The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in cooperation with more than 75 countries and 10 international organizations, successfully completed a 36-hour exercise that tested global preparedness and response arrangements for a severe nuclear accident scenario at the Cernavoda NPP in Romania. The ConvEx-3 (2025) exercise started on 24 June and concluded at 17:45 CET on 25 June.
Such exercises are conducted every three to five years and are based on simulated events at a nuclear facility in the host IAEA member state.
The exercise simulated a significant release of radioactive material, requiring participating countries and organizations to make decisions in real time, exchange information, inform the public and coordinate protective measures, including aspects of medical response and cross-border logistics.
“ConvEx-3 (2025) demonstrated the power of international cooperation in nuclear emergency preparedness,” said Carlos Torres Vidal, Director of the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre. “By working together under realistic scenarios, we are strengthening our collective capacity to protect people and the environment.”
Among the main innovations in this year’s exercise program were the following.
Enhanced regional cooperation: Recognizing the cross-border consequences of severe nuclear accidents, neighbouring countries Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova coordinated protective measures to ensure a coherent cross-border response. Integrating nuclear security scenarios: Simulations also included tests related to physical security and cybersecurity threats, reflecting new and evolving risks. Enhanced crisis communication testing: An enhanced social media simulator was used to evaluate and improve public communication strategies. Deploying international assistance missions: As part of the IAEA Response and Assistance Network (RANET) Expert groups from Bulgaria, Canada, Lithuania, Moldova, the United States, Sweden and France carried out a number of joint operations, including the use of air and ground-based radiation monitoring equipment.
The exercise highlighted the importance of timely information sharing, accurate assessments and forecasts, and effective public communication in the event of nuclear emergencies.
In the coming weeks, the IAEA will gather feedback from all participants to identify good practices and areas for improvement, contributing to the continued strengthening of global nuclear emergency preparedness. The final report of the exercise will be taken into account in preparation for the upcoming International Conference “Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies”, which is scheduled for December this year in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
A selection of photos from the ConvEx3 exercise is available at this link.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
The National Games Coordination Office (Hong Kong) today announced that the 15th National Games (NG), the 12th National Games for Persons with Disabilities (NGD) and the 9th National Special Olympic Games (NSOG) will receive a $450 million sponsorship from the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) to support the hosting of these events in Hong Kong.
Chief Executive John Lee witnessed the signing ceremony held at the Central Government Offices today, in which Secretary for Culture, Sports & Tourism Rosanna Law and HKJC Chief Executive Officer Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges represented the Government and the HKJC respectively.
The HKJC will be the exclusive partner sponsor for the Hong Kong competition region of the 15th NG, the 12th NGD and the 9th NSOG.
Speaking at the ceremony, Miss Law emphasised that the successful hosting of the Games is a major priority for Hong Kong this year.
She highlighted that the HKJC’s staunch support and sponsorship would significantly boost event preparations in Hong Kong, particularly in supporting volunteer service programmes, citywide community and school promotional activities, and initiatives enabling underprivileged groups and youth to attend the events as spectators.
The sports chief also expressed gratitude for the HKJC’s contribution and reaffirmed Hong Kong’s commitment to co-hosting with Guangdong and Macao a simple, safe and wonderful Games.
The Culture, Sports & Tourism Bureau added that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government looks forward to collaborating with the HKJC to further promote sports development in Hong Kong and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Defendant Charged as Part of Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Initiative
WASHINGTON –Ronald Stevenson Richardson, 29, of the District of Columbia, has been indicted on a federal firearms charge as part of the “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative. The indictment was announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Special Agent in Charge Anthony Spotswood of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Richardson is charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon.
According to court documents, on May 6, 2025, members of the Seventh District Special Missions Unit (SMU) were patrolling the area of 1509 W Street SE in Washington, D.C., in the Anacostia neighborhood. While on patrol, police observed allegedly Richardson standing at a bus stop with an open container of alcohol at the intersection of 16th Street SE and W Street SE.
Richardson was subsequently arrested for possession of an open container of alcohol. During a search incident to the arrest, officers allegedly discovered a firearm in Richardson’s undergarments, beneath his waistband. The firearm was identified as a Glock 42, chambered in .380 auto, loaded with one round in the chamber and four additional rounds in its six-round capacity magazine.
Richardson is prohibited from possessing a firearm and ammunition due to a prior conviction in D.C. Superior Court for carrying a pistol without a license outside home/business, establishing him as a felon in possession.
This case is being investigated by the ATF Washington Field Office and the Metropolitan Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Truscott is prosecuting this case.
The “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative is a public safety effort surging resources to reduce violent crime in the District of Columbia. This initiative was created to address gun violence in the District, prioritize federal firearms violations, pursue tougher penalties for offenders, and seek detention for federal firearms violators.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Defendant Charged as Part of Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Initiative
WASHINGTON –Ronald Stevenson Richardson, 29, of the District of Columbia, has been indicted on a federal firearms charge as part of the “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative. The indictment was announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Special Agent in Charge Anthony Spotswood of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Richardson is charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon.
According to court documents, on May 6, 2025, members of the Seventh District Special Missions Unit (SMU) were patrolling the area of 1509 W Street SE in Washington, D.C., in the Anacostia neighborhood. While on patrol, police observed allegedly Richardson standing at a bus stop with an open container of alcohol at the intersection of 16th Street SE and W Street SE.
Richardson was subsequently arrested for possession of an open container of alcohol. During a search incident to the arrest, officers allegedly discovered a firearm in Richardson’s undergarments, beneath his waistband. The firearm was identified as a Glock 42, chambered in .380 auto, loaded with one round in the chamber and four additional rounds in its six-round capacity magazine.
Richardson is prohibited from possessing a firearm and ammunition due to a prior conviction in D.C. Superior Court for carrying a pistol without a license outside home/business, establishing him as a felon in possession.
This case is being investigated by the ATF Washington Field Office and the Metropolitan Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Truscott is prosecuting this case.
The “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative is a public safety effort surging resources to reduce violent crime in the District of Columbia. This initiative was created to address gun violence in the District, prioritize federal firearms violations, pursue tougher penalties for offenders, and seek detention for federal firearms violators.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, was sentenced in federal court to 33 months of imprisonment on his conviction of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.
Senior United States District Judge Nora Barry Fischer imposed the sentence on Desmond Dontae Lee, 47.
According to information presented to the Court, on March 1, 2023, Lee and his son were both part of a group of individuals congregating outside of an apartment in a McKeesport apartment complex. When the resident of the apartment confronted the group and asked them to leave, one of the group members approached the resident and struck him with a closed fist, which led to the resident shooting and killing his attacker. Lee entered and proceeded through the apartment next to the resident’s, exiting that apartment from the rear, and then approached the rear of the resident’s apartment, firing five rounds from a 9mm semi-automatic pistol into the apartment before fleeing the scene. At that time, Lee’s son shot back at and killed the resident at the front of the apartment. The firearm used by Lee was never recovered, but investigators with the Allegheny County Police Department Homicide Unit collected the shell casings fired from Lee’s gun.
Lee was previously convicted on state drug trafficking and firearms offenses. Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon.
Assistant United States Attorney V. Joseph Sonson prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.
Acting United States Attorney Rivetti commended the Allegheny County Police Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the investigation leading to the successful prosecution of Lee.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, was sentenced in federal court to 33 months of imprisonment on his conviction of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.
Senior United States District Judge Nora Barry Fischer imposed the sentence on Desmond Dontae Lee, 47.
According to information presented to the Court, on March 1, 2023, Lee and his son were both part of a group of individuals congregating outside of an apartment in a McKeesport apartment complex. When the resident of the apartment confronted the group and asked them to leave, one of the group members approached the resident and struck him with a closed fist, which led to the resident shooting and killing his attacker. Lee entered and proceeded through the apartment next to the resident’s, exiting that apartment from the rear, and then approached the rear of the resident’s apartment, firing five rounds from a 9mm semi-automatic pistol into the apartment before fleeing the scene. At that time, Lee’s son shot back at and killed the resident at the front of the apartment. The firearm used by Lee was never recovered, but investigators with the Allegheny County Police Department Homicide Unit collected the shell casings fired from Lee’s gun.
Lee was previously convicted on state drug trafficking and firearms offenses. Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon.
Assistant United States Attorney V. Joseph Sonson prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.
Acting United States Attorney Rivetti commended the Allegheny County Police Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the investigation leading to the successful prosecution of Lee.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
TOLEDO, Ohio – A federal grand jury has returned a four-count indictment charging Anthony Emmanuel Labrador-Sierra, 24, a Venezuelan national residing in Perrysburg, Ohio, with possession of a firearm by an alien unlawfully in the United States, making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm, and making or using false writings or documents.
According to the indictment, the defendant is accused of submitting a false date of birth to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on federal applications for Temporary Protective Status and Employment Authorization Documents in 2024 and 2025.
In the original criminal complaint and underlying affidavit filed May 22, 2025, investigators learned that Perrysburg Schools reported to the Perrysburg Police Department that they received information that Labrador-Sierra, a student attending Perrysburg High School, was actually a 24-year-old man who enrolled under false pretenses.
The grand jury further charges that Labrador-Sierra was in possession of a Taurus G3C 9mm, semiautomatic pistol, which he did not have lawful status to purchase or own in the United States, and that he submitted false information on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473 to purchase the firearm. Among the alleged false statements the defendant submitted that were intended and likely to deceive the licensed firearms dealer at the point of sale, were that:
He was a United States citizen or national.
He was not illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
He was not an alien who had entered the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
If convicted, Labrador-Sierra faces up to 15 years in prison for possession of a firearm by an alien; 10 years in prison for making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm; and up to five years in prison for making or using false writings or documents.
This case is being investigated by the City of Perrysburg Police Department, United States Border Patrol−Sandusky Bay Station, the FBI Toledo Field Office, and the ATF, with assistance from the Wood County Prosecutor’s Office.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert N. Melching and Tracey Tangeman for the Northern District of Ohio, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Dobson.
This investigation is ongoing. Anyone with knowledge and information about this matter, please call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324) or visit fbi.gov/tips.
An indictment is merely an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Gross misconduct and misconduct has been proven for three officers involved in the search of Child Q.
A disciplinary hearing found a number of allegations proven against trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge, PC Victoria Wray and PC Rafal Szmydynski, each attached to Central East Command Unit which covers Hackney and Tower Hamlets.
The hearing did not find that the officers were influenced by Child Q’s race, nor that was she subject to adultification.
Commander Kevin Southworth said: “The experience of Child Q should never have happened and was truly regrettable.
“We have sincerely apologised to Child Q since this incident happened. Again, I am deeply sorry to Child Q and her family for the trauma that we caused her, and the damage this incident caused to the trust and confidence Black communities across London have in our officers.
“While the officers involved did not act correctly, we acknowledge there were organisational failings. Training to our officers around strip search and the type of search carried out on Child Q was inadequate, and our oversight of the power was also severely lacking.
“This left officers, often young in service or junior in rank, making difficult decisions in complex situations with little information, support or clear resources to help their decision-making.
“What happened to Child Q was a catalyst for change both for the Met and for policing nationally.
“While we should not have needed an incident such as Child Q to check our approach, it has absolutely led us to improving our processes and significantly reducing the number of these types of searches carried out.
“It’s crucial we get this right to ensure the impact on young people is minimised as far as possible.
“Sadly, we know there are children in London being exploited to carry drugs and weapons for others as well as involved in criminality, so these types of searches have to remain within police powers. The work we have done since Child Q means we now have the right safeguards in place.”
The search of Child Q took place on Thursday, 3 December 2020, when police were called to a Hackney school. Staff were concerned that a 15-year-old girl smelled strongly of cannabis and may have been in possession of drugs.
Two female officers conducted a more thorough search of the girl, that exposed intimate parts, in the medical room at the school.
No drugs were found.
The Met voluntarily referred the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct in May 2021 following complaints received.
The misconduct hearing concluded that the search on Child Q was unnecessary, inappropriate and disproportionate. It was carried out without authorisation from a more senior officer, without an appropriate adult present and a proper record was not made afterwards.
The hearing found T/DC Linge and PC Szmydynsk breached standards of professional behaviour in relation to authority, respect and courtesy, orders and instructions, duties and responsibilities and discreditable contact at the level of gross misconduct.
PC Wray breached standards in relation to authority, respect and courtesy, orders and instructions and duties and responsibilities at the level of misconduct.
Allegations against all the officers that they breached the standards of professional behaviour for equality and diversity were not proven.
Allegations that PC Szmydynski and TDC Linge breached standards for honesty and integrity for reportedly making a misleading record of the search were also not proven.
The misconduct panel is now considering sanction.
Progress since this case
Ensuring the safeguarding of every child who is searched is an absolute priority.
Every strip search or more thorough search where intimate parts are exposed (an ‘MTIP search’ outside custody as carried out on Child Q) requires authorisation by a local officer of inspector rank. That inspector is also responsible for the administration of the search, including recording the rationale, and a mandatory safeguarding referral to relevant authorities. This has been cemented in our Metropolitan Police Service Children’s Strategy, published in September 2024.
We have issued guidance to every frontline officer across the Met on the correct process, including the requirement for an appropriate adult to be present during the strip search or MTIP search of a child.
We have linked in with policing nationally to share areas of learning from Child Q’s incident and ensure forces across the country are aligned.
Recognising the wider community concerns that this case has raised regardless of today’s outcome, the Met is currently training more than 20,000 frontline officers and staff as part of a New Met for London around the risk of adultification and how to ensure a child-first approach in every instance.
We continue to listen to communities and partners on what more we need to do around our processes. Hackney has an active community-led scrutiny panel which scrutinises the use of police powers across the borough.
We continue to work closely in partnership with schools across London to keep children safe and prevent and detect crime.
Following Child Q we reviewed all strip searches and MTIP searches across the Met and made a number of voluntary referrals to the IOPC. In a number of those cases the IOPC found officers acted correctly, in others we have progressed disciplinary matters and learning.
We continue to publish data, which shows how the figures have significantly fallen on these types of searches, both inside and outside of custody:
A total of 68 were carried out between 1 June 2023 and 31 May 2024. The positive outcome rate was 66.2 per cent (45 individuals).
A total of 42 were carried out between 1 June 2024 and 31 May 2025. The positive outcome rate was 59.5 per cent (25 individuals).
This shows a decrease over this period in the number of searches carried out of 38.2 per cent. The overall positive outcome rate for this period was 63.6 per cent.
A positive outcome means when criminality of any type is detected following a search.
The number of MTIPs carried out on under 18s over this period was 7.3 per cent of the total for all ages.
The dashboard carries data from the last two years.
Prior to that, between 25 May 2021 and 24 May 2022 – a full year before we made changes to policy as the result of Child Q – a total of 232 MTIP searches on children were carried out.
Between 25 May 2022 and 24 May 2023 – a full year post policy change – a total of 101 MTIP searches on children were carried out.
This is a 56 per cent decrease.
On average in London, in the five years to 31 May 2025, we have each year seen 499 children (aged 17 and under) recorded as a victim of crime after being injured with a knife, not including domestic abuse related incidents.
Tragically, during that five-year period, 59 of those children were fatally stabbed.
An annual average of 432 children were arrested for possession with intent to supply drugs and an annual average of 1,626 were arrested for possession of an offensive weapon.
Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing.
As experts on housingpolicy, we’re concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households.
However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available.
A financial sinkhole
Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.?
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, it’s considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. That’s up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023.
Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%.
Estimates of the nation’s housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas.
Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldn’t fix everything.
We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened renters – but not by as much as you might think.
Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomes – the households that face the most severe affordability challenges.
The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened.
Vouchers offer more breathing room
Meanwhile, there’s a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies.
In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as “deep” housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income.
These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership.
The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their area’s median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need.
By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8.
The program helps pay the rent up to a specified “payment standard” determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUD’s physical quality standards.
Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers.
Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holders. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients.
However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach.
The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject.
Homeowners get subsidies – why not renters?
Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly.
The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year.
However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment.
For example, from 1998 through 2017 – prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017 – the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of one’s home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion.
Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, over 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000.
Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs.
Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administration’s priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing.
On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis.
Alex Schwartz has received funding from the Catherine and John D. MacArthur Foundation. Since 2019 he has served on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board. He has a relative who works for The Conversation.
Kirk McClure received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and receives funding from the National Science Foundation.
Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing.
As experts on housingpolicy, we’re concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households.
However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available.
A financial sinkhole
Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.?
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, it’s considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. That’s up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023.
Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%.
Estimates of the nation’s housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas.
Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldn’t fix everything.
We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened renters – but not by as much as you might think.
Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomes – the households that face the most severe affordability challenges.
The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened.
Vouchers offer more breathing room
Meanwhile, there’s a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies.
In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as “deep” housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income.
These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership.
The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their area’s median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need.
By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8.
The program helps pay the rent up to a specified “payment standard” determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUD’s physical quality standards.
Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers.
Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holders. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients.
However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach.
The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject.
Homeowners get subsidies – why not renters?
Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly.
The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year.
However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment.
For example, from 1998 through 2017 – prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017 – the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of one’s home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion.
Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, over 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000.
Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs.
Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administration’s priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing.
On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis.
Alex Schwartz has received funding from the Catherine and John D. MacArthur Foundation. Since 2019 he has served on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board. He has a relative who works for The Conversation.
Kirk McClure received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and receives funding from the National Science Foundation.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Bui, Assistant Professor of Information and Digital Studies, University of Michigan
Yelp’s Black-owned tag was designed to help business owners like Don Studvent attract more customers. His restaurant closed in 2018 after nine years in business.AP Photo/Carlos Osorio
When the online review platform Yelp added a “Black-owned” tag in 2020, it boosted the visibility of Black-owned restaurants in Detroit. It also caused their ratings to drop, according to our recent study.
Both local and nonlocal reviewers who showed awareness of a restaurant’s Black ownership rated restaurants 3.03 stars on average. Those who did not acknowledge Black ownership gave a rating of 3.78 stars on average. The tag seems to have caused the average rating to drop by attracting more reviewers who were aware of Black ownership.
Why it matters
Technology companies often introduce new features and tools to influence user behavior and make their platforms more usable.
Although Yelp intended to support Black communities with the Black-owned tag, the design intervention was harmful to Black restaurant owners in Detroit because Yelp failed to consider platform and community-based factors that significantly shape user interactions.
Yelp’s user base is predominantly white, educated and affluent. Making Detroit’s Black-owned restaurants more visible to Yelp users may have amplified cross-cultural interactions and frictions. For example, non-Black users sometimes mentioned “slower” and “rude” service as justifications for lower ratings. Close readings of these reviews hinted at intercultural and communicative clashes.
And even businesses that don’t select the tag are identified within searches as Black-owned, based on user reviews and relevant links. Yelp doesn’t provide a way for the business to opt out of these search results.
How we did our work
To examine the local impacts of Yelp’s Black-owned tag, we collected over 250,000 Yelp reviews of Black- and non-Black-owned restaurants in Detroit and Los Angeles.
We identified Black-owned restaurants through community-sourced lists for Detroit and Los Angeles and then generated a random sample for the non-Black-owned restaurants.
We then identified reviews that explicitly noted “Black ownership” for closer analysis.
Detroit’s Black-owned businesses saw a greater loss in business compared with “ownership-unreported” restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic. This means they also potentially had more to gain from the new tag.
We found the awareness of Black ownership on Yelp significantly increased following Yelp’s addition of the Black-owned tag in June 2020. A year after the tag was added, reviews in Detroit mentioned Black ownership 4.3% more often than a year before it was rolled out.
Detroit Black-owned restaurants also saw a small temporary spike in their number of reviews, largely around the time Yelp added the Black-owned tag. At the same time, the restaurants’ average star ratings dropped from 3.91 to 3.88. In contrast, non-Black-owned restaurants’ ratings stayed relatively steady at 3.90.
This metric is an aggregate of all Detroit restaurants’ Yelp reviews over their entire existence, so a .03-star rating change is small but significant.
Adding obstacles in digital platforms serves to reproduce and amplify inequalities these businesses already face, rather than alleviate them. For example, Black-owned businesses have a harder time getting loans and are relatively underrepresented in Michigan as a whole.
These findings may seem surprising given that Detroit is a majority Black city. However, Black users on Yelp are a minority. Keeping in mind the skewed user base of Yelp, we hypothesize the lower reviews for businesses featuring a Black-owned tag reflect existing racial and digital divides in the city.
Generally, our study provides additional evidence that digital interventions are not “one-size-fits-all,” nor is digital visibility inherently positive for all businesses.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
This research was supported by a research grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Matthew Bui 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.
Cameron Moy 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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Bui, Assistant Professor of Information and Digital Studies, University of Michigan
Yelp’s Black-owned tag was designed to help business owners like Don Studvent attract more customers. His restaurant closed in 2018 after nine years in business.AP Photo/Carlos Osorio
When the online review platform Yelp added a “Black-owned” tag in 2020, it boosted the visibility of Black-owned restaurants in Detroit. It also caused their ratings to drop, according to our recent study.
Both local and nonlocal reviewers who showed awareness of a restaurant’s Black ownership rated restaurants 3.03 stars on average. Those who did not acknowledge Black ownership gave a rating of 3.78 stars on average. The tag seems to have caused the average rating to drop by attracting more reviewers who were aware of Black ownership.
Why it matters
Technology companies often introduce new features and tools to influence user behavior and make their platforms more usable.
Although Yelp intended to support Black communities with the Black-owned tag, the design intervention was harmful to Black restaurant owners in Detroit because Yelp failed to consider platform and community-based factors that significantly shape user interactions.
Yelp’s user base is predominantly white, educated and affluent. Making Detroit’s Black-owned restaurants more visible to Yelp users may have amplified cross-cultural interactions and frictions. For example, non-Black users sometimes mentioned “slower” and “rude” service as justifications for lower ratings. Close readings of these reviews hinted at intercultural and communicative clashes.
And even businesses that don’t select the tag are identified within searches as Black-owned, based on user reviews and relevant links. Yelp doesn’t provide a way for the business to opt out of these search results.
How we did our work
To examine the local impacts of Yelp’s Black-owned tag, we collected over 250,000 Yelp reviews of Black- and non-Black-owned restaurants in Detroit and Los Angeles.
We identified Black-owned restaurants through community-sourced lists for Detroit and Los Angeles and then generated a random sample for the non-Black-owned restaurants.
We then identified reviews that explicitly noted “Black ownership” for closer analysis.
Detroit’s Black-owned businesses saw a greater loss in business compared with “ownership-unreported” restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic. This means they also potentially had more to gain from the new tag.
We found the awareness of Black ownership on Yelp significantly increased following Yelp’s addition of the Black-owned tag in June 2020. A year after the tag was added, reviews in Detroit mentioned Black ownership 4.3% more often than a year before it was rolled out.
Detroit Black-owned restaurants also saw a small temporary spike in their number of reviews, largely around the time Yelp added the Black-owned tag. At the same time, the restaurants’ average star ratings dropped from 3.91 to 3.88. In contrast, non-Black-owned restaurants’ ratings stayed relatively steady at 3.90.
This metric is an aggregate of all Detroit restaurants’ Yelp reviews over their entire existence, so a .03-star rating change is small but significant.
Adding obstacles in digital platforms serves to reproduce and amplify inequalities these businesses already face, rather than alleviate them. For example, Black-owned businesses have a harder time getting loans and are relatively underrepresented in Michigan as a whole.
These findings may seem surprising given that Detroit is a majority Black city. However, Black users on Yelp are a minority. Keeping in mind the skewed user base of Yelp, we hypothesize the lower reviews for businesses featuring a Black-owned tag reflect existing racial and digital divides in the city.
Generally, our study provides additional evidence that digital interventions are not “one-size-fits-all,” nor is digital visibility inherently positive for all businesses.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
This research was supported by a research grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Matthew Bui 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.
Cameron Moy 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.
For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.
A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.
That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.
Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.
Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.
A supporter of Donald Trump tries to push past demonstrators in Philadelphia on June 30, 2023. AP Photo/Nathan Howard
The muting of the American voice
According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.
And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.
About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.
The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.
How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship
In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.
The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.
People rally at the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the Trump administration on March 19, 2025. AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez
A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.
This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.
This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.
The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.
Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.
The consequences for democratic deliberation
The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.
No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.
Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.
But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.
The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.
James L. Gibson 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.
For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.
A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.
That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.
Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.
Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.
A supporter of Donald Trump tries to push past demonstrators in Philadelphia on June 30, 2023. AP Photo/Nathan Howard
The muting of the American voice
According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.
And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.
About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.
The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.
How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship
In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.
The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.
People rally at the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the Trump administration on March 19, 2025. AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez
A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.
This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.
This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.
The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.
Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.
The consequences for democratic deliberation
The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.
No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.
Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.
But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.
The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.
James L. Gibson 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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jake Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University
Public health experts worry that factually inaccurate statements by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threaten the public’s confidence in vaccines.Andrew HarnikGetty Images
In the four months since he began serving as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made many public statements about vaccines that have cast doubt on their safety and on the objectivity of long-standing processes established to evaluate them.
Many of these statements are factually incorrect. For example, in a newscast aired on June 12, 2025, Kennedy told Fox News viewers that 97% of federal vaccine advisers are on the take. In the same interview, he also claimed that children receive 92 mandatory shots. He has also widely claimed that only COVID-19 vaccines, not other vaccines in use by both children and adults, were ever tested against placebos and that “nobody has any idea” how safe routine immunizations are.
As an infectious disease physician who curates an open database of hundreds of controlled vaccine trials involving over 6 million participants, I am intimately familiar with the decades of research on vaccine safety. I believe it is important to correct the record – especially because these statements come from the official who now oversees the agencies charged with protecting Americans’ health.
Do children really receive 92 mandatory shots?
In 1986, the childhood vaccine schedule contained about 11 doses protecting against seven diseases. Today, it includes roughly 50 injections covering 16 diseases. State school entry laws typically require 30 to 32 shots across 10 to 12 diseases. No state mandates COVID-19 vaccination. Where Kennedy’s “92 mandatory shots” figure comes from is unclear, but the actual number is significantly lower.
From a safety standpoint, the more important question is whether today’s schedule with additional vaccines might be too taxing for children’s immune systems. It isn’t, because as vaccine technology improved over the past several decades, the number of antigens in each vaccine dose is much lower than before.
Antigens are the molecules in vaccines that trigger a response from the immune system, training it to identify the specific pathogen. Some vaccines contain a minute amount of aluminum salt that serves as an adjuvant – a helper ingredient that improves the quality and staying power of the immune response, so each dose can protect with less antigen.
Those 11 doses in 1986 delivered more than 3,000 antigens and 1.5 milligrams of aluminum over 18 years. Today’s complete schedule delivers roughly 165 antigens – which is a 95% reduction – and 5-6 milligrams of aluminum in the same time frame. A single smallpox inoculation in 1900 exposed a child to more antigens than today’s complete series.
The incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b, a bacterial infection that can cause pneumonia, meningitis and other severe diseases, has dropped by 99% in infants. Pediatric hepatitis infections are down more than 90%, and chickenpox hospitalizations are down about 90%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that vaccinating children born from 1994 to 2023 will avert 508 million illnesses and 1,129,000 premature deaths.
Placebo testing for vaccines
Kennedy has asserted that only COVID-19 vaccines have undergone rigorous safety trials in which they were tested against placebos. This is categorically wrong.
Of the 378 controlled trials in our database, 195 compared volunteers’ response to a vaccine with their response to a placebo. Of those, 159 gave volunteers only a salt water solution or another inert substance. Another 36 gave them just the adjuvant without any viral or bacterial material, as a way to see whether there were side effects from the antigen itself or the injection. Every routine childhood vaccine antigen appears in at least one such study.
Once an effective vaccine exists, ethics boards require new versions be compared against that licensed standard because withholding proven protection from children would be unethical.
How unknown is the safety of widely used vaccines?
Kennedy has insisted on multiple occasions that “nobody has any idea” about vaccine safety profiles. Of the 378 trials in our database, the vast majority published detailed safety outcomes.
Beyond trials, the U.S. operates the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Vaccine Safety Datalink and the PRISM network to monitor hundreds of millions of doses for rare problems. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System works like an open mailbox where anyone – patients, parents, clinicians – can report a post-shot problem; the Vaccine Safety Datalink analyzes anonymized electronic health records from large health care systems to spot patterns; and PRISM scans billions of insurance claims in near-real time to confirm or rule out rare safety signals.
On June 9, Kennedy took the unprecedented step of dissolving vetted members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the expert body that advises the CDC on national vaccine policy. He has claimed repeatedly that the vast majority of serving members of the committee – 97% – had extensive conflicts of interest because of their entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry. Kennedy bases that number on a 2009 federal audit of conflict-of-interest paperwork, but that report looked at 17 CDC advisory committees, not specifically this vaccine committee. And it found no pervasive wrongdoing – 97% of disclosure forms only contained routine paperwork mistakes, such as information in the wrong box or a missing initial, and not hidden financial ties.
Reuters examined data from Open Payments, a government website that discloses health care providers’ relationships with industry, for all 17 voting members of the committee who were dismissed. Six received no more than US$80 from drugmakers over seven years, and four had no payments at all.
The remaining seven members accepted between $4,000 and $55,000 over seven years, mostly for modest consulting or travel. In other words, just 41% of the committee received anything more than pocket change from drugmakers. Committee members must divest vaccine company stock and recuse themselves from votes involving conflicts.
A term without a meaning
Kennedy has warned that vaccines cause “immune deregulation,” a term that has no basis in immunology. Vaccines train the immune system, and the diseases they prevent are the real threats to immune function.
Today’s vaccine panel doesn’t just prevent infections; it deters doctor visits and thereby reduces unnecessary prescriptions for “just-in-case” antibiotics. It’s one of the rare places in medicine where physicians like me now do more good with less biological burden than we did 40 years ago.
The evidence is clear and publicly available: Vaccines have dramatically reduced childhood illness, disability and death on a historic scale.
Jake Scott 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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jake Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University
Public health experts worry that factually inaccurate statements by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threaten the public’s confidence in vaccines.Andrew HarnikGetty Images
In the four months since he began serving as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made many public statements about vaccines that have cast doubt on their safety and on the objectivity of long-standing processes established to evaluate them.
Many of these statements are factually incorrect. For example, in a newscast aired on June 12, 2025, Kennedy told Fox News viewers that 97% of federal vaccine advisers are on the take. In the same interview, he also claimed that children receive 92 mandatory shots. He has also widely claimed that only COVID-19 vaccines, not other vaccines in use by both children and adults, were ever tested against placebos and that “nobody has any idea” how safe routine immunizations are.
As an infectious disease physician who curates an open database of hundreds of controlled vaccine trials involving over 6 million participants, I am intimately familiar with the decades of research on vaccine safety. I believe it is important to correct the record – especially because these statements come from the official who now oversees the agencies charged with protecting Americans’ health.
Do children really receive 92 mandatory shots?
In 1986, the childhood vaccine schedule contained about 11 doses protecting against seven diseases. Today, it includes roughly 50 injections covering 16 diseases. State school entry laws typically require 30 to 32 shots across 10 to 12 diseases. No state mandates COVID-19 vaccination. Where Kennedy’s “92 mandatory shots” figure comes from is unclear, but the actual number is significantly lower.
From a safety standpoint, the more important question is whether today’s schedule with additional vaccines might be too taxing for children’s immune systems. It isn’t, because as vaccine technology improved over the past several decades, the number of antigens in each vaccine dose is much lower than before.
Antigens are the molecules in vaccines that trigger a response from the immune system, training it to identify the specific pathogen. Some vaccines contain a minute amount of aluminum salt that serves as an adjuvant – a helper ingredient that improves the quality and staying power of the immune response, so each dose can protect with less antigen.
Those 11 doses in 1986 delivered more than 3,000 antigens and 1.5 milligrams of aluminum over 18 years. Today’s complete schedule delivers roughly 165 antigens – which is a 95% reduction – and 5-6 milligrams of aluminum in the same time frame. A single smallpox inoculation in 1900 exposed a child to more antigens than today’s complete series.
The incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b, a bacterial infection that can cause pneumonia, meningitis and other severe diseases, has dropped by 99% in infants. Pediatric hepatitis infections are down more than 90%, and chickenpox hospitalizations are down about 90%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that vaccinating children born from 1994 to 2023 will avert 508 million illnesses and 1,129,000 premature deaths.
Placebo testing for vaccines
Kennedy has asserted that only COVID-19 vaccines have undergone rigorous safety trials in which they were tested against placebos. This is categorically wrong.
Of the 378 controlled trials in our database, 195 compared volunteers’ response to a vaccine with their response to a placebo. Of those, 159 gave volunteers only a salt water solution or another inert substance. Another 36 gave them just the adjuvant without any viral or bacterial material, as a way to see whether there were side effects from the antigen itself or the injection. Every routine childhood vaccine antigen appears in at least one such study.
Once an effective vaccine exists, ethics boards require new versions be compared against that licensed standard because withholding proven protection from children would be unethical.
How unknown is the safety of widely used vaccines?
Kennedy has insisted on multiple occasions that “nobody has any idea” about vaccine safety profiles. Of the 378 trials in our database, the vast majority published detailed safety outcomes.
Beyond trials, the U.S. operates the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Vaccine Safety Datalink and the PRISM network to monitor hundreds of millions of doses for rare problems. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System works like an open mailbox where anyone – patients, parents, clinicians – can report a post-shot problem; the Vaccine Safety Datalink analyzes anonymized electronic health records from large health care systems to spot patterns; and PRISM scans billions of insurance claims in near-real time to confirm or rule out rare safety signals.
On June 9, Kennedy took the unprecedented step of dissolving vetted members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the expert body that advises the CDC on national vaccine policy. He has claimed repeatedly that the vast majority of serving members of the committee – 97% – had extensive conflicts of interest because of their entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry. Kennedy bases that number on a 2009 federal audit of conflict-of-interest paperwork, but that report looked at 17 CDC advisory committees, not specifically this vaccine committee. And it found no pervasive wrongdoing – 97% of disclosure forms only contained routine paperwork mistakes, such as information in the wrong box or a missing initial, and not hidden financial ties.
Reuters examined data from Open Payments, a government website that discloses health care providers’ relationships with industry, for all 17 voting members of the committee who were dismissed. Six received no more than US$80 from drugmakers over seven years, and four had no payments at all.
The remaining seven members accepted between $4,000 and $55,000 over seven years, mostly for modest consulting or travel. In other words, just 41% of the committee received anything more than pocket change from drugmakers. Committee members must divest vaccine company stock and recuse themselves from votes involving conflicts.
A term without a meaning
Kennedy has warned that vaccines cause “immune deregulation,” a term that has no basis in immunology. Vaccines train the immune system, and the diseases they prevent are the real threats to immune function.
Today’s vaccine panel doesn’t just prevent infections; it deters doctor visits and thereby reduces unnecessary prescriptions for “just-in-case” antibiotics. It’s one of the rare places in medicine where physicians like me now do more good with less biological burden than we did 40 years ago.
The evidence is clear and publicly available: Vaccines have dramatically reduced childhood illness, disability and death on a historic scale.
Jake Scott 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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrea Stanton, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies & Faculty Affiliate, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Denver
After 12 days of trading deadly airstrikes, Israel and Iran confirmed on June 24, 2025, that a ceasefire is in effect, one day after President Donald Trump proclaimed the countries reached a deal to end fighting. Experts are wondering how long the ceasefire, which does not contain any specific conditions, will hold.
The United States’ involvement in the fighting between Iran and Israel, which Israel started on June 12, has also sparked concerned comparisons with the eight-year war the U.S. waged in Iraq, another Middle Eastern country.
The U.S. invaded Iraq more than 20 years ago in March 2003, claiming it had to disarm the Iraqi government of weapons of mass destruction and end the dictatorial rule of President Saddam Hussein. U.S. soldiers captured Saddam in December 2003, but the war dragged on through 2011.
The Trump administration, bolstered by the Israeli government, has claimed that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons represents an imminent, dangerous threat to Western countries and the rest of the world. Iran says that its nuclear development program is for civilian use. While the International Atomic Energy Agency, an independent organization that is part of the United Nations, monitors Iran and other countries’ nuclear development work, Iran has not complied with recent IAEA requests for information about its nuclear program.
Trump has also called for regime change in Iran, writing on his Truth Social media platform on June 22 that he wants to “Make Iran Great Again”, though he has since walked back that plan. The case of U.S. involvement in Iraq might offer some lessons in this current moment.
Most of these problems stem directly or indirectly from the war. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the war that followed are defining events in the histories of both countries – and the region. Yet, for many young people in the United States, drawing a connection between the war and its present-day impact is becoming more difficult. For them, the war is an artifact of the past.
I am a Middle East historian and an Islamic studies scholar who teaches two undergraduate courses that cover the 2003 invasion and the Iraq War. My courses attract students who hope to work in politics, law, government and nonprofit groups, and whose personal backgrounds include a range of religious traditions, immigration histories and racial identities.
The stories of the invasion and subsequent war resonate with them in the same way that stories of other past events do – they’re eager to learn from them, but don’t see them as directly connected to their lives.
Since I started teaching courses related to the Iraq War in 2010, my students have shifted from millennials to Generation Z. The latter were born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s. There has also been a change in how these students understand major early 21st-century events, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
I teach this event by showing things like former President George W. Bush’s March 19, 2003, televised announcement of the invasion.
I also teach it through the flow of my lived experience. That includes remembering the Feb. 15, 2003, anti-war protests that took place in over 600 cities around the world as an effort to prevent what appeared to be an inevitable war. And I show students aspects of material culture, like the “Iraqi most wanted” deck of playing cards, distributed to deployed U.S. military personnel in Iraq, who used the cards for games and to help them identify key figures in the Iraq government.
The millennial students I taught around 2010 recalled the U.S. invasion of Iraq from their early teen years – a confusing but foundational moment in their personal timelines.
But for the Gen-Z students I teach today, the invasion sits firmly in the past, as a part of history.
Why this matters
Since the mid-2010s, I have not been able to expect students to enroll in my course with personal prior knowledge about the invasion and war that followed. In 2013, my students would tell me that their childhoods had been defined by a United States at war – even if those wars happened far from U.S. soil.
Millennial students considered the trifecta of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq to be defining events in their lives. The U.S. and its allies launched airstrikes against al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. This followed the Taliban refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11.
By 2021, my students considered Bush’s actions with the same level of abstract curiosity that they had brought to the class’s earlier examination of the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine, which said that a country could request help from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by another country, and was used to justify U.S. military involvement in Lebanon in 1958.
On an educational level, this means that I now provide much more background information on the first the Gulf War, the 2000 presidential elections, the Bush presidency, the immediate U.S. responses to 9/11 and the Afghanistan invasion than I had to do before. All of these events help students better understand why the U.S. invaded Iraq and why Americans felt so strongly about the military action – whether they were for or against the invasion.
The Iraq invasion lost popularity among Americans within two years. In March 2003, 71% of Americans said that the U.S. made the right decision to use military force in Iraq.
That percentage dropped to 47% in 2005, following the revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Yet those supporters continued to strongly endorse the invasion in later polls.
In 2018, just over half of Americans believed that the U.S. failed to achieve its goals, however those goals might have been defined in Iraq.
Older Americans age 65 and up are more likely than young people to prioritize foreign policy issues, including maintaining a U.S. military advantage.
Younger Americans – age 18 to 39 – say the top issues that require urgency are providing support to refugees and limiting U.S. military commitments abroad, according to a 2021 Pew research survey.
Generation Z members are also less likely than older Americans to think that the U.S. should act by itself in defending or protecting democracy around the world, according to a 2019 poll by the think tank Center for American Progress.
They also agree with the statement that the United States’ “wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan were a waste of time, lives, and taxpayer money and they did nothing to make us safer at home.” They prefer that the U.S. use economic and diplomatic means, rather than military intervention, to advance American interests around the world.
Israel’s conflict with Iran may not flare again and give way to more airstrikes and violence. If the countries resume fighting, however, their conflict threatens to draw in Lebanon, Qatar and other countries in the Middle East, as well as likely the U.S. – and to drag on for a long time.
Andrea Stanton 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.
People on TikTok tend to follow accounts that align with their own political beliefs, meaning the platform is creating political echo chambers among its users. These findings, from a study my collaborators, Yanlin Li and Homero Gil de Zúñiga, and I published in the academic journal New Media & Society, show that people mostly hear from voices they already agree with.
We analyzed the structure of different political networks on TikTok and found that right-leaning communities are more isolated from other political groups and from mainstream news outlets. Looking at their internal structures, the right-leaning communities are more tightly connected than their left-leaning counterparts. In other words, conservative TikTok users tend to stick together. They rarely follow accounts with opposing views or mainstream media accounts. Liberal users, on the other hand, are more likely to follow a mix of accounts, including those they might disagree with.
Our study is based on a massive dataset of over 16 million TikTok videos from more than 160,000 public accounts between 2019 and 2023. We saw a spike of political TikTok videos during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. More importantly, people aren’t just passively watching political content; they’re actively creating political content themselves.
Some people are more outspoken about politics than others. We found that users with stronger political leanings and those who get more likes and comments on their videos are more motivated to keep posting. This shows the power of partisanship, but also the power of TikTok’s social rewards system. Engagement signals – likes, shares, comments – are like a fuel, encouraging users to create even more.
Why it matters
People are turning to TikTok not just for a good laugh. A recent Pew Research Center survey shows that almost 40% of U.S. adults under 30 regularly get news on TikTok. The question becomes what kind of news are they watching, and what does that mean for how they engage with politics.
The content on TikTok often comes from creators and influencers or digital-native media sources. The quality of this news content remains uncertain. Without access to balanced, fact-based information, people may struggle to make informed political decisions.
TikTok is not unique; social media generally fosters polarization.
Amid the debates over banning TikTok, our study highlights how TikTok can be a double-edged sword in political communication. It’s encouraging to see people participate in politics through TikTok when that’s their medium of choice. However, if a user’s network is closed and homogeneous and their expression serves as in-group validation, it may further solidify the political echo chamber.
When people are exposed to one-sided messages, it can increase hostility toward outgroups. In the long run, relying on TikTok as a source for political information might deepen people’s political views and contribute to greater polarization.
TikTok has its unique format, algorithmic curation and entertainment-driven design. I believe that its function as a tool for political communication calls for closer examination.
What’s next
In 2024, the Biden/Harris and Trump campaigns joined TikTok to reach young voters. My research team is now analyzing how these political communication dynamics may have shifted during the 2024 election. Future research could use experiments to explore whether these campaign videos significantly influence voters’ perceptions and behaviors.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Zicheng Cheng 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.
When most people hear the word uranium, they think of mushroom clouds, Cold War standoffs or the glowing green rods from science fiction. But uranium isn’t just fuel for apocalyptic fears. It’s also a surprisingly common element that plays a crucial role in modern energy, medicine and geopolitics.
Uranium reentered the global spotlight in June 2025, when the U.S. launched military strikes on sites in Iran believed to be housing highly enriched uranium, a move that reignited urgent conversations around nuclear proliferation. Many headlines have mentioned Iran’s 60% enrichment of uranium, but what does that really mean?
As a biochemist, I’m interested in demystifying this often misunderstood element.
What is uranium?
Uranium holds the 92nd position on the periodic table, and it is a radioactive, metallic element. Radioactivity is a natural process where some atoms – like uranium, thorium and radium – break down on their own, releasing energy.
The German chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth initially identified uranium in 1789, and he named it after the newly discovered planet Uranus. However, its power was not unlocked until the 20th century, when scientists discovered that uranium atoms could split via a process known as nuclear fission. In fission, the nucleus of the atom splits into two or more nuclei, which releases large amounts of energy.
Uranium is found almost everywhere. It is in rocks, soil and water. There are even traces of uranium in plants and animals – albeit tiny amounts. Most of it is found in the Earth’s crust, where it is mined and concentrated to increase the amount of its most useful radioactive form, uranium-235.
The enrichment dilemma
Uranium-235 is an isotope of uranium, which is a version of an element that has the same basic identity but weighs a little more or less. Think about apples from the same tree. Some are big and some are small, but they are all apples – even though they have slightly different weights. Basically, an isotope is the same element but with a different mass.
Unprocessed uranium is mostly uranium-238. It only contains approximately 0.7% uranium-235, the isotope that allows the most nuclear fission to occur. So, the enrichment process concentrates uranium-235.
Enrichment can make uranium more useful for the development of nuclear weapons, since natural uranium doesn’t have enough uranium-235 to work well in reactors or weapons. The process usually contains three steps.
Centrifuges spin the uranium to separate out its isotopes.
The first step is to convert the uranium into a gas, called uranium hexafluoride. In the second step, the gas gets funneled into a machine called a centrifuge that spins very fast. Because uranium-235 is a little lighter than uranium-238, it moves outward more slowly when spun, and the two isotopes separate.
It’s sort of like how a salad spinner separates water from lettuce. One spin doesn’t make much of a difference, so the gas is spun through many centrifuges in a row until the uranium-235 is concentrated.
Uranium can typically power nuclear plants and generate electricity when it is 3%-5% enriched, meaning 3%-5% of the uranium is uranium-235. At 20% enriched, uranium-235 is considered highly enriched uranium, and 90% or higher is known as weapons-grade uranium.
The enrichment level depends on the proportion of uranium-235 to uranium-238. Wikimedia Commons
This high grade works in nuclear weapons because it can sustain a fast, uncontrolled chain reaction, which releases a large amount of energy compared with the other isotopes.
Uranium’s varied powers
While many headlines focus on uranium’s military potential, this element also plays a vital role in modern life. At low enrichment levels, uranium powers nearly 10% of the world’s electricity.
In the U.S., many nuclear power plants run on uranium fuel, producing carbon-free energy. In addition, some cancer therapies and diagnostic imaging technologies harness uranium to treat diseases.
Uranium is a story of duality. It is a mineral pulled from ancient rocks that can light up a city or wipe one off the map. It’s not just a relic of the Cold War or science fiction. It’s real, it’s powerful, and it’s shaping our world – from global conflicts to cancer clinics, from the energy grid to international diplomacy.
In the end, the real power is not just in the energy released from the element. It is in how people choose to use it.
André O. Hudson receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.
When most people hear the word uranium, they think of mushroom clouds, Cold War standoffs or the glowing green rods from science fiction. But uranium isn’t just fuel for apocalyptic fears. It’s also a surprisingly common element that plays a crucial role in modern energy, medicine and geopolitics.
Uranium reentered the global spotlight in June 2025, when the U.S. launched military strikes on sites in Iran believed to be housing highly enriched uranium, a move that reignited urgent conversations around nuclear proliferation. Many headlines have mentioned Iran’s 60% enrichment of uranium, but what does that really mean?
As a biochemist, I’m interested in demystifying this often misunderstood element.
What is uranium?
Uranium holds the 92nd position on the periodic table, and it is a radioactive, metallic element. Radioactivity is a natural process where some atoms – like uranium, thorium and radium – break down on their own, releasing energy.
The German chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth initially identified uranium in 1789, and he named it after the newly discovered planet Uranus. However, its power was not unlocked until the 20th century, when scientists discovered that uranium atoms could split via a process known as nuclear fission. In fission, the nucleus of the atom splits into two or more nuclei, which releases large amounts of energy.
Uranium is found almost everywhere. It is in rocks, soil and water. There are even traces of uranium in plants and animals – albeit tiny amounts. Most of it is found in the Earth’s crust, where it is mined and concentrated to increase the amount of its most useful radioactive form, uranium-235.
The enrichment dilemma
Uranium-235 is an isotope of uranium, which is a version of an element that has the same basic identity but weighs a little more or less. Think about apples from the same tree. Some are big and some are small, but they are all apples – even though they have slightly different weights. Basically, an isotope is the same element but with a different mass.
Unprocessed uranium is mostly uranium-238. It only contains approximately 0.7% uranium-235, the isotope that allows the most nuclear fission to occur. So, the enrichment process concentrates uranium-235.
Enrichment can make uranium more useful for the development of nuclear weapons, since natural uranium doesn’t have enough uranium-235 to work well in reactors or weapons. The process usually contains three steps.
Centrifuges spin the uranium to separate out its isotopes.
The first step is to convert the uranium into a gas, called uranium hexafluoride. In the second step, the gas gets funneled into a machine called a centrifuge that spins very fast. Because uranium-235 is a little lighter than uranium-238, it moves outward more slowly when spun, and the two isotopes separate.
It’s sort of like how a salad spinner separates water from lettuce. One spin doesn’t make much of a difference, so the gas is spun through many centrifuges in a row until the uranium-235 is concentrated.
Uranium can typically power nuclear plants and generate electricity when it is 3%-5% enriched, meaning 3%-5% of the uranium is uranium-235. At 20% enriched, uranium-235 is considered highly enriched uranium, and 90% or higher is known as weapons-grade uranium.
The enrichment level depends on the proportion of uranium-235 to uranium-238. Wikimedia Commons
This high grade works in nuclear weapons because it can sustain a fast, uncontrolled chain reaction, which releases a large amount of energy compared with the other isotopes.
Uranium’s varied powers
While many headlines focus on uranium’s military potential, this element also plays a vital role in modern life. At low enrichment levels, uranium powers nearly 10% of the world’s electricity.
In the U.S., many nuclear power plants run on uranium fuel, producing carbon-free energy. In addition, some cancer therapies and diagnostic imaging technologies harness uranium to treat diseases.
Uranium is a story of duality. It is a mineral pulled from ancient rocks that can light up a city or wipe one off the map. It’s not just a relic of the Cold War or science fiction. It’s real, it’s powerful, and it’s shaping our world – from global conflicts to cancer clinics, from the energy grid to international diplomacy.
In the end, the real power is not just in the energy released from the element. It is in how people choose to use it.
André O. Hudson receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.
Israel, with the assistance of U.S. military hardware, bombs an adversary’s nuclear facility to set back the perceived pursuit of the ultimate weapon. We have been here before, about 44 years ago.
The reactor, which the French called Osirak and Iraqis called Tammuz, was destroyed. Much of the international community initially condemned the attack. But Israel claimed the raid set Iraqi nuclear ambitions back at least a decade. In time, many Western observers and government officials, too, chalked up the attack as a win for nonproliferation, hailing the strike as an audacious but necessary step to prevent Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear arsenal.
But the reality is more complicated. As nuclear proliferation experts assess the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities following the recent U.S. and Israeli raids, it is worth reassessing the longer-term implications of that earlier Iraqi strike.
The Osirak reactor
Iraq joined the landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, committing the country to refrain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But in exchange, signatories are entitled to engage in civilian nuclear activities, including having research or power reactors and access to the enriched uranium that drives them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible through safeguards agreements for monitoring countries’ civilian use of nuclear technology, with on-the-ground inspections to ensure that civilian nuclear programs do not divert materials for nuclear weapons.
But to Israel, the Iraqi reactor was provocative and an escalation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Israel believed that Iraq would use the French reactor – Iraq said it was for research purposes – to generate plutonium for a nuclear weapon. After diplomacy with France and the United States failed to persuade the two countries to halt construction of the reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin concluded that attacking the reactor was Israel’s best option. That decision gave birth to the “Begin Doctrine,” which has committing Israel to preventing its regional adversaries from becoming nuclear powers ever since.
In spring 1979, Israel attempted to sabotage the project, bombing the reactor core destined for Iraq while it sat awaiting shipment in the French town of La Seyne-sur-Mer. The mission was only a partial success, damaging but not destroying the reactor.
France and Iraq persisted with the project, and in July 1980 – with the reactor having been delivered – Iraq received the first shipment of highly enriched uranium fuel at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad.
Then in September 1980, during the initial days of the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian jets struck the nuclear research center. The raid also targeted a power station, knocking out electricity in Baghdad for several days. But a Central Intelligence Agency situation report assessed that “only secondary buildings” were hit at the nuclear site itself.
It was then Israel’s turn. The reactor was still unfinished and not in operation when on June 7, 1981, eight U.S.-supplied F-16s flew over Jordanian and Saudi airspace and bombed the reactor in Iraq. The attack killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and a French civilian.
Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid
Many years later, U.S. President Bill Clinton commented: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981, which I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam from developing nuclear power.”
But nonproliferation expertshave contended for years that while Saddam may have had nuclear weapons ambitions, the French-built research reactor would not have been the route to go. Iraq would either have had to divert the reactor’s highly enriched uranium fuel for a few weapons or shut the reactor down to extract plutonium from the fuel rods – all while hiding these operations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
As an additional safeguard, the French government, too, had pledged to shut down the reactor if it detected efforts to use the reactor for weapons purposes.
In any event, Iraq’s desire for a nuclear weapon was more aspirational than operational. A 2011 article in the journal International Security included interviews with several scientists who worked on Iraq’s nuclear program and characterized the country’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability as “both directionless and disorganized” before the attack.
Iraq’s program begins in earnest
So what happened after the strike? Many analysts have argued that the Israeli attack, rather than diminish Iraqi desire for a nuclear weapon, actually catalyzed it.
Nuclear proliferation expert Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, the author of the 2011 study, concluded that the Israeli attack “triggered a nuclear weapons program where one did not previously exist.”
In the aftermath of the attack, Saddam decided to formally, if secretively, establish a nuclear weapons program, with scientists deciding that a uranium-based weapon was the best route. He tasked his scientists with pursuing multiple methods to enrich uranium to weapons grade to ensure success, much the way the Manhattan Project scientists approached the same problem in the U.S.
In other words, the Israeli attack, rather than set back an existing nuclear weapons program, turned an incoherent and exploratory nuclear endeavor into a drive to get the bomb personally overseen by Saddam and sparing little expense even as Iraq’s war with Iran substantially taxed Iraqi resources.
As those challenges were beginning to be addressed, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking a military response from the United States. In the aftermath of what would become Operation Desert Storm, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered and dismantled the clandestine Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
Similarly to Iraq in 1980, Iran today is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the time President Donald Trump withdrew U.S. support in 2018 for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Tehran was complying with the requirements of the agreement.
In the case of Iraq, military action on its nascent nuclear program merely pushed it underground – to Saddam, the Israeli strikes made acquiring the ultimate weapon more rather than less attractive as a deterrent. Almost a half-century on, some analysts and observers are warning the same about Iran.
Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.
After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.
He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.
The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).
Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.
However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.
Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements
Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.
Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.
Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.
Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)
Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.
Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.
Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.
Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance
In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.
Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.
“If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.
Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.
But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.
Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.
Ishiba under domestic political pressure
There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.
After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.
Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.
On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.
The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.
Craig Mark 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.
As the world watches the US–Iran situation with concern, the ripple effect from these events are reaching global oil supply chains – and exposing their fragility.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz as it is considering, it would restrict the global oil trade and trigger energy chaos.
Petrol in some Australian cities could hit A$2.50 a litre according to some economists. As global instability worsens, other experts warn price spikes are increasingly likely.
What would happen next? There is a precedent: the oil shocks of the 1970s, when oil prices quadrupled. The shock drove rapid change, from more efficient cars to sudden interest in alternative energy sources. This time, motorists would likely switch to electric vehicles.
If this crisis continues or if another one flares up, it could mark a turning point in Australia’s long dependence on foreign oil.
What would an oil shock mean?
Australia currently imports 80% of its liquid fuels, the highest level on record. If the flow of oil stopped, we would have about 50 days worth in storage before we ran out.
Our cars, buses, trucks and planes run overwhelmingly on petrol and diesel. Almost three-quarters (74%) of these liquid fuels are used in transport, with road transport accounting for more than half (54%) of all liquid fuels. Australia is highly exposed to global supply shocks.
The best available option to reduce dependence on oil imports is to electrify transport.
How does Australia compare on EVs?
EV uptake in Australia continues to lag behind global leaders. In 2024, EVs accounted for 9.65% of new car sales in Australia, up from 8.45% in 2023.
In the first quarter of 2025, EVs were 6.3% of new car sales, a decline from 7.4% in the final quarter of 2024.
Norway remains the global leader, with battery-electric passenger cars making up 88.9% of sales in 2024. The United Kingdom also saw significant growth – EVs hit almost 20% of new car registrations in 2024.
In China, EVs made up 40.9% of new car sales in 2024. The 12.87 million cars sold represent three-quarters of total EV sales worldwide.
One reason for Australia’s sluggishness is a lack of reliable public chargers. While charging infrastructure is expanding, large parts of regional Australia still lack reliable access to EV charging.
Until recently, Australia’s fuel efficiency standards were among the weakest in the OECD. Earlier this year, the government’s new standards came into force. These are expected to boost EV uptake.
Could global tensions trigger faster action?
If history is any guide, oil shocks lead to long-term change.
When global oil prices quadrupled in 1973–74, many nations were forced to reconsider where they got their energy. A few years later, the 1979 Iranian Revolution caused another major supply disruption, sending oil prices soaring and pushing much of the world into recession.
Huge increases in oil prices drove people to look for alternatives during the 1970s oil shocks. Everett Collection/Shutterstock
Much more recently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine pushed the European Union to face up to its reliance on Russian gas and find alternatives by importing gas from different countries and accelerating the clean energy shift.
Clearly, energy shocks can be catalysts for long-term structural change in how we produce and consume energy.
The new crisis could do the same, but only if policy catches up.
If fuel prices shot up and stayed there, consumer behaviour would begin to shift. People would drive less and seek alternate forms of transport. Over time, more would look for better ways to get around.
Cutting oil dependency through electrification isn’t just good for the climate. It’s also a hedge against future price shocks and supply disruptions.
Transport is now Australia’s third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Now that emissions are falling in the electricity sector, transport will be the highest emitting sector emissions source as soon as 2030.
Building a cleaner transport system also means building a more resilient one. Charging EVs on locally produced renewable power cuts our exposure to global oil markets. So do biofuels, better public transport and smarter urban planning.
Improving domestic energy resilience isn’t just about climate targets. It’s about economic stability and national security. Clean local energy sources reduce vulnerability to events beyond our control.
What can we learn from China?
China offers a compelling case study. The nation of 1.4 billion faces real oil security challenges. In response, Beijing has spent the past decade building a domestic clean energy ecosystem to reduce oil dependency and cut emissions.
This is now bearing fruit. Last year, China’s oil imports had the first sustained fall in nearly two decades. Crude oil imports fell 1.5%, while oil refinery activity also fell due to lower demand.
China’s rapid uptake of EVs has clear energy security benefits. pim pic/Shutterstock
China’s rapid shift to EVs and clean energy shows how long-term planning and targeted investment can pay off on climate and energy security.
What we do next matters
The rolling crises of 2025 present Australian policymakers a rare alignment of interests. What’s good for the climate, for consumers and for national security may now be the same thing.
Real change will require more than sustained high petrol prices. It demands political will, targeted investment and a long-term vision for clean, resilient transport.
Doing nothing has a real cost – not just in what we pay at the service station, but in how vulnerable we remain to events a long way away.
Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.
A commemorative plenary meeting to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter, emphasizing its foundational importance to achieving peace, development and human rights for “we the peoples”.
Opening Segment
Musical Performance
Plenary
The President of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly convenes a commemorative plenary meeting to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter, emphasizing its foundational importance to achieving peace, development and human rights for “we the peoples”.
A meeting of the General Assembly to observe the 80th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter. The meeting will serve as a moment to revive the spirit of San Francisco and once again embrace the ideals that united humanity during its darkest hour, reaffirming our commitment to those values into the future.
The commemoration of the 80th anniversary will include an extensive communications campaign that will spotlight the Charter and its signing, as well as highlight milestones and successes of the United Nations and its Member States over the past 80 years. This campaign will also feature video testimonials by world leaders from June to September 2025.
A High-Level meeting of the General Assembly for Heads of State and Government to mark the 80th anniversary is scheduled for 22 September 2025, during the UNGA High-Level Week.
Secretary for Housing Winnie Ho attended the Asia-Pacific Network for Housing Research (APNHR) 2025 Conference at Tsinghua University and visited the Qingtangwan public rental housing project in Beijing today.
The APNHR is an international organisation focusing on housing issues in the Asia-Pacific region. The conference was held at Tsinghua University this year with the theme “Towards Resilience and Inclusivity: Adapting to Multifaceted Challenges in the Asia-Pacific Region”.
The conference convened experts and scholars in the fields of architecture, urban planning, sociology, environmental studies, and others from the Asia-Pacific region to have in-depth exchanges on the housing development and challenges in the region, and to jointly explore ways to promote innovative housing construction and development directions.
At the conference’s roundtable session this morning, Ms Ho shared the opportunities and challenges in housing development faced by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government Housing Bureau (HB) and the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HKHA).
She said that the current-term Hong Kong SAR Government has actively addressed Hong Kong’s housing problems since taking office, overcoming livelihood issues and addressing people’s concerns by identifying sites and enhancing the quantity, speed, efficiency and quality of public housing construction.
The HB is working full steam ahead on implementing groundbreaking innovative policy initiatives, such as Light Public Housing (LPH) and Basic Housing Units, to tackle the long-standing, big and difficult issue that has plagued Hong Kong for many years and to provide the grassroots with options to improve their living environment and quality of life.
Ms Ho highlighted that the HB and the HKHA have been making use of various innovative construction technologies, such as Modular Integrated Construction, construction robots and smart project management platforms, to enhance construction efficiency and build LPH expeditiously, so as to improve the living conditions of those who are inadequately housed as soon as possible.
She also introduced at the conference the “well-being design” guide launched by the HB and the HKHA last year, which serves as a reference for the future design of new public housing and the improvement works of existing public rental housing estates.
Apart from housing construction, the HKHA has also continued to enhance the management efficiency and service quality of its nearly 200 public rental housing estates by actively promoting smart estate management and introducing new technologies to optimise estate management and building maintenance services, to provide a better living environment for its residents.
In the afternoon, Ms Ho visited the Qingtangwan public rental housing project in Beijing. This project is a green residential area that adopted the use of prefabricated components and environmental monitoring platforms. It also implements smart community management through community apps.
Afterwards, Ms Ho met Deputy Director-General of the Bureau of International Cooperation of the State-owned Assets Supervision & Administration Commission of the State Council Xie Hui to exchange views on housing design and planning.
She also shared the adoption of advanced construction technologies from the Mainland in Hong Kong and the outcomes.
Yesterday, Ms Ho visited the Better House Living Tech Lab and was briefed on the practice of combining housing design concepts of quality homes and technologies on the Mainland.
The housing chief will continue her Beijing visit tomorrow before returning to Hong Kong.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
CHANGSHA, June 26 — Chinese State Councilor Shen Yiqin has called for efforts to stabilize the employment of key groups such as college graduates and further boost culture, tourism and sports-related consumption.
Shen made the remarks during an inspection tour in central China’s Hunan Province from Monday to Thursday.
Shen urged placing greater importance on employment, and called for supportive measures to strengthen the job opportunities for key groups including college graduates, migrant workers and those who have shaken off poverty.
Enterprises should receive more support to aid in the creation of more job opportunities, said Shen, who called for the launch of large-scale vocational training programs in key sectors to improve labor force skills.
Shen also called for efforts to continue increasing the supply of high-quality products and services, and to accelerate the integration of culture, tourism and sports with science and technology, to better meet people’s growing demand.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
In celebration of the 55th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and Italy, a launch event for the documentary “Xi Jinping’s Cultural Story,” produced by China Media Group, was held in Rome on Wednesday.
Starting from June 25, the program will be broadcast across more than 30 mainstream Italian media outlets, including Alma TV, Donna TV, Travel TV, Lazio TV, Lombardia City TV, Roma Corona TV, Milan Pavia TV, and the website of Milano Finanza, among others.
“Xi Jinping’s Cultural Story” features vivid stories that reflect Chinese President Xi Jinping’s deep concern for the inheritance and development of culture. It showcases his profound reflections on the idea that “our country will thrive only if our culture thrives, and our nation will be strong only if our culture is strong,” as well as his deep affection for cultural heritage and his dedication to preserving historical continuity. The program explains to international audiences the essence of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture and the solid cultural foundation underpinning his philosophy of governance.
The documentary includes on-site visits to places where Xi has worked or conducted inspections, such as Zhengding in Hebei Province, Xiamen in Fujian Province, Hangzhou in Zhejiang Province, and Dunhuang in Gansu Province. Through a variety of narrative forms — including video footage and in-depth interviews — it vividly presents China’s practical efforts in the new era to trace the origins of civilization and protect cultural heritage, highlighting the profound, far-reaching, inclusive and ever-evolving nature of Chinese culture.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has, by an order dated June 23, 2025, imposed a monetary penalty of ₹1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) on The Karnataka Co-operative Bank Limited, Muddebihal, Karnataka (the bank) for non-compliance with certain directions issued by RBI on ‘Exposure Norms and Statutory / Other Restrictions – UCBs’ and ‘Know Your Customer (KYC)’. This penalty has been imposed in exercise of powers conferred on RBI under the provisions of Section 47A(1)(c) read with Sections 46(4)(i) and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
The statutory inspection of the bank was conducted by RBI with reference to its financial position as on March 31, 2024. Based on supervisory findings of non-compliance with RBI directions and related correspondence in that regard, a notice was issued to the bank advising it to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on it for its failure to comply with the said directions. After considering the bank’s reply to the notice and oral submissions made during the personal hearing, RBI found, inter alia, that the following charges against the bank were sustained, warranting imposition of monetary penalty:
The bank had:
breached the prudential inter-bank (gross) and counterparty exposure limits; and
failed to upload the KYC records of customers onto Central KYC Records Registry within the prescribed timeline.
This action is based on deficiencies in regulatory compliance and is not intended to pronounce upon the validity of any transaction or agreement entered into by the bank with its customers. Further, imposition of this monetary penalty is without prejudice to any other action that may be initiated by RBI against the bank.
Secretary-General of ASEAN, Dr. Kao Kim Hourn, met with Mr. Said Ibrahimi, Director-General of Casablanca Finance City (CFC), in Casablanca, Morocco, on 26 June 2025. SG Dr. Kao shared ASEAN’s progress in financial integration, financial inclusion, and sustainable finance and exchanged views on possible areas of cooperation with Morocco in financial sector.
The post Secretary-General of ASEAN meets with the Director-General of Casablanca Finance City (CFC) appeared first on ASEAN Main Portal.
Source: Republic of France in English The Republic of France has issued the following statement:
On the occasion of the Budapest Pride march on 28 June 2025, France reaffirms its commitment to the freedom, protection and rights of LGBT+ people within the European Union.
Held as part of Pride month, Pride marches are a legacy of the historic struggles that began with the Stonewall riots in New York on 28 June 1969, the founding event of the contemporary movement for LGBT+ people’s rights. In France, in Europe and all over the world, the marches are a reminder that those rights are the result of collective battles against discrimination, criminalization, pathologization and violence.
Banned by the Hungarian Government but supported by the Mayor of Budapest, the Budapest Pride march will be held amid a worrying national decline in individual freedoms. LGBT+ people there are facing an increasingly hostile political and social climate, fomented by hate speech and discriminatory policies that fuel an environment of fear and exclusion.
In this regard, France wants to reiterate its deep commitment to respect for the European Union’s basic values, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union: “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”
France calls for heightened vigilance in the face of legislative and social changes in the various Member States, in order to guarantee respect for basic rights, defend the principles of the European Union and ensure consistency in its values, particularly in terms of equality and non-discrimination.
At the ministers’ request, M. Jean-March Berthon, Ambassador for the Rights of LGBT+ People, will officially represent the French Government at the march, as a sign of France’s support and commitment.
What is playing out in Hungary is a reminder of a global reality: the rights of LGBT+ people are far from being guaranteed and remain profoundly fragile. No victory is irreversible.
Everywhere, reactionary and fundamentalist onslaughts are seeking to restrict equality and wipe out existences. What can be won through struggles can be destroyed through inaction. In the face of this global threat, visibility, international solidarity and commitment remain more essential than ever.
“Respect for and protection of human rights must apply everywhere, all the time, and to everyone. LGBT+ citizens can in no way be an exception to this basic principle, on which France will never compromise. The slightest relapse in terms of public freedoms within the European Union itself is unacceptable. Combating all forms of regression is a necessity, building a world without violence is an imperative, and furthering human rights is France’s commitment,” said Aurore Bergé, Minister Delegate for Gender Equality and the Fight against Discrimination.
“My colleague Aurore Bergé and I pay tribute to the advocacy work of the activists, journalists and nongovernmental organizations working to ensure that Hungarians enjoy equal treatment and full legal protection, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender expression. The Budapest Pride march is an important moment both for LGBTQI+ people and for all those committed to freedom. France will remain a powerful champion of a Europe where everyone is guaranteed the opportunity to express their basic freedoms freely and safely,” said Benjamin Haddad, Minister for Europe.
