese-operated foreign ports. These ports are also often ill-suited for military support and operations.
So the most probable risk concerns intelligence. If the CCP deems it necessary to national security, it may use the 2020 national security law to gather sensitive data from Hong Kong-based companies.
As for rate hikes, there have been recent increases in response to droughts, maintenance investments and demand. Following Rubio’s visit, the US has claimed it is allowed to transit without paying fees.
This has been denied by Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino. The fees are equally imposed due to neutrality principles initiated in 1977. There is no evidence that China has played any role in these rate hikes.
Panama’s ‘BRI-xit’ and Trump’s geopolitical gamble
In the unlikely event that CK Hutchison’s concession is cancelled, what would that mean for China’s presence in Panama? China’s investments in Panama precede the BRI, even if they have increased since the initiative’s launch.
The country holds geostrategic importance due to its location and role in international trade. So it’s a critical link for China’s establishment of a regional gateway for its economic and political influence.
This includes securing raw material and energy resource imports and enhancing export capabilities. China’s engagements in Panama include foreign direct investments (FDI), which amounted to around 0.8% in 2023 (compared to 3.6% by Spain and 19.6% by the US), primarily in the logistics, infrastructure, energy and construction sectors.
Most have been promoted as part of the BRI and faced renegotiation or cancellation for various – often geopolitical – reasons.
Since BRI projects in the canal are already quite limited, withdrawing from the initiative is unlikely to result in significant short-term changes. CK Hutchison will only be “slightly affected” in case of a contract cancellation.
What’s more, as the case of Brazil shows, a country can remain unaffiliated with the BRI and still receive Chinese investments.
Therefore, Chinese engagements will probably resume outside the BRI framework. Still, even though China has shown restrained disappointment and argued that Panama has made a “regrettable decision,” Sino-Panamanian relations may cool until Trump’s attention has turned elsewhere.
Trump’s rhetoric over the Panama canal may be exaggerated to appease a domestic audience rooting for a “strongman president”. But it also reflects decades of US concerns about China’s growing clout.
So the administration’s focus on containing China is hardly surprising. Instead, it demonstrates Trump’s broader “make America great again 2.0” strategy. Therefore, Panama’s “BRI-xit” may bolster US resolve on “reclaiming” the Americas.
The Panamanian authorities seem caught between US pressure to limit China’s influence and the economic boost provided by Chinese “pragmatic” investments. So like other BRI countries, they face tough choices in the coming years.
As the largest provider of FDI – US$3.8 billion (£3.05 billion) per annum – and the canal’s biggest customer, US influence and economic leverage over Panama is substantial. Conversely, China’s interests and engagements in the country have increased, and the CCP has made it clear that it is patient and wants to continue cooperation and “resist external interruption”.
Protests have erupted in Panama over Trump’s “muscular approach”, and residents have expressed strong reluctance to return to US rule. Therefore, the question remains whether this is the “great step forward” for Panama’s ties with the US that Rubio suggests or whether Trump’s actions will ultimately push Panama closer to Beijing.
Tabita Rosendal 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.
“Here they are, my lost people, in need of strongmen and simple ideas,” says Benito Mussolini to the camera. It is March 23 1919, and all that we know will happen in Italy and all that we know this man will become is only just being set in motion. Mussolini: Son of the Century, a new Italian-language Sky Atlantic TV series, tells the story of this beginning, of the rise of Italian fascism and its consolidation in power from 1919 to 1925.
Set out in eight parts, it’s a striking and powerful piece of TV. Italian actor Luca Marinelli performs indomitably as the 35-year-old soon-to-be dictator, Benito Mussolini. Our reviewer, expert in Italian history John Foot, has spent countless hours studying and watching Mussolini. He was blown away by the precision with which Marinelli expels torrents of words – many of which have been drawn directly from Mussolini’s journalism and speeches.
The series is coming at a moment when far-right leaders are winning elections all over the world and its director, Joe Wright, is keenly aware. This series is clearly a warning. Democracy is fragile. Yes, this series is about the man who would become “Il Duce” (the Duke) but it shows, as Foot notes, how he was enabled and how easily his incendiary language and the violence of his supporters were ignored.
Mussolini: Son of the Century is available on Sky Atlantic now
If you’re looking to learn about another bit of global history through brilliant storytelling let me recommend the director Tim Fehlbaum’s new film September 5. The film recounts the Black September attack on the Israeli team at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
As our reviewer, film expert Barry Langford writes, this incident arguably introduced the term “terrorist” to many viewers for the first time. The story has been told many times but the focus here is on the American sports broadcasting crew tasked with covering the hostage crisis. The drama unfolds almost entirely within the confines of the control room.
It is a tense and tightly-packed 94 minutes that does this story justice and shows that big topics can be handled well in short (for these days) films.
Another historical fiction recommendation is the new book from the Nobel literature prize-winning South Korean author Han Kang, We Do Not Part. First published in 2021 and now translated into English, it takes on the memories and lasting shadow of Jeju 4.3 (1947 to 1948) on the families who survived.
The official figure of how many people died is still not known, and it’s assumed that around 10% of the population of Jeju island was killed during this US-backed operation by the Korean government to eradicate communists and their sympathisers. The incident was suppressed by the government until 2000 when it was officially recognised.
In this book, Kang bears witness to the horror through Kyungha, who is snowed in at her friend Inseon’s compound in Jeju. There, she discovers Inseon’s lifelong investigation into her family’s experiences of the massacres.
It is told in a sort of dizzying, fragmentary style where excerpts of interviews, descriptions of pictures and passages of memories intersect with Kyungha’s present. Haunting and harrowing at times, it features Han Kang’s typical precise language and brilliantly unnerving and dreamlike storytelling.
Film’s fascination with the possibility of sexy female robots goes back to Fritz Lang’s Metropolis in 1927. Men lust after these robots, but also fear them – and often rightly so. Some of my favourites in this genre are Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982), Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (2014) and now Drew Hancock’s Companion (2025).
Companion follows Iris and Josh, a seemingly average couple bound in their driverless car for a weekend away with Josh’s friends. Iris, like many girlfriends in this scenario, is eager to be a success. But, she isn’t a normal girl, she’s a sophisticated humanoid companion bot – something she doesn’t know about herself … yet. What begins with dinner parties and dancing soon devolves into violence as something in her programming goes wrong.
As our reviewer Sarah Artt notes: “What makes Companion unsettling is not so much its depiction of cyborgs but rather its portrayal of misogyny.” This glossy film asks what makes someone a good partner to anyone, sophisticated robot or otherwise. Does our treatment and respect of humanoid bots and AI matter? I saw this film last week and am still thinking about it.
Finally, if you are in or happen to be going to Winchester this month, pop by the cathedral to gawp in awe at three huge sculptures of sperm whales hanging from the ceiling in the nave. The immersive exhibition Whales is by artist Tessa Campbell Fraser and asks visitors to stare up at the majesty of these almighty creatures and contemplate humankind’s increasing ecological impact on the world’s climate.
Whales is on at Winchester Cathedral until February 26.
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.
The Lucy Letby case is the latest in a number of UK criminal medical cases that, beyond the rights and wrongs of each verdict, raise serious questions around how such cases are tried – especially when the evidence is limited, complex, and circumstantial. These cases often rely heavily on expert witnesses, whose testimony is crucial yet can be open to interpretation.
As an expert in the intersection of criminal and medical law, I am particularly concerned with how prosecution teams gather expert evidence in such cases – and how it is then communicated to juries through expert witnesses.
Generally speaking, in complex medical cases, police and prosecutors may risk becoming overly reliant on a small pool of experts when dealing with highly technical issues beyond their expertise. This dependence can inadvertently lead to “cherry-picking” – selectively presenting evidence that supports a particular narrative, while overlooking alternative perspectives that could provide a more comprehensive or balanced view.
In the Letby case, the prosecution’s selection and interpretation of evidence has now been challenged by an independent panel of 14 neonatal and paediatric experts. Letby is serving 15 whole-life prison terms after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill another seven at the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England. The chair of the panel, retired Canadian neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee, was co-author of a 1989 academic paper on air embolism in babies that was used in the prosecution’s case, but now says this evidence was misinterpreted by the prosecution.
In complex medical cases, I’m concerned that prosecutors – who may lack the medical expertise needed to fully grasp these complexities – may gravitate toward experts whose opinions align with a prosecutorial narrative, whether consciously or not. This can result in a narrowing of expert perspectives which might tend to focus only on those that bolster the case for conviction, while alternative views that could provide a more balanced assessment are excluded or marginalised.
In trials where juries hear only a limited number of expert voices, there’s a risk they may not receive a sufficiently balanced understanding of the case. In addition, rare diagnoses may lack the robust scientific literature typically needed to validate medical opinions in court.
Medical experts, like professionals in any field, can have differing opinions, especially in cases involving judgment calls or grey areas in medical practice. Without exposure to a range of viewpoints, jurors may miss alternative interpretations of the same evidence, which could be crucial for fair deliberation.
Of course, the defence also has the opportunity to call its own experts, potentially offering counter-arguments to prosecution evidence. But decisions by a defence team not to call certain experts may be based on legal strategy, resource constraints, or concerns about how the testimony will withstand cross-examination. When this happens, it can amplify the weight of the prosecution’s selected experts, potentially skewing the jury’s understanding.
Jurors naturally place a high level of trust in experts, assuming their testimony is both accurate and confined to their area of expertise. So, when experts venture beyond their remit, jurors may accept these statements uncritically, unaware that such testimony may lack the depth required in such complex medical cases. This issue is particularly concerning in circumstantial prosecutions where the case often hinges more on expert interpretation than on direct evidence, increasing the risk of misunderstanding or misjudgment.
Expert overreach
Testimony from experts unfamiliar with the practical pressures of certain clinical settings may lead to distorted interpretations of what a “reasonable” course of action would have been under the circumstances. This can result in unfair judgments, particularly when the nuances of clinical decision-making aren’t fully explored.
Experts also sometimes “overreach” their duties in court, offering opinions that extend beyond their remit. In the case of surgeon David Sellu, who was jailed for gross negligence manslaughter in November 2013 before being freed three years later, having spent 15 months in prison, the court of appeal noted that expert witnesses had repeatedly expressed opinions on whether Sellu’s conduct amounted to gross negligence – an assessment the court said should have been left to the jury.
In that case, the experts directly addressed the “ultimate issue” of whether Sellu’s actions were grossly negligent. But that was for the jury to decide, not the experts, and I believe the trial judge should have intervened. A key change needed by the UK legal system, in my view, is to establish clearer guidelines to ensure experts do not exceed their role – whether in a complex financial fraud or criminal medical trial.
Incidentally, while the judge in the Sellu trial didn’t give the jury correct direction (this was a key finding by the court of appeal that made the conviction unsafe), I don’t think it was entirely the judge’s fault. The law surrounding gross negligence manslaughter, particularly when applied to doctors unintentionally causing a patient’s death, is fraught with ambiguity. The lack of clear guidelines on what constitutes “gross” negligence, coupled with inconsistent application of the law, has sparked widespread concerns about its fairness and appropriateness in the medical context..
Make-up of a jury
Letby’s trial also highlights the limitations of the current jury system in such complex medical cases. The original trial was one of the longest in UK legal history, lasting ten months. The idea of jury trials is you’re tried by your peers, but if you’re a healthcare professional, you’re arguably not really being tried by your peers.
In England, jury service is compulsory and jurors are chosen randomly from the electoral register, but there are some exemptions and deferrals available in specific circumstances, such as serious illness, disability, or full-time caregiving. Additionally, people can apply for deferral if serving would cause significant hardship due to work commitments, including shift work or conflicts with important public duties. This is particularly relevant for professionals who cannot easily take extended time away from their roles.
This adds to the question of whether a jury, composed of 12 lay people with no specialised medical knowledge, can effectively assess intricate, often conflicting medical evidence. As Rebecca Helm highlights in her book How Juries Work (2024), while expert testimony aims to enhance jury understanding of complex evidence, jurors often lack the necessary background knowledge to fully grasp or critically assess it. This can lead to challenges in properly weighing competing expert opinions, especially in adversarial systems where experts present differing views.
In the Letby case, the vast amount of medical evidence presented for each baby likely made it challenging for a lay jury to fully comprehend. Additionally, they may have felt intimidated or hesitant to ask the judge questions, further complicating their ability to critically engage with the evidence.
Of course, it’s important to understand the backdrop for cases like this. I’m very aware of how overstretched, understaffed and under-resourced our hospitals are. And in the Letby case, we know that severely premature babies who are born on the cusp of viability often have a lot of comorbidities. It’s vital that jurors have a clear understanding of such specific context – which is outside the normal experience of most of us – when they come to make their decisions.
The jury’s role is to assess expert evidence independently, yet this can be difficult without clear guidance. In the Sellu trial, the absence of a “route to verdict” document was another significant issue. While not always mandatory, such a document is often used in complex cases to help jurors separate medical facts from legal conclusions.
Without it, the jury was left without clear guidance, increasing the risk of confusion and misapplication of the law. While the court of appeal did not say a route to verdict was strictly required, it strongly indicated that its omission contributed to an unfair trial process.
Expert advisors for juries
In complex criminal cases, like fraud or medical trials, where a large amount of expert evidence is presented, it can be challenging for lay jurors to fully understand and assess the evidence. Elsewhere in Europe – including in Italy, Spain and France – expert judges or advisers are often involved in complex cases to help guide the jury and clarify professional standards relevant to the case.
Given the complexity of cases like Sellu and Letby, it’s worth considering whether jury reform is needed in the UK to ensure fair trials. A potential solution is the inclusion of an expert, such as a medico-legal advisor, who can assist juries in understanding and weighing medical evidence. This would provide clarity on complex issues and help jurors navigate the case more effectively. It would be a practical, cost-effective step that maintains the integrity of jury trials, while addressing challenges specific to complex medical manslaughter and murder cases.
This medico-legal expert would serve solely to assist the jury in understanding complex issues presented during the trial, and would have no role in the deliberation or decision-making process. They are separate to the judge who oversees the trial, and their precise expertise would be dependent on the particular nature of the case.
Of course, everything would have to be confidential in accordance with jury rules – their introduction would simply be to facilitate decision-making and explain complex matters to the jury.
I believe it’s in the interests of both parties, the defendant and the prosecution, that the jury fully understands the evidence presented in court. An impartial medico-legal expert could help ensure this understanding, without influencing the case’s outcome. Their role would be beneficial for clarity, helping both parties ensure the jury comprehends the complex evidence before them.
Further, it may also be worth considering specialist medical juries for certain complex criminal cases, such as the Letby trial, where the evidence is highly technical. The sheer volume of complex medical information presented for each baby in this case suggests that a jury without specialised medical knowledge could struggle to fully grasp the evidence.
Appeals process
One of the Letby appeal grounds involved an application to admit fresh evidence from Lee, challenging the conclusions reached from the 1989 study he co-authored. The court of appeal denied this, noting it did not meet the standards for fresh evidence. Refusals such as this highlights an essential aspect of public debate: the need for transparency about how the court of appeal evaluates new evidence, especially in cases that receive significant media attention.
While it remains to be seen whether the court grants a new appeal for Letby, after the criminal cases review commission reviews the latest evidence provided by Lee’s panel, the Thirlwall inquiry has been sitting since September 2023, looking at events at the Countess of Chester Hospital on the basis that Letby is guilty. It will ultimately make recommendations about different aspects of this wider medical ecosystem, but it’s got no legal authority. Inquiries can make valuable recommendations, but they are advisory in nature and cannot enforce legal changes or compel action.
There are numerous other examples where criminal trials have not led to the systemic-level changes that they highlight are urgently needed, beyond the individual verdict. During the trial of Hadiza Bawa-Garba – a junior doctor found guilty of manslaughter in November 2015 on the grounds of gross negligence manslaughter following the death of a six-year-old boy in her care – it was revealed that the Leicester NHS trust’s serious incident report had identified 93 failures, only six of which were attributable to the doctor herself.
Ultimately, while holding individuals accountable is essential, we must also shift our focus towards long-term, systemic reform. Only by addressing the root causes and strengthening oversight within healthcare institutions can we ensure that tragedies are never repeated. The criminal justice system, though necessary in cases of clear criminal conduct, should be complemented by proactive, preventative measures that foster a culture of safety, accountability and transparency in healthcare.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Amel Alghrani 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 Mark Middling, Assistant Professor of Accounting, Northumbria University, Newcastle
When billionaire Jim Ratcliffe took a 27.7% stake in Manchester United back in February 2024, he had big plans. He would, he said, take the club “back to the top of English, European and world football, with world-class facilities for our fans”.
A year later, those ambitions remain a distant dream. Results have not been great, and for many fans, the 2024-25 season is looking like one to forget.
But while the club has been far from ruthless on the pitch, it has been fairly ruthless off it. Cost-cutting measures led to the loss of 250 jobs in a bid to save £10 million a year
And now there is fresh tension between the club and its fan base after supporters were warned of a possible rise in ticket prices to prevent the club breaching the Premier League’s “profit and sustainability rules” (PSR).
These rules were put in place in 2011, with the aim of getting clubs to balance their spending against income. This includes an allowance for an “acceptable” loss level set at a cumulative £105 million over a rolling three-year period.
And some well-established clubs have been close to the limits of PSR, with both Nottingham Forest and Everton receiving point deductions in 2024 for spending breaches.
In their defence, football clubs are not immune from cost pressures, such as rising wages and energy bills, leading to price increases. Nor is Manchester United alone in raising ticket prices.
Fulham was criticised for its “completely misguided” ticket pricing strategy in 2023, and in 2016 Liverpool fans staged a stadium walk out against price hikes. Issues such as these have led to the Football Supporters’ Association’s “Stop Exploiting Loyalty” campaign.
But asking fans to help foot the bill to support the club’s PSR position raises a wider question around the “social contract” between a club and its supporters – and the responsibilities on each side.
Our research suggests that Manchester United’s planned price rise would probably break this social contract.
We found that two of a club’s key responsibilities were fair ticket pricing and maintaining financial sustainability (which PSR aim to control). By suggesting ticket price rises to cover the PSR position, Manchester United would be in breach of both those aspects, essentially using one to deal with the other.
There’s nothing illegal about this approach, but it’s a tactic that might backfire. Our research suggests that a relationship between the club and its supporters should involve everybody pulling in the same direction. However, United have already seen some fans turn away from the club, and further ticket price hikes (they already went up to £66 at the end of 2024) may alienate others.
Clarity
Transparency between club and fans is another issue. For it is difficult for fans to know how close the club are to a potential PSR breach – and how much a ticket price increase would alleviate any pressure.
Although Manchester United file detailed accounts, they do not include clear numbers on PSR calculations. These are only provided privately to Premier League officials.
And while it is understandable that internal club finances would be considered commercially sensitive or private, clubs could do more in terms of being transparent with their fan base. This could be through a broad explanation of PSR in their accounts, or in communication with supporters’ groups.
PSR may be a concern for the club, but should the fans have to help foot the bill for financial issues? Again, our social contract model would suggest not. We advocate that clubs are ultimately responsible for their own financial sustainability, and that they should be as transparent as possible, involving fans in decision-making wherever they can.
That said, our research also shows that fans do have a role to play in contributing to a club’s income, supporting its financial sustainability – but not to the extent that the cost to fans is excessive. Yet a recent BBC poll found that most fans were willing to pay “slightly” or “significantly more” for their tickets next season.
This may provide clubs with a sense of justification for ticket price increases, but they need to be aware of tipping points. Our research found that fans should hold clubs to account, with many well practised at this.
So club owners should take heed of the social contract when thinking about putting more financial pressure on their supporters. If, of course, they sympathise with the view that football without the fans “is nothing”.
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.
US Drug Enforcement Administration images accompanying a warning about the emergence of nitazenes in Washington DC, June 2022USDEA
In the early hours of September 14 2021, three men parked in a quiet car park in the southern English market town of Abingdon-on-Thames. The men, returning from a night out, had pulled over to smoke heroin.
Unknown to them, the drug had been fortified with a nitazene compound called isotonitazene, a highly potent new synthetic opioid. Two of the men, Peter Haslam and Adrian Davies, overdosed and went into cardiac arrest. The third, Michael Parsons, tried to save them and himself by injecting naloxone, an opioid overdose antidote. Despite paramedics also trying to resuscitate Haslam and Davies, both died at the scene.
Their deaths were among at least 27 fatalities linked to nitazenes that year in the UK. Since then, nitazenes – otherwise known as 2-benzylbenzimidazole opioids – have become more prevalent in the UK’s illegal drug supply, leading some experts to warn that they are a major new threat because of their extreme potency.
In June 2023, the UK’s most recent outbreak of deaths linked to synthetic opioids emerged in the West Midlands when drug dealers used nitazenes to fortify low-purity heroin. By August, there were 21 nitazene-related fatalities in Birmingham alone. In some cases, dealers also added xylazine (colloquially known as “tranq”), a non-opioid sedative used by vets.
The increasing availability of these and other synthetic drugs led the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) to warn in August 2024 that “there has never been a more dangerous time to take drugs”. Like Haslam and Davies, many heroin users are unaware they might also be consuming nitazenes, which significantly increase the risk of overdose.
Given their potency, only a small amount of nitazene is required to produce a fatal dose. While some studies have concluded that nitazenes are even more potent than the synthetic opioid fentanyl, which causes many thousands of deaths in the US, the NCA judges it a “realistic possibility” that the potency of both substances are “broadly equivalent” – making them roughly 50 times more potent than heroin.
Illicit drug use is damaging large parts of the world socially, politically and environmentally. Patterns of supply and demand are changing rapidly. In our new longform series Addicted, leading drug experts bring you the latest insights on drug use and production as we ask: is it time to declare a planetary emergency?
Officially, more than 400 deaths plus many non-fatal overdoses were linked to nitazenes in the UK between June 2023 and January 2025. But this is likely to be an underestimate because of gaps within forensic and toxicology reporting. These figures come amid record levels of drug-related deaths in England and Wales. In 2023, there were 5,448 deaths related to drug poisoning, an 11% increase on the previous year and the highest total since records began in 1993.
This is of particular concern given that the UK has the largest heroin market in Europe, comprising around 300,000 users in England alone. While nitazene-related deaths are still relatively low (although by no means insignificant) compared with those from heroin and other opioids, these new synthetic opioids are cheap and easy to buy, and offer dealers multiple advantages over traditional plant-based drugs.
Unlike opium, nitazenes and other synthetic opioids can be produced anywhere in the world using precursor chemicals that are often uncontrolled and widely available. Producer countries including China and India have not yet banned all nitazene compounds, meaning they are sold legally – mostly online. Chemical manufacturing companies in these countries can synthesise nitazenes at scale using a comparatively easy three or four-step process.
Opioid use death rates around the world:
Estimated deaths from opioid use disorders per 100,000 people in 2021. Our World In Data, CC BY
For the past 15 years, I have researched and advised on the international narcotics industry, especially the Afghan drug trade, as an academic, UK Home Office official and consultant. I’ve observed many shifts within global drug markets, and I believe the increasing availability of synthetic drugs in the UK and Europe may represent a new chapter in illicit drug use here – with the emergence of nitazenes only adding to these concerns.
A brief history of synthetic opioids
New synthetic opioids (NSOs) are one of the fastest-growing groups of new psychoactive substances around the world. The EU Drugs Agency (EUDA) currently monitors 81 NSOs – the fourth-largest group of drugs under observation.
NSOs largely fall into two broad groups: fentanyl and its analogues, and non-fentanyl-structured compounds – these include nitazenes, among many other substances.
Many of these “new” synthetic opioids have, in fact, existed for decades. Nitazenes were first synthesised in the 1950s by the Swiss pharmaceutical company, Ciba Aktiengesellschaft, as pain-relieving analgesics, although they were never approved for medical use.
Prior to 2019, there had only been limited reports of nitazenes in the illegal drug supply – including a “brownish looking powder” found in Italy in 1966; the discovery of a lab in Germany in 1987; several nitazene-related deaths in Moscow in 1998; and a US chemist illegally producing the drug for personal use in 2003. But since nitazenes re-emerged at the end of the last decade, over 20 variants have been discovered.
Paul Janssen, the Belgian chemist who first made fentanyl. Johnson & Johnson
The most common NSO in the illegal drug market, fentanyl, was first synthesised by Belgian chemist Paul Janssen in 1960. Fentanyl, which is roughly 100 times more potent than morphine, was approved in the US in 1968 for pharmaceutical use as an analgesic.
Over the next four decades, however, illegally produced fentanyl resulted in three relatively small outbreaks of deaths in the US. A fourth, larger fentanyl outbreak in Chicago, Detroit and Philadelphia resulted in about 1,000 deaths between 2005 and 2007.
The current US fentanyl crisis started in 2013, expanding to affect much of the country. Between 2014 and 2019, Chinese companies were the main manufacturers of finished fentanyl substances in the US – to combat this, both the Obama and Trump administrations lobbied Beijing to curtail the fentanyl industry.
The Chinese government responded by controlling specific fentanyl analogues. However, every time an analogue was banned, chemists there would slightly adjust the formula to produce a new compound that mirrored the banned substance.
China finally banned all fentanyl-related substances in May 2019, prompting two significant changes in the drug’s supply: a slowdown in the development of new fentanyl analogues, and a reduction in their direct sale to the US from China. Instead, Chinese companies increasingly sent fentanyl precursors to Mexican drug cartels who would synthesise fentanyl (or counterfeit medication) in clandestine labs, before smuggling it across the US border. Consequently, Mexico is now the primary source of fentanyl in the US.
But these supply changes led to another shift in the global drugs arena, as China’s chemical and pharmaceutical businesses – keen to develop new markets – adjusted their focus to producing uncontrolled synthetic substances, including nitazenes. At the same time, they expanded their geographical focus from North America to include Europe and the UK.
The nitazene supply chain
Producing nitazenes is a relatively low-cost exercise. They are largely manufactured in laboratories – both legal and illegal – in China, before being smuggled to the UK and Europe via fast parcel and post networks.
Nitazenes’ high potency means only small quantities are required, making them easier to transport and harder for border officials to detect. Some Chinese vendors have reportedly been offering to hide nitazenes in legitimate goods such as dog food and catering supplies, to circumvent custom controls. All of this decreases the risk to sellers, and lessens the price of doing business.
In March 2024, two China-based sellers operating on the dark web were selling a kilo of nitazene for between €10,000 and €17,000 (£12,000-£20,000). During roughly the same period, a kilo of heroin at the wholesale level in the UK was selling for between £23,000 and £26,000. Once bought, nitazenes are largely used to fortify low-purity heroin, although the drug can also be made into pills.
Video by The Guardian.
Nitazenes are not limited to the dark web. They are widely and openly advertised on the internet, social media and music streaming platforms. In February 2024, one China-based e-commerce site displayed 85 advertisements for nitazenes. Such sites also sell a range of other synthetic drugs, including fentanyl analogues and precursors, xylazines, cannabinoids and methamphetamine.
This means drug dealers in the UK and across the world no longer need to have established connections to underworld figures to source illegal drugs. With a click of a mouse, they can have them delivered to their home address. In this sense, the internet has democratised the drug trade by widening access beyond “traditional” criminals.
In the UK, while the supply of nitazenes is currently assessed as “low”, a number of smaller-scale organised crime groups are importing them to fortify low-purity heroin, before largely dealing it at the “county lines” level. This involves organised crime groups moving drugs – primarily heroin and crack cocaine – across towns, cities and county borders within the UK, using mobile phones or another form of “deal line” to sell to customers.
In November 2023, Leon Brown from West Bromwich was imprisoned for seven years for dealing drugs containing nitazenes – a verdict described as “a great result in our ongoing efforts to tackle county lines drug dealing” by detective sergeant Luke Papps of the South Worcestershire county lines team.
A few larger UK criminal networks have also been involved in nitazene distribution. In October 2023, the police and Border Force conducted raids across north London, arresting 11 people. They dismantled a drug processing site and seized 150,000 tablets containing nitazene – the UK’s largest ever seizure of synthetic opioids – as well as a pill-pressing machine, a firearm, more than £60,000 in cash and £8,000 in cryptocurrency. The police suspected the group had been selling the tablets on the dark web.
Anecdotal reports suggest there have been mixed reactions to the introduction of nitazenes into the illegal drug supply. Richard, a recovering heroin user from Bristol, told Vice magazine that, given their potency, some “people are scared of [nitazenes]” while others are “actively seeking” them.
As has been the case with fentanyl in the US, users build up tolerance and therefore seek stronger doses. Manny, a heroin user from Bristol, told Vice: “I smoked [heroin cut with nitazenes] and it felt like the first time I’d ever taken drugs.”
Video by Vice.
UK-based criminals also use the dark web to export nitazenes abroad. In October 2023, the Australian Border Force identified 22 nitazene discoveries in packages shipped to the country via mail cargo from the UK. British criminals have also trafficked counterfeit medicines containing nitazenes to Ireland and Norway.
Use of nitazenes is now being detected all over the world. Within Europe, Ireland experienced several nitazene outbreaks in 2023-24 while in Estonia, nitazenes now account for a large share of overdose deaths – a trend also seen (to a lesser extent) in Latvia. Preliminary data suggests at least 150 deaths were linked to nitazenes in Europe in 2023.
Nitazenes have also been discovered in fake pain medication such as benzodiazepines, oxycodone and diazepam, which widens the number of people at risk to include those with no opioid tolerance. The death in July 2023 of Alex Harpum, a 23-year-old British student who was preparing for a career as an opera singer, was a stark reminder of the danger of buying fake medicine online that may have been contaminated with nitazenes.
The nitazene ‘boom’ and the global heroin trade
For decades, Afghanistan was the world’s largest opium producer and the source of most of Europe’s heroin. Then in April 2022, the ruling Taliban announced a comprehensive prohibition on the use, trade, transport, production, import and export of all drugs. As a result, poppy cultivation has fallen to historically low levels for a second consecutive year.
While this has not, as yet, translated into a shortage of heroin on European streets, including in the UK and Germany, some indicators suggest a slowdown in heroin supplies to the UK. In the year March 2023-24, the quantity of heroin seized in the UK fell by 54%, from 950kg to 441kg. This is the lowest quantity of heroin seized since 1989, when about 350kg was intercepted.
The NCA assesses that the Taliban ban has created market “uncertainty”. The wholesale price of heroin has increased from roughly £16,000 per kilo prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to about £26,000, while anecdotal reports suggest average heroin purity for users dropped to under 30% (often to 10-20%) in 2024, compared with around 35% in 2023 and 45% in 2022.
Video by UN Story.
Even without the Taliban’s ban, heroin is not easy to produce and supply. Cultivating opium poppy is labour-intensive, taking five or six months. The static nature of opium fields means they are visible and susceptible to eradication; poppy crops can also be negatively affected by blight or drought.
Converting opium into heroin base is also a labour-intensive process that can involve (depending on the production method) at least 17 steps. Acetic anhydride, the main chemical used to convert morphine into heroin, is relatively expensive compared with synthetic precursors. Moreover, heroin is a bulky product, which means it is harder to move in large volumes.
While the relationship between events in opiate-producer countries and the introduction of synthetic opioids to consumer markets should not be overstated, this new type of drug offers economic advantages to criminals whose “sole motivation is greed”.
For decades, Turkish, Kurdish and Pakistani criminal networks have been responsible for importing heroin into the UK. Once in the UK, both Turkish and British groups largely control its wholesale supply, with some participation of Albanian gangs.
To date, there is little evidence to suggest these groups have transitioned to supplying NSOs, including nitazenes. The shifting dynamics in the global drug supply chain, however, could upend traditional markets and the gangs who profit from them.
America’s synthetic drug crisis
The synthetic opioid fentanyl has devastated the US, having been linked to about 75,000 deaths in 2023 alone. It is the primary cause of death for Americans aged 18-49. Canada, too, has experienced a wave of deaths: between January 2016 and June 2024, there were 49,105 apparent opioid deaths there, with fentanyl implicated in a large proportion.
More than 4,300 reports of nitazenes have reached the US National Forensic Laboratory Information System since 2019. They are typically used to fortify fentanyl and other opioids, which can produce a fatal concoction.
Efforts to stem the flow of NSOs, including nitazenes, from China to the US and elsewhere will prove challenging. And even if China does implement stricter controls, other countries could step in to fill the void. According to the Commission on Combating Synthetic Opioid Trafficking:
The overall sizes of these industries, limited oversight efforts and political incentives contribute to an atmosphere of impunity among firms and individuals associated with those industries.
While US and Chinese counter-narcotics cooperation ended in 2022 amid increasing geopolitical tensions, the following November’s summit in Woodside, California, between presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping saw them agree to recommence collaboration.
As a result, China recently closed several chemical companies that were shipping fentanyl precursors and nitazenes to the US. These vendors used encrypted platforms and cryptocurrency to conduct the deals, and mislabelled the consignments to try to ensure the substances evaded border controls. China has also outlawed more chemicals and substances, including several nitazene variants.
But President Trump’s imposition of tariffs on imports from China – which sit alongside proposed taxes on imports from Canada and Mexico, in part for supposedly not doing enough to curb the trafficking of fentanyl and its precursors to the US – threatens this counter-narcotics cooperation.
While nitazenes are not yet widely available in the US, their presence within some fentanyl batches is complicating the US opioid crisis – and according to some experts, has the potential to further increase the already shocking number of synthetic opioid-related deaths.
The UK response to nitazenes
Successive UK governments have made tackling NSOs a high priority. Shortly after the most recent nitazene-related deaths were discovered in the UK in summer 2023, the NCA launched Project Housebuilder to lead and coordinate the law enforcement and public health response.
This was soon followed by the establishment of a government-wide Synthetic Opioids Taskforce “to improve…understanding, preparedness and mitigation against this evolving threat”. Chris Philp, then the UK’s combatting drugs minister, stated that “synthetic opioids are at the top of [this government’s] list because of the harm they cause”.
The taskforce has taken a range of measures, such as controlling more NSOs as class A drugs, conducting more intelligence operations at UK borders, widening access to naloxone, and enhancing the UK’s real-time, multi-source drug surveillance system. The government also worked with the US and Canada to learn from their experiences.
Recently, the current UK government banned a further six synthetic opioids and introduced a generic definition of nitazenes as class A drugs. And the UK’s current government, unlike its Conservative predecessor, has also indicated its willingness to consider evidence from the UK’s first drug consumption facility, which recently opened in Glasgow.
Other policy measures worthy of consideration include expanding drug checking services whereby drug users submit drugs to a lab to test what is in them, then are provided with information about the sample. These services offer vital information to the public and authorities about current drug trends.
While there is high uncertainty about what is going to happen next in the UK regarding illicit drug trends, the evolution of the US drug landscape over generations provides some important lessons.
Lessons from the US
The US fentanyl crisis shows drug markets can change quickly with long-lasting consequences. Most heroin on US streets contains – or has been replaced by – fentanyl. According to DEA seizure data, US heroin seizures declined by nearly 70% between 2019 and 2023, whereas fentanyl seizures have increased by 451%.
However, illegal drug markets evolve in different ways and at different paces. In May 1989, Douglas Hogg, a UK Home Office minister, travelled to the US and the Bahamas on a fact-finding mission about crack cocaine, a drug that was predicted to spread from the US to the UK. Upon his return, Hogg noted:
The ethnic, social and economic characters of many of our big cities are very similar to those in the US. If they have a crack problem, why should not we? … The use of crack in Great Britain is likely to develop very substantially over the next few years.
But this “crack invasion”, as some called it, did not materialise in the UK to the extent it had in the US – and the same was true about a predicted wave of methamphetamine use in the UK, which remains low compared with the US.
It is also unlikely the UK and Europe will experience a synthetic opioid crisis on the same scale as the US. The first wave of the US crisis was driven by extensive overprescription of opioids for pain relief. This increased the number of people addicted to opioids, some of whom later turned to heroin, before transitioning to fentanyl. In contrast, large-scale opioid prescriptions have not been a major issue in the UK or Europe, although there is some diversion of legal fentanyl into the illegal drug market in Europe.
Video by The Brookings Institution.
According to Alex Stevens, professor of criminology at the University of Sheffield, another factor differentiating the US and Europe is the provision of drug treatment and harm reduction programmes. Opioid users in Europe, and to a lesser extent in the UK, are much more likely to be in medication-assisted treatment than their US counterparts, thus reducing the number of people at risk. These interventions are reinforced by different socioeconomic factors in much of Europe, such as lower economic inequality, stronger social protections, and better healthcare systems.
None of this, though, means the nitazene threat in the UK and Europe should be underestimated, nor that use and supply of these drugs (and other NSOs) will not increase from its current relatively low base. As the NCA recently warned:
While a zero-tolerance approach from law enforcement, plus advice to users on the heightened dangers, may contain or slow the current uptake, we must prepare for these substances to become widely available, both unadvertised in fortified mixes and in response to user demand as a more potent high.
The future of new synthetic opioids
Predicting the future of NSO use and trafficking is a challenging task. Projections for Europe range from existing opiate stockpiles ensuring that heroin consumer markets remain serviced (assuming the Taliban ban is short-lived), to a heroin shortage which results in more drug dealers turning to NSOs to plug the shortfall, which in turn could lead to lasting changes in European drug markets (as happened in a few countries following the Taliban’s first opium ban in 2000-01).
In such a scenario, it is possible that Turkish criminal networks may exploit their links with Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel to source NSOs. Mexican criminal gangs also operate in Europe, which may increase the likelihood of them trying to open a new NSO market on the continent.
There is also evidence that some Italian criminal organisations have entered the NSO marketplace. In November 2023, Italian authorities announced the seizure of 100,000 doses of synthetic drugs, including fentanyl, as part of operation Painkiller, a joint Italian-American initiative.
Given the many advantages for criminal groups of NSOs, it seems likely they are here to stay. A key question is whether nitazenes (or other NSOs) will supplant traditional heroin as the opioid of choice, as they have done in the US, or remain at relatively low levels in Europe, co-existing with or mixed into the heroin supply.
In December 2023, Paul Griffiths, the EUDA’s scientific director, told Vice: “We’re not seeing much new initiation of heroin use in Europe. So in five to ten years … as heroin users get older and more vulnerable, we’re not going to have much of an opiate problem left.”
But he warned that if heroin use does dry up: “You might then see opioids appearing in other forms and preparations, such as pills, that could potentially become popular among younger age groups who currently do not appear attracted to injecting heroin.”
While previous NSO outbreaks in the UK were relatively short-lived and limited in scale, the most recent nitazene outbreak, which started in summer of 2023, has been more sustained, covered more parts of the UK, and involved more fatalities. The broader trend in Europe also suggests the prevalence and variations of NSOs are increasing at a faster pace than in previous years.
Notwithstanding, nitazene use and supply in the UK currently remains relatively low. In fact, the rate of nitazene-linked deaths – at least those officially reported – decreased between spring 2024 and the end of the year.
In the short term, then, it seems unlikely there will be a nitazene “explosion”. Rather, criminal groups will probably try to increasingly embed nitazenes into the UK drug market at a similar pace to the last 18 months.
However, this situation could change rapidly in future, especially if larger criminal networks involved in heroin importation switch to smuggling NSOs, and there is a genuine shortage of Afghan heroin. This problem would be compounded if drug users start seeking nitazenes, thus creating demand for them.
Either way, the UK government, along with its European partners, should continue to reinforce the whole drug system, to prepare for the worst-case scenario.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Philip A. Berry 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.
Donald Trump has hit the 30-day pause button on imposing 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but is proceeding with slapping 10% tariffs on Chinese imports, and tariffs on the EU are still on his agenda.
Trump has declared that “tariff” is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary”. Yet as the president weighs up the sweeping consequences of his tariff fixation, he may want to throw out the dictionary and pick up a history book.
The magnitude and scale of the proposed tariffs hark back to the US Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act enacted in 1930.
For example, Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman told Bloomberg that “we’re really talking about tariffs on a scale that we … have not seen,” adding that “we’re talking about a reversal of really 90 years of US policy”.
The Smoot-Hawley tariffs were initially intended to provide support to the deeply indebted US agricultural sector at the end of the 1920s, and protect them from foreign competition – all familiar themes to the anti-free-trade rhetoric peddled by Trumpists today.
The advent of the Great Depression had generated widespread, albeit not universal, demands for protection from imports, and Smoot-Hawley increased already significant tariffs on overseas goods. Members of Congress were eager to provide protection, trading votes in exchange for support for their constituents’ industries.
Although at the time more than 1,000 economists implored President Herbert Hoover to veto Smoot-Hawley, the bill was signed into law. The resulting tariff act led to taxes averaging nearly 40% on 20,000 or so different types of imported goods.
The history of trade tariffs in the US.
The culmination led to a dramatic decline in US trade with other countries, particularly among those that retaliated, and is widely acknowledge as severely worsening the Great Depression. According to one estimate, the sum of US imports plummeted by nearly half.
What’s more, the impacts were felt globally. Protectionist policies are believed to have accounted for about half of the 25% decline in world trade, and indirectly helped create economic factors that led to the second world war.
The blowback against Capitol Hill was immense as well: the optics of vote trading over the tariff act resulted in Congress delegating control over trade policy to the president just four years later because the behaviour was regarded as so reckless.
All of this came against the backdrop of diplomatic American isolationism in the 1930s, which were not unlike many of Trump’s current efforts to retreat from – or even attack – multilateral institutions.
Despite President Woodrow Wilson winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 for his work initiating the League of Nations (a forerunner of the United Nations), for example, the US never became a member. The term “America first” was also used widely in this period to refer to a focus on domestic policy and high tariffs.
Fast forward to present day
Trump has said that his tariffs will cause “some pain” but are “worth the price that must be paid.” Based on recent estimates from the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics, Trump’s tariffs could drive up costs for the average US household more than US$1,200 (£963) per year.
Whether US voters will still stand behind Trump when actual prices begin to rise is still to be determined.
However, many Republicans on Capitol Hill have rushed to Trump’s defence. Congresswoman Claudia Tenney of New York told Fox News that she’s glad the US is “projecting strength for once on the world stage”. Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri insisted that tariffs were “not a surprise,” emphasising that Trump had relentlessly campaigned on “improving our standing in the world.”
Perhaps the sharpest Republican rebuke came from Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who labelled the tariffs simply a “bad idea”.
Public opinion data show that tariffs are hotly contested, with partisanship shaping both general views toward tariffs and views on specific national targets.
According to a January 2025 Harvard CAPS/Harris poll, 52% of Americans overall approve of placing new tariffs on China, with 74% of Republicans in favour, but just 34% of Democrats.
Support is more modest for imposing tariffs on America’s neighbours. Only 40% of voters think tariffs on Canada and Mexico are a good idea, including 59% of Republicans and 24% of Democrats.
Tariffs rank low on a list of national priorities. A mere 3% of Americans think tariffs on Canada and Mexico should be a top priority for Trump in his first 100 days, while just 11% rank tariffs on China as a top priority.
Prospect of a broader trade war
What seems clear is that Trump’s proposed tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China could be just the opening salvos in a broader tit-for-tat that may extend to Europe, and beyond.
At home, the political challenge for Trump is to keep intact what increasingly looks like a fragile coalition – balancing the interests of hardline Maga supporters who reject free trade and tech titans who see tariffs as disrupting vital supply chains, especially to Asia.
After Trump’s election, former adviser and populist nationalist Steve Bannon warned that America would no longer be “abused” by “unbalanced trade deals.” “Yes, tariffs are coming,” he said. “You will have to pay to have access to the US market. It is no longer free, the free market is over.”
Meanwhile, Silicon Valley has been mostly silent on the tariffs. While tech moguls are doubtlessly trying to curry favour for tariff exemptions or the reduction of tariffs altogether, it’s possible that they have been assured that the tariffs are about leverage and will be gone soon enough.
Regardless, Trump is showing that tariffs are a crucial part of his “America first” foreign policy, a kind of belligerent unilateralism that treats allies and adversaries alike as pieces to be moved around a chessboard.
Under Trump, the “art of the deal” means throwing America’s weight around as the world’s economic superpower, and waiting for the leaders of other nations to fold. Whether American voters will endure the economic costs necessary for his plans could determine his resolve.
Trump may think that tariff is a beautiful word now. But if even a glimmer of the 1930s repeats itself, its economic shadow could soon look grim.
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.
An international panel of medical experts have thrust Lucy Letby back into the spotlight. At a press conference convened by Letby’s legal team, the experts cast doubt over the former nurse’s conviction. Letby was given 15 whole-life sentences for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven more.
Speaking at the press conference in London, retired neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee told the assembled reporters: “In all cases death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care.”
Why should we take Dr Lee’s word for it? Well, in part, because he is the author of a key paper on air embolisms, one of the methods that Letby was accused of using to kill babies, which formed a key part of the prosecution’s evidence at the trial.
He also claims that the paper’s findings were misinterpreted at the trial and that a newly updated version of the article would help exonerate Letby rather than convict her.
The Letby conviction has always attracted critical attention because there were no witnesses who could confirm they saw her attacking any of the babies she was convicted of murdering. Nor did anyone see her perform actions that could have constituted the attempted murders of seven others.
Consequently, the prosecution used statistics alongside the medical evidence the expert panel has now cast doubt upon. So how solid is that statistical evidence?
A key piece of statistical evidence is a chart which showed that Lucy Letby was on duty every time one of the crimes of which she was accused occurred, but that none of the other nursing staff were.
On the face of it, it seems quite damning. But when you think about it, it’s unsurprising that Letby’s column is the only one full of crosses. Any of the events at which she was not present she would not have been charged with and consequently wouldn’t appear on the chart.
This is an example of what is known in statistics as the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
The fallacy is named for a story about a Texan cowboy who likes to head out to his barn after a few drinks for target practice. Invariably, the barn wall gets peppered with random bullet holes during the inebriated exercise, and purely by chance some of these holes are clustered.
One morning the savvy “sharpshooter” gets out his paint cans and daubs a target around this cluster of holes to give the impression of accuracy to anyone who didn’t see the process by which they were made and to draw attention away from the other more dispersed bullet holes.
The sharpshooter fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn based only on data consistent with a given hypothesis, ignoring data that doesn’t support the proposed conclusion.
Imagine, for example, you made a chart similar to the one used to convict Letby, this time including only those deaths at which a different member of the nursing staff was present. It’s entirely possible – for example, if they were present for deaths at which Letby was not – that their name would be above the only column full of crosses and not Letby’s.
Indeed, it later transpired that the table did not include six other deaths that occurred during the same period and with which Letby was not charged. The jury was not told about these other deaths.
As Jane Hutton, a professor of medical statistics at the University of Warwick argues: “If you want to find out what went wrong, you need to consider all deaths, not just a subset of them.”
The probability of so many deaths on a neonatal unit in such a short period should be quite low. At first glance, this might seem to make the alternative explanation of murder seem more likely. But this is a classic statistical error.
This mistake is so common in courtrooms that it is known as the prosecutor’s fallacy. The argument starts by showing that, if the suspect is innocent, seeing a particular piece of evidence is extremely unlikely.
For Letby, this is the assertion that if she was innocent of killing these babies, the probability of them dying due to other causes is extremely low. The prosecutor then deduces, incorrectly, that an alternative explanation – the suspect’s guilt – is extremely likely.
The argument neglects to take into account any other possible alternative explanations, in which the suspect is innocent, such as the death of these babies due to inadequate care. It also neglects the possibility that the explanation that the prosecution is proposing, in which the suspect is guilty, may be just as uncommon as the alternative explanations, if not more so.
By just presenting the low probability of these seven babies dying naturally, the inference that an untrained jury is invited to draw runs something along these lines: “The deaths of these babies from natural causes is extremely rare, so the odds that the deaths are the result of murder is correspondingly extremely high.”
However, it must also be taken into account, when weighing up the evidence, that multiple infant murders are also extremely uncommon. What really matters is the relative likelihoods of the different explanations. Weighing these very unusual events against each other is not an easy thing to do.
Criminal cases review
Other statistical issues with the case also deserve more attention: the high number of deaths at the Countess of Chester, even excluding the babies that Letby has been convicted of murdering. Or the possibility of false positive medical identifications of murder, for example.
Whether Letby’s team’s appeal to the Criminal Cases Review Commission will be successful or not remains to be seen. The statistical issues over the case, when taken alongside the doubts about the medical evidence, mean that there is certainly a possibility.
Throughout all this, it’s important to remember the families affected by the events at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Whatever the ultimate truth of the matter, this ongoing case will undoubtedly make dealing with their grief more difficult.
Christian Yates 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 Magdalena Frennhoff Larsén, Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster
It is not unusual for international leaders to be invited to meet with EU heads of state or government at the fringes of the European Council meetings. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has regularly been invited to address the EU leaders. And while Donald Trump was never invited during his first term as US president, his successor Joe Biden was.
But Keir Starmer’s February 3 visit was significant, because it was the first time since Brexit that a British prime minister was invited to join the EU leaders for their traditional post-summit dinner.
Even before the UK formally left the EU, while the two parties were negotiating the terms for Brexit, British prime ministers were excluded. Not only were they left out of the formal meetings where the other 27 leaders discussed Brexit, but they were also excluded from the post-summit dinner. This caused frustration in Downing Street, and led to complaints about the UK being sidelined.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
There were rumours that Boris Johnson would be invited to a European Council meeting in 2022, but these remained rumours. And even if UK-EU relations improved under the premiership of Rishi Sunak, it was not until the Labour government’s step-change in the signalling of the need for a Brexit “reset” that a dinner invitation was extended.
Symbolically, it was important. After eight rather tumultuous years, the UK and EU were having dinner together again. And against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and the changing geopolitical landscape, both parties recognised the need for closer cooperation on security and defence.
Starmer wants an ambitious security partnership with the EU. European Council president António Costa recognised that there is a great deal that the EU and the UK can do together in terms of defence and addressing global challenges.
Partners in security
The idea of a security partnership is not new. Already in the political declaration of 2019, which accompanied the withdrawal agreement, the UK and the EU agreed to negotiate such a partnership, including cooperation on foreign, security, and defence policies.
However, in his hurry to “get Brexit done”, Boris Johnson decided not to proceed on this track. As a result, the trade and cooperation agreement, which governs the EU-UK relationship, largely omits security cooperation.
Even without a formal security and defence structure in place, the EU and the UK have worked alongside each other in supporting Ukraine. But the Labour government has repeatedly stressed the need for more formal cooperation arrangements as part of its “reset”. To this end, the foreign secretary, David Lammy, has called for an ambitious and broad-ranging UK-EU security pact.
For the UK it is a relatively easy way to improve relations and rebuild trust with the EU. The EU and the UK face similar geopolitical challenges and are largely aligned in terms of values and interests on security and defence matters. A more coordinated EU-UK response would have greater impact, whether it is about supporting Ukraine, tackling cross-border crime or increasing energy security.
It is also an area where the UK can forge closer links with the EU without crossing its red lines on free movement of people, or membership of the customs union or single market. And the UK – as the only major European military power other than France – is an attractive security partner for the EU.
EU leaders do see potential in such an initiative. Already in the 2022 “strategic compass”, a document which sets out the EU’s security and defence agenda, the EU stressed that it remains open to closer cooperation with the UK.
This has become even more urgent in light of the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s future engagement with Nato and European security. If Trump makes good on his threat to downsize America’s security role in Europe, the EU needs to strengthen its own defence, and it cannot do so effectively without the UK.
However, the EU wants to see concrete proposals for what a security pact would look like. It questioned the genuine commitment to the “reset” after the UK rejected the EU’s proposal around a time-limited and visa-based youth mobility scheme – a move that disappointed the EU, for whom the issue was a top priority. The UK government worried that it could be misinterpreted as a return to free movement of people and rejected the proposal.
While the leaders left the dinner without concrete proposals, they agreed to talk further. There will be an institutional EU-UK summit in the UK in May, where the two parties will discuss what form the deeper security and defence cooperation could take.
European Council president Costa recognised that there is a new positive energy in the EU-UK relationship. It remains to be seen whether this energy, and the signalling about the UK’s commitment to a reset, will eventually translate into an actual EU-UK rapprochement – something both parties would benefit from. Rebuilding trust takes time – and a dinner invitation should be seen as positive sign in itself.
Magdalena Frennhoff Larsén 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.
Rural America faces many challenges that Congress and the federal government could help alleviate under the new Trump administration.
Rural hospitals and their obstetrics wards have been closing at a rapid pace, leaving rural residents traveling farther for health care. Affordable housing is increasingly hard to find in rural communities, where pay is often lower and poverty higher than average. Land ownership is changing, leaving more communities with outsiders wielding influence over their local resources.
Here are some ways we believe the Trump administration could work with Congress to boost these communities’ health and economies.
1. Rural health care access
One of the greatest challenges to rural health care is its vulnerability to shifts in policy and funding cuts because of rural areas’ high rates of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
Funding from those federal programs affects rural hospitals, and rural hospitals are struggling.
Nearly half of rural hospitals operate in the red today, and over 170 rural hospitals have closed since 2010. The low population density of rural areas can make it difficult for hospitals to cover operating costs when their patient volume is low. These hospital closures have left rural residents traveling an extra 20 miles (32 km) on average to receive inpatient health care services and an extra 40 miles (64 km) for specialty care services.
The government has created programs to try to help keep hospitals operating, but they all require funding that is at risk. For example:
The Low-volume Hospital Adjustment Act, first implemented in 2005, has helped numerous rural hospitals by boosting their Medicare payments per patient, but it faces regular threats of funding cuts. It and several other programs to support Medicare-dependent hospitals are set to expire on March 31, 2025, when the next federal budget is due.
The rural emergency hospital model, created in 2020, helps qualifying rural facilities to maintain access to essential emergency and outpatient hospital services, also by providing higher Medicare payments. Thus far, only 30 rural hospitals have transitioned to this model, in part because they would have to eliminate inpatient care services, which also limits outpatient surgery and other medical services that could require overnight care in the event of an emergency.
Rural emergency hospitals can get extra funding, but there’s a catch: They have no inpatient beds, so people in need of longer care must go farther. AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis
Services for pregnant women have also gotten harder to find in rural areas.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth – the ability to meet with your doctor over video – wasn’t widely used. It could be difficult for doctors to ensure reimbursement, and the logistics of meeting federal requirements and privacy rules could be challenging.
The pandemic changed that. Improving technology allowed telehealth to quickly expand, reducing people’s contact with sick patients, and the government issued waivers for Medicare and Medicaid to pay for telehealth treatment. That opened up new opportunities for rural patients to get health care and opportunities for providers to reach more patients.
However, the Medicare and Medicaid waivers for most telehealth services were only temporary. Only payments for mental and behavioral health teleheath services continued, and those are set to expire with the federal budget in March 2025, unless they are renewed.
Like their urban peers, rural communities face a shortage of affordable housing.
Unemployment in rural areas today exceeds levels before the COVID-19 pandemic. Job growth and median incomes lag behind urban areas, and rural poverty rates are higher.
Rural housing prices have been exacerbated by continued population growth over the past four years, lower incomes compared with their urban peers, limited employment opportunities and few high-quality homes available for rent or sale. Rural communities often have aging homes built upon outdated or inadequate infrastructure, such as deteriorating sewer and water lines.
Rental homes in older towns can become run down. Community maintenance of pipes and other services also requires funding. LawrenceSawyer/E+ via Getty Images
One proposal to help people looking for affordable rural housing is the bipartisan Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, which calls for creating a new federal tax credit to spur the development and renovation of family housing in distressed urban, suburban and rural neighborhoods.
Similarly, the Section 502 Direct Loan Program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which subsidizes mortgages for low-income applicants to obtain safe housing, could be expanded with additional funding to enable more people to receive subsidized mortgages.
3. Locally owned land benefits communities
Seniors age 65 and older own 40% of the agricultural land in the U.S., according to the American Farmland Trust. That means that more than 360 million acres of farmland could be transferred to new owners in the next few decades. If their heirs aren’t interested in farming, that land could be sold to large operations or real estate developers.
A farmer carries organic squash during harvest. Young farmers often struggle to find land to expand their operations. Thomas Barwick/Stone via Getty Images
Congress can take some steps to help communities keep more farmland locally owned.
The proposed Farm Transitions Act, for example, would establish a commission on farm transitions to study issues that affect locally owned farms and provide recommendations to help transition agricultural operations to the next generation of farmers and ranchers.
About 30% of farmers have been in business for less than 10 years, and many of them rent the land they farm. Programs such as USDA’s farm loan programs and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program help support local land purchases and could be improved to identify and eliminate barriers that communities face.
We believe that by addressing these issues, Congress and the new administration can help some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens. Efforts to build resilient and strong rural communities will benefit everyone.
Randolph Hubach receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration.
Cody Mullen receives funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration. He is affiliated with the National Rural Health Association.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is expected to clear the final hurdles in his confirmation as President Donald Trump’s health secretary, and a host of health influencers have proclaimed that widely used cooking oils such as canola oil and soybean oil are toxic.
T-shirts sold by his “Make America Healthy Again” campaign now include the slogan, “make frying oil tallow again” – a reference to the traditional use of rendered beef fat for cooking.
Seed oils have become a mainstay of the American diet because unlike beef tallow, which is comprised of saturated fats that increase cholesterol levels, seed oils contain unsaturated fats that can decrease cholesterol levels. In theory, that means they should reduce the risk of heart disease.
But research shows that different seed oils have varying effects on risk for heart disease.
Furthermore, seed oils have also been shown to increase risk for migraines. This is likely due to their high levels of omega-6 fatty acids. These fats can increase inflammation, a heightened and potentially harmful state of system immune activation.
As a family physician with a Ph.D. in nutrition, I translate the latest nutrition science into dietary recommendations for my patients. When it comes to seed oils, the research shows that their health effects are more nuanced than headlines and social media posts suggest.
How seed oils infiltrated the American diet
Seed oils — often confusingly referred to as “vegetable oils” — are, as the name implies, oils extracted from the seeds of plants. This is unlike olive oil and coconut oil, which are derived from fruits. People decrying their widespread use often refer to the “hateful eight” top seed oil offenders: canola, corn, soybean, cottonseed, grapeseed, sunflower, safflower and rice bran oil.
These oils entered the human diet at unprecedented levels after the invention of the mechanical screw press in 1888 enabled the extraction of oil from seeds in quantities that were never before possible.
Evaluating the omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio
Omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are essential nutrients that control inflammation. While omega-6s tend to produce molecules that boost it, omega-3s tend to produce molecules that tone it down. Until recently, people generally ate equal amounts of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. However, over the past century, this ratio has changed. Today, people consume 15 times more omega-6s than omega-3s, partly due to increased consumption of seed oils.
In theory, seed oils can cause health problems because they contain a high absolute amount of omega-6 fatty acids, as well as a high omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. Studies have linked an increased omega-6 to omega-3 ratio to a wide range of conditions, including mood disorders, knee pain, back pain, menstrual pain and even preterm birth. Omega-6 fatty acids have also been implicated in the processes that drive colon cancer.
However, the absolute omega-6 level and the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in different seed oils vary tremendously. For example, safflower oil and sunflower oil have ratios of 125:1 and 91:1. Corn oil’s ratio is 50:1. Meanwhile, soybean oil and canola oil have lower ratios, at 8:1 and 2:1, respectively.
Scientists have used genetic modification to create seed oils like high oleic acid canola oil that have a lower omega-6 to 3 ratio. However, the health benefit of these bioengineered oils is still being studied.
The upshot on inflammation and health risks
Part of the controversy surrounding seed oils is that studies investigating their inflammatory effect have yielded mixed results. One meta-analysis synthesizing the effects of seed oils on 11 inflammatory markers largely showed no effects – with the exception of one inflammatory signal, which was significantly elevated in people with the highest omega-6 intakes.
To complicate things further, genetics also plays a role in seed oils’ inflammatory potential. People of African, Indigenous and Latino descent tend to metabolize omega-6 fatty acids faster, which can increase the inflammatory effect of consuming seed oils. Scientists still don’t fully understand how genetics and other factors may influence the health effects of these oils.
The effect of different seed oils on cardiovascular risk
A review of seven randomized controlled trials showed that the effect of seed oils on risk of heart attacks varies depending on the type of seed oil.
This was corroborated by data resurrected from tapes dug up in the basement of a researcher who in the 1970s conducted the largest and most rigorously executed dietary trial to date investigating the replacement of saturated fat with seed oils. In that work, replacing saturated fats such as beef tallow with seed oils always lowers cholesterol, but it does not always lower risk of death from heart disease.
Taken together, these studies show that when saturated fats such as beef tallow are replaced with seed oils that have lower omega-6 to omega-3 ratios, such as soybean oil, the risk of heart attacks and death from heart disease falls. However, when saturated fats are replaced with seed oils with a higher omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, such as corn oil, risk of death from heart disease rises.
However, seed oils with less favorable ratios, such as corn oil and safflower oil, can be found in countless processed foods, including potato chips, frozen dinners and packaged desserts. Nevertheless, other aspects of these foods, in addition to their seed oil content, also make them unhealthy.
The case for migraines – and beyond
A rigorous randomized controlled trial – the gold standard for clinical evidence – showed that diets high in omega-3 fatty acids and low in omega-6 fatty acids, hence low in seed oils, significantly reduced the risk of migraines
In the study, people who stepped up their consumption of omega-3 fatty acids by eating fatty fish such as salmon experienced an average of two fewer migraines per month than usual, even if they did not change their omega-6 consumption. However, if they reduced their omega-6 intake by switching out corn oil for olive oil, while simultaneously increasing their omega-3 intake, they experienced four fewer migraines per month.
That’s a noteworthy difference, considering that the latest migraine medications reduce migraine frequency by approximately two days per month, compared to a placebo. Thus, for migraine sufferers — 1 in 6 Americans — decreasing seed oils, along with increasing omega-3 intake, may be even more effective than currently available medications.
Overall, the drastic way in which omega-6 fatty acids have entered the food supply and fundamentally changed our biological composition makes this an important area of study. But the question of whether seed oils are good or bad is not black and white. There is no basis to conclude that Americans would be healthier if we started frying everything in beef tallow again, but there is an argument for a more careful consideration of the nuance surrounding these oils and their potential effects.
Mary J. Scourboutakos 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.
