During Coldplay’s “jumbotron song” — the concert segment where cameras pan over the crowd — the big screen landed on Andy Byron, then-CEO of data firm Astronomer, intimately embracing Kristin Cabot, the company’s chief people officer. Both are married to other people.
The moment, captured on video and widely circulated on social media, shows the pair abruptly recoiling as Coldplay’s lead singer Chris Martin says: “Either they’re having an affair or they’re just very shy.”
Martin’s comment — seemingly light-hearted at the time — quickly took on a different tone as online sleuths identified the pair and uncovered their corporate roles and marital statuses. Within days, Byron resigned from his position as CEO while Cabot is on leave.
This spectacle raises a deeper question: why does infidelity, especially among the powerful, provoke such public outcry. Literary tradition offers some insight: intimate betrayal is never truly private. It shatters an implicit social contract, demanding communal scrutiny to restore trust.
When trust crumbles publicly
French philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s notion of “narrative identity” suggests we make sense of our lives as unfolding stories. The promises we make (and break) become chapters of identity and the basis of others’ trust. Betrayal ruptures the framework that stitches private vows to public roles; without that stitch, trust frays.
Byron’s stadium exposure turned a marital vow into a proxy for professional integrity. Public betrayal magnifies public outcry because leaders symbolize stability; their personal failings inevitably reflect on their institutions.
When Astronomer’s board stated the expected standard “was not met,” they were lamenting the collapse of Byron’s narrative integrity — and, by extension, their company’s.
This idea — that private morality underpins public order — is hardly new. In Laws, ancient Greek philosopher Plato described adultery as a disorder undermining family and state. Roman philosopher Seneca called it a betrayal of nature, while statesman Cicero warned that breaking fides (trust) corrodes civic bonds.
The social cost of infidelity in literature
Literature rarely confines infidelity to the bedroom; its shockwaves fracture communities.
French sociologist Émile Durkheim’s idea of the “conscience collective” holds that shared moral norms create “social solidarity.” As literature demonstrates, violations of these norms inevitably undermines communal trust.
‘Anna Karenina’ by Leo Tolstoy. (Penguin Random House)
Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (1875-77) dramatizes the social fracture of betrayal. Anna’s affair with Count Vronsky not only defies moral convention but destabilizes the aristocratic norms that once upheld her status.
As the scandal leads to her ostracization, Anna mourns the social world she has lost, realizing too late that “the position she enjoyed in society… was precious to her… [and] she could not be stronger than she was.”
In Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary (1857), Emma Bovary’s extramarital affairs unravel the networks of her provincial town, turning private yearning for luxury and romance into public contagion.
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter (1850) makes this explicit: Hester Prynne’s scarlet “A” turns her sin into civic theatre. Public shaming on the scaffold, the novel suggests, delineates moral boundaries and seeks to restore social order — a process that prefigures today’s “digital pillories,” where viral moments subject individuals to mass online judgment and public condemnation.
Domestic crumbs and digital scaffolds
Contemporary narratives shift the setting but uphold the same principle: betrayal devastates the mundane rituals that build trust.
‘Heartburn’ by Nora Ephron. (Penguin Random House)
Nora Ephron’s autobiographical novel Heartburn (1983), based on her own marriage’s collapse to investigative journalist Carl Bernstein, weaponizes domesticity.
Heartburn’s protagonist Rachel Samstat delivers her emotions through recipes — “Vinaigrette” as a marker of intimacy and betrayal, “Lillian Hellman’s Pot Roast” as a bid for domestic stability and “Key Lime Pie,” hurled at her cheating husband — become symbols of a life undone by public infidelity.
Ephron’s satire, later adapted into a film, anticipates our digital age of exposure, where private pain fuels public consumption and judgment.
‘Dept. of Speculation’ by Jenny Offill. (Penguin Random House)
Jenny Offill’s Dept. of Speculation (2014), which draws from her own life, shows another perspective: betrayal as quiet erosion.
Offill never depicts the affair directly; instead, the husband’s absences, silences and an off-hand reference to “someone else” create a suffocating dread. This indirection shows betrayal’s power lies in its latent potential, slowly dismantling a life built on trust before any overt act.
Both works underscore betrayal’s impact on the collective conscience: a lie fractures a family as fundamentally as a CEO’s indiscretion erodes institutional trust. Power magnifies the fallout by turning private failings into public symbols of fragility. Even hidden betrayal poisons the shared rituals binding any group, making the notion of “private” unsustainable long before any public revelation.
The limits of power
Literature acknowledges power’s protective veneer from consequence — and its limits.
Theodore Dreiser’s Trilogy of Desire (1912–47), modelled on the Gilded Age robber baron Charles Yerkes, follows the rise of financier Frank Cowperwood, whose power shields him — until it doesn’t. Even his vast empire proves vulnerable once his adultery becomes public. The very networks that protected him grow wary.
Though many critics of the elite are themselves morally compromised in the trilogy, Cowperwood’s transgression becomes a weapon to discredit him. His brief exile shows that power may defer, but cannot erase, the costs of betrayal. Once trust fractures, even the powerful become liabilities. They do not fall less often — only more conspicuously.
Gender also plays a role in shaping these narratives. Male protagonists like Cowperwood rebound as tragic anti-heroes, their moral failings recast as flaws of character. By contrast, women — think Flaubert’s Emma Bovary or Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne — are branded cautionary figures, their transgressions stigmatized rather than mythologized.
This imbalance in assigning consequences reveals a deeper societal judgment: while broken trust demands repair, the path to restoration often depends on the transgressor’s gender.
The unblinking eye
From Tolstoy’s salons to TikTok’s scroll, literature offers no refuge from betrayal’s ripple effects. When private trust visibly fractures, communal reflexes kick in.
Scarlet letters, exile or a CEO’s resignation all aim to heal the collective trust. The jumbotron, like Hester’s scaffold, is the latest instrument in this age-old theatre of exposure.
Jumbotrons. Scaffolds. Same operating system. Same shame.
Jason Wang 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.
More and more research suggests that the copper in your diet could play a bigger role in brain health than we once believed. A recent study found that older Americans who ate more copper-rich foods did better on memory and concentration tests.
The findings, published in Nature Scientific Reports, looked at people’s diets using detailed food diaries and tested their cognitive function. Those who ate more foods that were high in copper – which include shellfish, dark chocolate and nuts – did better on tests that are used to spot early signs of age-related memory loss and dementia.
But the results aren’t straightforward. People who ate more copper-rich foods were mostly male, white, married and had higher incomes. They were also less likely to smoke or have high blood pressure or diabetes – all factors linked to a lower risk of dementia. People who consumed more copper also had more zinc, iron and selenium in their diets, and consumed more calories overall.
People with higher incomes often have better access to healthy food, medical care, cleaner environments and more education – all of which help protect against memory loss and dementia.
It’s hard to separate the effects of diet from these other advantages, although some research we reviewed suggests that improving nutrition might be especially helpful for people from less privileged backgrounds.
What other research tells us
The current study’s limitations are notable. It captured brain function at only one point in time and relied on participants’ food diaries rather than blood measurements of copper levels.
However, long-term studies support the idea that copper might matter for brain health. One study that tracked people over time found that those who had less copper in their diet showed more pronounced declines in memory and thinking.
More intriguingly, when researchers measured copper levels directly in brain tissue, they discovered that higher concentrations were associated with slower mental deterioration and fewer of the toxic amyloid plaques characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease.
Curiously, brain copper levels bore little relationship to dietary intake, suggesting the body’s processing of this mineral is more complex than simple consumption patterns might indicate.
There’s a good biological explanation for why copper might help protect the brain. This essential metal plays several important roles: it helps prevent brain cell damage via antioxidant effects, with production of the chemicals (neurotransmitters) that let brain cells talk to each other, and helps the brain produce energy, by working via particular enzymes.
Copper deficiency is thought to be relatively uncommon, but it can cause noticeable problems. If someone feels tired and weak and has anaemia that doesn’t improve with iron or vitamin B12 supplements, low copper might be to blame. Other signs can include getting sick more often, losing bone strength, and nerve damage that gets worse over time.
Copper is naturally found in high amounts in foods like beef, offal, shellfish, nuts, seeds and mushrooms. It’s also added to some cereals and found in whole grains and dark chocolate.
People who have had gastric bypass surgery for obesity or have bowel disorders may have trouble absorbing copper – and these conditions themselves could be linked to a higher risk of dementia.
It’s best to be cautious about taking copper supplements without careful thought. They body needs a delicate balance of essential minerals – too much iron or zinc can lower copper levels, while too much copper or iron can cause oxidative stress, which may speed up damage to brain cells.
Studies examining mineral supplements in people already diagnosed with Alzheimer’s have shown little benefit.
Paradoxically, people with Alzheimer’s often have higher copper levels in their blood, but key brain areas like the hippocampus – which is vital for memory – often show lower copper levels. This suggests that Alzheimer’s disrupts how the body handles copper, causing it to get trapped in the amyloid plaques that are a hallmark of the disease.
Some researchers suggested that after Alzheimer’s develops, eating less copper and iron and more omega-3 fats from fish and nuts might help, while saturated fats seem to make things worse. However, a lack of copper could actually increase plaque build-up before dementia shows up, highlighting the need for balanced nutrition throughout life.
There seems to be an optimal range of copper for brain function – recent studies suggest 1.22 to 1.65 milligrams a day provides copper’s cognitive benefits without causing harm. This mirrors a broader principle in medicine: for many biological systems, including thyroid hormones, both deficiency and excess can impair brain function.
The human body typically manages these intricate chemical balances with remarkable precision. But disease and ageing can disrupt this equilibrium, potentially setting the stage for cognitive decline years before symptoms emerge. As researchers continue to unravel the relationship between nutrition and brain health, copper’s role serves as a reminder that the path to healthy ageing may be paved with the careful choices we make at every meal.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Eef Hogervorst has received funding from Alzheimer’s Research UK, MRC and Wellcome to investigate diet and dementia risk. She acted as dementia expert on medical panels including ESHRE and NICE. Eef received a consultancy fee from Proctor and Gamble for a review on folate and omega 3 and cognitive funcion
Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters
Michigan Continues to Experience Acute Child Care Shortage
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI) joined a group of his colleagues in reintroducing the Child Care for Working Families Act. This comprehensive legislation aims to make child care more affordable and accessible for hardworking families in Michigan and across the country. The bill would expand access to pre-K and support full-day, full-year Head Start programs that families rely on. Senator Peters proudly joined this legislation as an original cosponsor amid the Trump Administration’s drastic cuts to resources that help working families succeed, including cuts to health care, food assistance, and Head Start.
“Lack of affordable child care is an ongoing crisis in Michigan. This issue impacts not only families but our entire economy,” said Senator Peters. “When parents struggle to find child care, they lose out on opportunities to provide for their family, while businesses lose out on talented workers. This bill would help ensure all families can find and afford quality child care, making a needed investment in our nation’s future.”
A 2023 report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation found that a child care shortage is hurting Michigan’s economy on numerous fronts, including reducing labor force participation, causing worker absenteeism, and curbing Michigan’s gross domestic product output. According to the report, between lost tax revenues and business earnings, Michigan loses nearly $3 billion in economic activity every year due to lack of child care access.
Specifically, the Child Care for Working Families Act would:
Improve the quality of child care and expand families’ child care options: The bill would help address child care deserts by providing resources to help open new child care providers in underserved communities. It would also increase child care options for children who receive care during non-traditional hours and support child care for children who are dual-language learners, experiencing homelessness, and in foster care.
Support higher wages for child care workers: Child care workers would be paid wages comparable to elementary school teachers who have similar credentials and experience.
Expand access to high-quality pre-K: States would receive funding to expand high-quality preschool programs for 3- and 4-year-olds.
Better support Head Start programs by providing the funding necessary to offer full-day, full-year programming and increasing wages for Head Start workers.
Senator Peters has long fought to improve access to affordable child care and support working families in Michigan. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Peters recently secured resources in funding legislation advanced by the committee to help Central Montcalm Public School’s Early Childhood Center in Stanton, Michigan to provide more child care and educational services for the community. Earlier this year, Peters sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., demanding answers about the closure of five regional Head Start Offices across the country, including Chicago’s Region 5 office, which serves Michigan’s Head Start centers. Peters made clear that this decision will negatively impact the early educational programs and child care support that children and families depend on.
Source: United States Senator for Arkansas – John Boozman
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR), along with Senators Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), introduced the bipartisan Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act to increase the number of Medicare-supported doctor training slots available for medical students and address the shortage of primary and specialty care physicians in Arkansas and across the country.
“There is an urgent, demonstrated need to strengthen our health care system by combating the alarming shortage of providers, particularly in rural areas,” said Boozman. “Lifting the outdated cap on residency positions supported by Medicare can expand the supply of physicians while helping ensure access to quality care and treatment in more communities nationwide. I am proud to work in a bipartisan way on this important medical workforce solution that also supports better health outcomes.”
“Our state faces a critical shortage of primary care and specialty physicians, preventing many Georgians from accessing health care services in their community,” said Warnock. “Where you live shouldn’t determine the type of medical care you receive, and I will not stop working to help our hospitals hire and retain the health care workforce that Georgians deserve.”
“In the face of growing demand for medical treatments and services, our country continues to struggle with a shortage of trained physicians. It is critical that we bridge the gap,” said Collins. “This bipartisan legislation would support training opportunities needed to alleviate the physician shortage and improve access to health care, particularly in rural or underserved communities, which in turn promotes healthier lives.”
“The physician shortage in New York and across the country drastically impedes our hospitals from delivering good, quality care, leading to longer wait times and putting more strain on a healthcare system that’s already stretched thin,” said Leader Schumer. “This bipartisan legislation would expand training supported by Medicare and help ensure our communities have access to primary care and specialty physicians when they need it.”
The U.S. faces a projected shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including up to 40,000 primary care doctors and as many as 20,000 surgical specialists. In 2023, around one-quarter of Arkansas’s medical residencies were not Medicare-supported Graduate Medical Education (GME) slots. Funding residencies independently is extremely costly to rural hospitals already struggling to attract and support physicians.
Specifically, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act addresses the growing physician workforce shortage by:
Raising the number of residency program positions that Medicare can fund by 14,000 over seven years; and
Prioritizing positions for states with hospitals located in rural areas, new medical schools, hospitals training physicians in excess of their cap as well as hospitals that serve areas designated as health professional shortage areas (HPSAs).
Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Angus King (I-ME), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Peter Welch (D-VT), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) have cosponsored the bill.
This measure builds upon Boozman’s continued efforts to champion health care in The Natural State. In March, Boozman introduced the Physicians for Underserved Areas Act to prioritize placement of available medical residency spots in rural and underserved areas, as well as the Resident Education Deferred Interest (REDI) Act to ease financial burdens on medical professionals completing their medical training.
The bill is supported by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), National Rural Health Association (NRHA), American Medical Association (AMA) and the Greater New York Hospital Association.
“The Association of American Medical Colleges applauds Senators Boozman, Warnock, Collins, Schumer, Gillibrand, Rosen, Klobuchar, King, Gallego, Welch, Slotkin, and Durbin for championing this important bipartisan legislation that would expand federal investment in physician training,” said AAMC President and CEO David J. Skorton, M.D. “With the nation facing a persistent physician shortage, this bipartisan bill would enhance and build on the investments academic health systems are making to strengthen the physician workforce by increasing Medicare support for physician training. We look forward to working with the Senate to advance this critical legislation and help ensure that patients across the country have access to timely, high-quality health care they deserve.”
“The National Rural Health Association is proud to support the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act and thanks Senator Boozman and Senator Warnock for their work to introduce this bill. Rural communities continue to experience a chronic lack of physicians and these shortages are only projected to grow,” said NRHA CEO Alan Morgan. “This important legislation is a huge step towards recruiting and training more physicians in rural areas and ensuring that all rural residents have access to care. We look forward to continuing to work with the senators to pass this bill and find sustainable solutions to rural workforce issues.”
“The American Medical Association commends Sens. John Boozman and Raphael Warnock for introducing this crucial bipartisan legislation that aims to address the physician shortage and resulting access challenges for patients,” said AMA President Bobby Mukkamala, M.D. “By expanding federal support for graduate medical education over the next seven years, Congress is taking a critical step toward ensuring patients nationwide have access to well-trained physicians in their communities.”
overnor Kathy Hochul today announced six designations to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in the First and Second Departments. Under New York’s Constitution, the Governor designates Justices of the Appellate Divisions from among the elected Justices of the State Supreme Court. This class is composed of highly skilled jurists who come from diverse personal and professional backgrounds, underscoring Governor Hochul’s commitment to ensuring New York State’s judiciary reflects the wide array of people who call New York home. The slate consists of four designations to the Appellate Division, First Department and two designations to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
“These designations to the Appellate Division are part of my continued commitment to building a judiciary that embodies the highest standards of legal excellence and reflects the rich diversity of New York,” Governor Hochul said. “Each of these jurists brings a wealth of experience and perspective that will strengthen our courts and help ensure that justice is served fairly and equitably across our state.”
As Justices of the Appellate Division, First Department:
Honorable Troy Webber, Associate Justice
Justice Troy K. Webber was elected to the Civil Court, New York County, in 1993 and assigned to the county of her birth, Bronx County. In 2002, she was elected to the Supreme Court. In 2009, Justice Webber was appointed Acting Surrogate in New York County, where she served for almost 2 years and then returned to Supreme Court, Bronx County. In 2016, Justice Webber was appointed to the Appellate Division, First Department.
Justice Webber began her legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in New York County. She then served as a Law Assistant to a State Supreme Court Justice, Assistant New York State Attorney General and Deputy Bureau Chief at the New York City Law Department. Justice Webber was also a litigation associate at a law firm. Justice Webber is a graduate of New York University School of Law, where she serves on the Alumni Board of Directors.
Justice Webber serves as Co-Chair of the Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission and is a member of the Metropolitan Black Bar Association, the Association of Women Judges, the Judicial Friends, and the New York County Lawyers Association. She serves on the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, the Advisory Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure and is a member of the board of directors of JALBCA (Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert).
Justice Webber participates in the Scales of Justice Academy, a summer legal educational program for underserved female high school students, as well as the Legal Outreach Program. She mentors students who attend NYU Law School, the City University of New York, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and Fordham University School of Law and participates in moot court programs sponsored by NYU Law School and New York Law School. Justice Webber is also an adjunct professor in criminal justice at Monroe University.
Honorable Saliann Scarpulla, Associate Justice
Justice Saliann Scarpulla is a graduate of Boston University and Brooklyn Law School, cum laude. After law school, Justice Scarpulla clerked for the Hon. Alvin F. Klein in Supreme Court, New York County. When her clerkship concluded, Justice Scarpulla joined Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn as a litigation associate. Justice Scarpulla later moved to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Senior Counsel in the New York Legal Services Office. From the FDIC Justice Scarpulla became Senior Vice President and Bank Counsel to Hudson United Bank.
Justice Scarpulla returned to the New York State court system in 1999, as Principal Court Attorney to the Hon. Eileen Bransten. She was then elected to the New York City Civil Court in 2001, appointed to the New York State Supreme Court in 2009, and elected to the Supreme Court in 2012. From 2014 to 2020, Justice Scarpulla sat in the New York County Commercial Division, and she was responsible for all international commercial arbitration matters pending in the State Supreme Court. In 2020, Justice Scarpulla was appointed to the Appellate Division, First Department.
Justice Scarpulla is a contributing author to the Commercial Litigation in New York State Courts treatise and has authored numerous articles on technology and commercial litigation. She is a frequent lecturer for, among others, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers Association, the New York State Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the Practicing Law Institute, and the New York State Judicial Institute. Justice Scarpulla has received the Louis J. Capozzoli Gavel award and the Thurgood Marshall award from the New York County Lawyers Association, the Rapallo/Scalia award from the Columbian Lawyers Association, and service awards from the National Association of Italian American Women and the New York Women’s Bar Association.
Justice Scarpulla is active in several New York City and statewide bar associations and is a Business Court Representative to the American Bar Association and Co-Chair of the Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Intellectual Property subcommittee. She is a member of New York’s Commercial Division Advisory Council, and the Co-Chair of the Council’s Subcommittee on Use of Technology in Commercial Division Cases. Justice Scarpulla also sits on the Chief Judge’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee, and, in October 2019, she was appointed for a term to the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board. Justice Scarpulla is a past Co-President and current Board member of Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert (JALBCA).
Honorable Shlomo Hagler, Additional Justice
Hon. Shlomo S. Hagler is the current Presiding Justice of the Appellate Term, First Department. He was appointed to the court in 2021. Justice Hagler began his judicial career in 1999, when he was appointed to New York City Housing Court. In 2003, he was elected to the New York City Civil Court, and in 2008, Justice Hagler was designated an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Civil Branch, New York County. As an Acting Justice, he established and presided over an “Innovative Guardianship Part” that combined the authority of the Supreme Court under the Mental Hygiene Law with that of the Housing Court. This initiative aimed to protect and empower vulnerable individuals within the community. In 2012, he was elected to the Supreme Court.
Justice Hagler earned his undergraduate degree from Yeshiva University in 1988, and a Juris Doctor from the City University of New York Law School in 1991. He started his legal career as an associate at Bartlett, Bartlett & Ziegler, P.C., before serving as Court Attorney to Hon. Martin Shulman, currently an Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, First Department.
Justice Hagler recently received an award celebrating his 25 years on the bench from the New York County Lawyers Association and in April 2025, received the Benjamin N. Cardozo award from the Jewish Lawyers Guild for excellence in the legal profession. He is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Jewish Lawyers Guild and the Gender Fairness Committee of the Supreme Court, New York County. Justice Hagler has given numerous lectures as a judicial panelist on various legal topics, including protecting tenants with disabilities in housing.
Honorable Margaret Anne Pui Yee Chan, Additional Justice
Justice Chan, elected in 2021 to the New York State Supreme Court, serves in the New York County Commercial Division resolving complex business disputes. Before her election, she was an Acting Justice from 2012, handling a wide range of cases from mass torts to constitutional litigation.
Born in Hong Kong, she immigrated to Canada at age seven and then, at fourteen, to Brooklyn. When she was elected to the New York City Civil Court in 2006, she became the first Asian immigrant woman to become a New York judge. Before ascending to the bench, Justice Chan had an immigration and appellate practice in Manhattan’s Chinatown. Her partner was Benjamin Gim, who co-founded the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund.
Justice Chan attended Brooklyn College full time, where she majored in economics while also working full-time. She later attended Touro Law Center on a scholarship and was the managing editor of the Law Review. She then completed five years as a senior court attorney at the Appellate Division, Second Department.
Justice Chan serves on various court committees, including the Committee on AI and the Courts and Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions (PJI) – Civil. She also served as a Fordham University School of Law adjunct professor from 2018-2024, teaching legal research and writing and the judicial-externship seminar.
As Justices of the Appellate Division, Second Department:
Honorable Elena Goldberg Velazquez, Additional Justice
Justice Elena Goldberg Velazquez was appointed to the Appellate Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, in 2024, where she hears appeals from landlord-tenant court, small claims court, civil court and criminal court. Recently, Justice Goldberg Velazquez was elected as the President of the Latino Judges Association.
In 2022, Justice Goldberg Velazquez was elected to the New York State Supreme Court, 9th Judicial District. Presently, she is assigned to Westchester County where she has presided over a variety of civil hearings and trials. Since her ascension to Supreme Court, she has also been published in the New York Law Journal. Prior to becoming a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Goldberg Velazquez was a Yonkers City Court Judge, where she handled criminal matters from arraignment to disposition, landlord-tenant matters (both residential and commercial), small claims and civil matters. She also presided over trials and felony hearings. In addition, while in City Court she was appointed as an Acting Family Court Judge presiding over the Integrated Domestic Violence Court.
Prior to being elected to the bench, Justice Goldberg Velazquez worked at the Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department for nearly a decade. Prior to working at the Appellate Division, Justice Goldberg Velazquez worked at private law firms handling primarily civil matters.
Justice Goldberg Velazquez is an active member of her community, having founded and served as president of her local neighborhood association. She has served as the President of the Puerto Rican Bar Association, Chair of the Women’s Committee and Chair of the Young Lawyers Committee. She is presently a member of the New York State Bar Association, Hudson Valley Hispanic Bar Association, Puerto Rican Bar Association, New York Women’s Judges Association, Westchester County Bar Association, Westchester Women’s Bar Association and the Yonkers Lawyers Association.
Justice Goldberg Velazquez is a graduate of CUNY School of Law, where she was the managing editor of the New York City Law Review and now serves on the Board of Visitors. She earned her Bachelors of Arts in Political Science and International Relations from Syracuse University where she graduated Pi Sigma Alpha. While at Syracuse, Justice Goldberg Velazquez was on the Dean’s List and a member of the nationally ranked Mock Trial Team.
Justice Goldberg Velazquez resides in Westchester with her husband and two young daughters.
Honorable Susan Quirk, Additional Justice
Hon. Susan Quirk was elected to the Civil Court Bench in Brooklyn in 2016, where she served until 2018. She was then assigned to Brooklyn Family Court in 2018 to augment the bench in response to the enactment and implementation of the Raise the Age legislation, where she presided until 2022 when she was elected to the Supreme Court in Brooklyn where she currently presides over all types of criminal matters.
Prior to becoming a judge, strongly attracted to both public service and the study of law, Judge Quirk began working as a paralegal in 1998 in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office while attending Brooklyn Law School in the evening. She graduated in 2004, receiving the distinction of being awarded the “Cali Excellence for the Future” Award for achieving the highest grade in Trial Advocacy. Upon being admitted to practice in 2005, Judge Quirk continued her career in public service by becoming an Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn, where she served with distinction until 2013, when she was designated a Court Attorney Referee in Supreme Court, where she continued to serve the public as a Hearing Officer until her election to the bench.
Active in the legal community, Judge Quirk is a member of the Supreme Court Justices Association of the City of New York; the Puerto Rican Bar Association; the Brooklyn Bar Association; the Brooklyn Women’s Bar Association; the Columbian Lawyers Association; the Catholic Lawyers Guild, Kings County Chapter; the Richmond County Bar Association; the Staten Island Women’s Bar Association, where she previously served on the Administrative Board; and the New York City Civil Court Judges Association, where she previously served as the Vice President for Richmond County.
Judge Quirk is the proud mom of two young daughters, both of whom currently attend her alma mater, St. Joseph Hill Academy.
Headline: SEED Program Honors More Than 70 Students at Recognition Ceremony
SEED Program Honors More Than 70 Students at Recognition Ceremony lsaito
Raleigh, NC
Today, more than 70 high school students from southeastern North Carolina were recognized for successfully completing the SEED (Southeastern Education and Economic Development) Program, a unique career exploration initiative focused on advanced manufacturing and agriculture.
“Every North Carolinian deserves a chance at success whether or not they want to pursue a traditional four-year degree,” said Governor Josh Stein. “Programs like SEED prepare students for careers in high-demand fields, giving them hands-on experience and industry-valued credentials. Congratulations to these students for their hard work in pursuit of a brighter future.”
The recognition ceremony, held at the University of Mount Olive, brought together students, educators, industry partners, and community leaders to celebrate the achievements of participants from five area community colleges: Wilson Community College, Lenoir Community College, Wayne Community College, Sampson Community College, and James Sprunt Community College.
The SEED Program is a registered pre-apprenticeship with ApprenticeshipNC, offering students a structured pathway into high-demand careers through hands-on learning, industry credentials, and exposure to real-world job environments. As a pre-apprenticeship, the program sets students up for success in future apprenticeship opportunities and long-term employment.
Made possible through generous funding from Smithfield Foods, SEED was created in partnership with the North Carolina Business Committee for Education (NCBCE), local school districts, community colleges, and regional employers. The program provides high school students with hands-on exposure to high-growth careers and helps build a sustainable talent pipeline for North Carolina’s workforce.
“Smithfield is committed to investing in the future of agriculture and manufacturing by equipping young people with the skills and experiences they need to thrive,” said Jay Bennett, chief human resources officer for Smithfield Foods. “Through our support of the SEED program, we’re building meaningful partnerships with communities and helping students discover rewarding career paths that strengthen our industry and workforce.”
“At Wayne Community College, we believe in the power of partnerships to transform lives and communities,” said Dr. Patricia Pfeiffer, President, Wayne Community College. “The SEED Program is a shining example of how education, industry, and public support can come together to create meaningful opportunities for our students. By giving them hands-on experiences and a clear path to future careers, we are not only preparing these young people for success but also strengthening the workforce and economy of eastern North Carolina.”
Throughout the summer, students engaged in immersive experiences, including classroom instruction, industry tours, and technical simulations. The Advanced Manufacturing Academy was hosted by Wilson, Lenoir, and Wayne community colleges, while Sampson, James Sprunt, and Wayne community colleges led the Agricultural Academy.
“Smithfield’s support helped bring this vision to life, giving students real-world experience in careers with long-term potential – right here in their home communities,” said Julia Wright, Board Chair of NCBCE. “We’re proud to recognize their dedication and growth through this program.”
Each student received a certificate of completion during the ceremony, recognizing their commitment to personal growth, technical skill development, and work toward building a brighter future for themselves and their communities.
SEED also provides financial support, covering stipends, supplies, and transportation to ensure students have the resources they need to succeed. In addition to the summer program, SEED supports career awareness for middle school students and offers professional development for teachers and counselors.
The SEED program continues to grow, with plans to expand into additional counties and career pathways in the coming years.
For more information on the SEED program, visit ncbce.org/seed.
Yesterday, the White House unveiled the Trump Administration’s transformative strategy to propel the United States into a new era of artificial intelligence dominance. Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, this groundbreaking blueprint establishes core tenets to accelerate innovation, fortify essential infrastructure, and assert U.S. leadership in diplomacy and security — cementing our position as the global AI powerhouse.
As Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang put it: “America’s unique advantage that no country could possibly have is President Trump.”
TheAI Action Planwas immediately hailed across the technology industry:
AI Innovation Association President Steve Kinard: “President Trump’s AI Action Plan is a bold path to global American leadership. Every American citizen, company, university and institution has a role to play. By prioritizing American workers, free speech, and security, it positions the U.S. to win the AI race and usher in a new era of prosperity and strength. The AI Innovation Association stands ready to support this initiative.”
Alliance for the Future: “The White House just advanced a more unified national AI strategy. States with clear, effective AI policies will be better positioned for federal support. A strong step toward alignment, innovation, and leadership.”
Amazon: “Amazon supports & continues to work at the state and federal level to establish consistent standards that promote the secure, responsible development of AI. We look forward to continued collaboration to fully realize AI’s potential in driving economic growth & tech advancement.”
American Beverage: “We applaud President Trump’s action plan to ensure America’s continued leadership in the global pursuit of artificial intelligence innovation and infrastructure. Maintaining our edge in this technology is important to the growth of American manufacturing and the good-paying jobs manufacturers provide in communities across the country.”
Chevron Corporation Chairman and CEO Mike Wirth: “President Trump’s American AI Action Plan is a bold and necessary step to ensure the United States leads the next great technological revolution. As I’ve said before, America has triumphed in every industrial era—from steel to energy—and we have the power and leadership to do it again in artificial intelligence. This plan recognizes that AI innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum—it demands reliable, scalable energy and infrastructure. By streamlining permitting, investing in data centers, and unleashing American energy, the President is laying the foundation for a future where AI strengthens our economy, our national security, and our global leadership. Chevron stands ready to help power this future.”
American Edge Project CEO Doug Kelly: “President Trump’s AI Action Plan is a giant leap forward in the race to secure American leadership in artificial intelligence. By prioritizing innovation, infrastructure, talent, and global reach, the plan confronts key barriers to American competitiveness, begins to fill long-standing gaps in our national strategy, and helps position the U.S. to beat China in this high-stakes tech race … Time is of the essence: China has had a national plan for global AI leadership since 2017, and is executing it relentlessly with talent, infrastructure, state-backed investment, and international influence. This is our moonshot moment. Now is the time for the country to rally together behind a shared, national mission to win the AI race. The stakes could not be higher.”
American Innovators Network: “The American Innovators Network (AIN), a national organization representing American Little Tech companies, commends President Trump and his administration for their bold and decisive action to counter China’s growing influence in the global AI landscape. The new guidelines and recommendations unveiled today mark a pivotal moment in securing America’s dominance in this critical technological race, and we are grateful for President Trump’s leadership in prioritizing policies that empower innovation and strengthen our national competitiveness.”
American Society of Association Executives President and CEO Michelle Mason: “President Trump’s Artificial Intelligence Action Plan strategically positions the United States as a global leader in the development and deployment of AI technology. ASAE applauds the focus on industry-driven training programs that equip workers with the skills they need to be successful in the workforce of tomorrow. ASAE’s members are eager to support efforts to create these training programs, and we encourage continued collaboration between the federal government and the association community.”
Americans for Prosperity Chief Government Affairs Officer Brent Gardner: “President Trump’s AI Action Plan will ensure America leads the world in innovation, economic freedom, and technological progress. By removing regulatory roadblocks, empowering innovative small business owners, and embracing open-source development, this plan puts the ingenuity of the American people—not bureaucrats—in the driver’s seat of the AI revolution. This move by the White House rightly course-corrects four years of Biden-era efforts to centrally control AI development and stifle American innovation. We applaud the administration’s commitment to protecting free speech and ensuring private-sector breakthroughs aren’t halted by burdensome regulation. It’s now time for Congress to work alongside the administration to codify these efforts in order to create generational change that will enable AI adoption across industries, remove permitting barriers to build infrastructure, and unleash innovation.”
Anthropic: “Today, the White House released ‘Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan’—a comprehensive strategy to maintain America’s advantage in AI development. We are encouraged by the plan’s focus on accelerating AI infrastructure and federal adoption, as well as strengthening safety testing and security coordination. Many of the plan’s recommendations reflect Anthropic’s response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) prior request for information … The alignment between many of our recommendations and the AI Action Plan demonstrates a shared understanding of AI’s transformative potential and the urgent actions needed to sustain American leadership. We look forward to working with the Administration to implement these initiatives while ensuring appropriate attention to catastrophic risks and maintaining strong export controls. Together, we can ensure that powerful AI systems are developed safely in America, by American companies, reflecting American values and interests.”
Arm: “We commend the Administration’s actions to unleash investment in AI, semiconductors, and the energy to power it. Arm, together with our partners, is working rapidly to bring AI to all forms of computing. Today’s announcements will accelerate AI data center and cloud infrastructure deployment in particular, while advancing plans to promote exports of the U.S. AI stack and ensuring American technology innovation. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration as it enacts and builds on today’s actions.”
Box CEO Aaron Levie: “America’s AI Action Plan is quite strong. It has a clear a mission to win the AI race and accelerate the development and use of AI by removing roadblocks or aiding adoption. Importantly, it focuses on the positive benefits of AI, which we’re all seeing every day.”
Business Roundtable: “BRT supports the @WhiteHouse AI Action Plan’s efforts to strengthen infrastructure, advance permitting reform, invest in workforce development and develop clear frameworks that empower US businesses to accelerate AI innovation and adoption.”
Business Software Alliance CEO Victoria Espinel: “The White House AI Action Plan offers a roadmap for the United States’ AI future anchored on the adoption of technology. The Business Software Alliance welcomes ‘America’s AI Action Plan’ for addressing a range of issues including talent and workforce development, infrastructure and data, and AI governance that serve as pillars for successful AI adoption and US competitiveness. BSA appreciates the Action Plan’s commitment to creating the essential conditions for widespread AI adoption. The Action Plan advances key BSA recommendations for AI talent, including developing an AI skills curriculum, improving access to training resources, and leveraging real-time workforce data. It emphasizes the development of critical infrastructure and reliable energy resources necessary to scale AI deployment. The Action Plan also reinforces the roles of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) and NIST in the development of standards and evaluation tools, a foundation for both domestic AI governance and in promoting international collaboration on AI. Additionally, the Action Plan streamlines government procurement processes, enabling public-sector agencies to more effectively access and adopt cutting-edge commercial AI solutions.”
Center for Data Innovation Senior Policy Manager Hodan Omaar: “The AI Action Plan shows the Trump administration is serious about winning the global AI race. It marks a clear evolution from the President’s 2019 AI initiative and reflects just how dramatically the global AI landscape has shifted over the past six years. The plan rightly recognizes that beating China demands a comprehensive effort—unleashing infrastructure to fuel model development, removing regulatory frictions that slow development and deployment, and promoting the export of American AI technology. These steps put the United States on a path not only to benefit from AI today, but to remain the global leader in the future.”
Connected Nation Chairman and CEO Tom Ferree: “This marks a transformational moment for American innovation. The release of the National AI Action Plan signals to the world that the United States intends not only to compete—but to lead—in the global race for artificial intelligence. We applaud the Trump Administration’s bold and comprehensive strategy, which rightly prioritizes accelerating innovation, unleashing infrastructure investment, and ensuring our nation’s AI capabilities are second to none. Connected Nation enthusiastically supports the plan’s focus on building out data center capacity, fast-tracking permitting, and expanding our skilled workforce. These are critical steps toward positioning the U.S. as the undisputed hub of next-generation computing.”
Consumer Choice Center Head of Emerging Technology Policy James Czerniawski: “The AI Action Plan is a bold vision for the future of ensuring AI leadership by the Trump administration. The Golden Age of America is made possible when we position our innovators to be as successful as possible, ensuring American consumers can benefit from the AI revolution happening on our shores. The economy of tomorrow starts with the building blocks laid out in this action plan. The provision which reviews rulemaking of the Federal Trade Commission is especially encouraging, quashing legal theories that would complicate or slow American consumers gaining access to AI technologies. This is a world of difference from the hostile regulatory approach of the Biden Administration, and a welcome breath of fresh air for consumers who want cutting-edge tech.”
Consumer Technology Association CEO Gary Shapiro: “Congratulations to @POTUS and the @WhiteHouse team on an AI Action Plan recognizing the U.S. must win the global AI race. The plan cuts red tape for innovators, boosts AI adoption across sectors, supports a future-focused AI workforce, and advances the American AI tech stack as the foundation for global tech growth.”
Data Center Coalition President Josh Levi: “The Data Center Coalition thanks President Trump for releasing Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan—a bold framework to ensure the United States remains the undisputed global leader in artificial intelligence. The administration’s plan recognizes that developing a robust domestic data center industry is vital to promoting U.S. national security, global economic competitiveness, and continued American AI dominance … Today’s announcement is a major step forward, and we look forward to continuing to work with the administration and lawmakers to ensure the U.S. remains at the forefront of global innovation and digital resilience.”
Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell: “Proud to see the White House AI Action Plan accelerating innovation, building home‑grown AI infrastructure, and strengthening America’s security. 🇺🇸 Dell Technologies is all‑in—ready to power U.S. ingenuity, create jobs, and keep us leading the future. 🚀”
Gecko Robotics: “Gecko Robotics welcomes the AI action plan published by the White House today. The United States must win the global AI race and will only do so by using artificial intelligence to supercharge energy production itself. At the same time, it is critical that we collect and use high-fidelity data to feed AI models, and we remain at the forefront of leading this charge.”
General Catalyst Institute President Teresa Carlson: “Today, the Trump Administration unveiled their widely-anticipated AI Action Plan. Upon review, I am encouraged by their pro-growth approach that prioritizes American innovation, national security, and federal leadership over bureaucratic barriers. This policy was not crafted in a vacuum. It was part of an inclusive process, where earlier this year the General Catalyst Institute submitted views on behalf of startups as to how best deepen America’s AI leadership through transformative technologies.”
Heritage Foundation Center for Technology and the Human Person Acting Director Wesley Hodges: “The AI Action Plan is a call for a new industrial renaissance, an ambitious strategy that the Administration should be commended for leading. It charts the course for building significant domestic compute infrastructure—from expanding energy capacity, to constructing data centers and increasing domestic advanced semiconductor manufacturing. At the same time, the plan also emphasizes that American AI technology must be developed free of ideological bias, and ensure working families are benefited and not left behind. We look forward to supporting the administration’s work to align this technology with human flourishing.”
IBM Chairman and CEO Arvind Krishna: “IBM applauds the White House for its bold and timely AI Action Plan, which prioritizes open innovation, strengthens U.S. technological leadership, and proposes a supportive regulatory environment for AI development and deployment. The plan is a critical step towards harnessing AI for sustained economic growth and national competitiveness.”
Information Technology Industry Council President and CEO Jason Oxman: “President Trump’s AI Action Plan presents a blueprint to usher in a new era of U.S. AI dominance. The administration’s vision takes essential steps to ensure the U.S. can win the global AI race by prioritizing U.S. energy production and infrastructure development to power AI’s growth, promoting U.S. AI leadership internationally by supporting the export of the full stack of American AI technologies to partners and allies, and accelerating adoption of AI across the public and private sectors. Importantly, the President’s Plan includes key directives for agencies and communicates clear U.S. policy objectives that will encourage widespread adoption and fuel U.S. technological and economic competitiveness. As agencies begin implementing the President’s plan, we encourage policymakers to invest in modernizing government technology and to leverage industry’s deep expertise to maintain America’s AI leadership.”
Internet Works Executive Director Peter Chandler: “As the AI race accelerates globally, it’s encouraging to see policymakers recognize the need for bold investment in innovation, adoption, and infrastructure. Middle Tech companies, many of whom are deployers and integrators of AI tools, are essential to ensuring that AI benefits reach small businesses, everyday users, and communities across the country. We welcome the Trump Administration’s emphasis on modernizing our digital and energy infrastructure and expanding support for open, responsible AI development and adoption. To win the AI race, we need policy frameworks that are risk-based and right-sized—supporting trust, safety, and competition across the full tech ecosystem. Internet Works stands ready to partner with leaders at every level to shape an AI future that’s secure, innovative, and built for everyone.”
Lightspeed Venture Partners Founder Ravi Mhatre: “In AI, you either own the frontier or get commoditized. The AI Action Plan helps ensure that America continues to build by streamlining regulation, identifying opportunities for AI to scale, and getting more energy online. It will help ensure America owns the future of AI while others still try to catch up to what we built yesterday.”
Lumen Technologies: “Lumen Technologies supports the Administration’s AI Action Plan and its call for a unified framework to accelerate AI innovation and next-generation fiber infrastructure deployment across the U.S. As a leading networking services company building the digital backbone for AI, Lumen is investing heavily to meet the demands of AI-driven enterprises and public-sector modernization and understands the criticality of secure, high-performance networks. We applaud the efforts included in the plan by the FCC, OMB and OSTP that aim to reduce regulatory barriers to innovation, modernize permitting, and streamline the NEPA review process for critical fiber and data center infrastructure. Winning the AI future requires clear, consistent policies that accelerate nationwide deployment of network infrastructure and public-private partnerships that turn this plan into reality. Lumen stands ready to work with federal and state agencies to ensure America leads the AI revolution.”
Meta Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan: “The AI race is about the future of US economic power & national security. President Trump’s strong leadership on AI will help us keep our foot on the gas. We’re in the middle of a fierce competition with China for AI leadership. The White House’s AI Action Plan is a bold step to create the right regulatory environment for companies like ours to invest in America. @Meta is proud to be investing hundreds of billions of dollars in job-creating infrastructure across the US, including state-of-the-art data centers, creating American jobs in the process.”
Micron Technology President and CEO Sanjay Mehrotra: “We support the White House’s AI Action Plan, which underscores the strategic importance of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing as critical infrastructure for the global AI economy. Memory is foundational to AI — powering technologies across data centers, automotive, telecommunications, defense, and consumer electronics. As the only U.S.-based memory manufacturer and a technology leader, Micron is investing $200 billion in manufacturing and R&D to create 90,000 American jobs and help ensure U.S. leadership in the AI era through a resilient and secure supply chain.”
National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons: “Reflecting President Trump’s vision for the United States to lead on artificial intelligence, the White House’s AI Action Plan underscores what manufacturers across the country already know: AI is no longer a future ambition—it is already central to modern manufacturing. For years, manufacturers have been developing and deploying AI-driven technologies—machine vision, digital twins, robotics and more—to make shop floors safer, strengthen supply chains and drive growth.”
National Association of Realtors EVP and Chief Advocacy Officer Shannon McGahn: “We applaud the administration’s release of Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan, which reinforces the U.S. as a global leader in this transformative technology. It’s especially encouraging to see real estate infrastructure recognized as a cornerstone of America’s future. Housing is essential to economic strength and innovation, and we urge policymakers to apply the plan’s smart permitting strategies to help tackle today’s housing supply crisis.”
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors: “The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) applauds President Trump’s newly released AI Action Plan, which outlines a comprehensive and forward-looking approach to federal artificial intelligence (AI) policy. We are particularly encouraged to see several of NAW’s recommendations—submitted during the Administration’s Request for Information process in March—reflected in the plan … NAW looks forward to continuing to work with the Administration to ensure the outcomes from the Action Plan support further AI deployment and adoption across the wholesale distribution industry.”
National Mining Association President and CEO Rich Nolan: “The administration’s recognition of the importance of existing power plants and prioritization of safeguarding them is clear acknowledgement that the coal fleet is essential to U.S. AI leadership. For the U.S. to guide and shape the AI revolution – and seize this tremendous opportunity – we need a grid and energy resources capable of shouldering the enormous new electricity demand now on our doorstep. Prioritizing the ongoing operation of essential coal plants – with the capacity to meet increased demand – combined with reforming our power markets around the goal of grid stability articulated in this action plan puts us firmly on the path for success.”
NetChoice Director of Policy Patrick Hedger: “NetChoice applauds the White House’s AI Action Plan overall and is encouraged to see the focus on red tape reduction and investment in America’s future. From unleashing energy to embracing regulatory humility and ensuring our AI systems are adopted around the world, we look forward to working with the President to usher in the Golden Age of American innovation. The difference between the Trump administration and Biden’s is effectively night and day. The Biden administration did everything it could to command and control the fledgling but critical sector. That is a failed model, evident in the lack of a serious tech sector of any kind in the European Union and its tendency to rush to regulate anything that moves. The Trump AI Action Plan, by contrast, is focused on asking where the government can help the private sector, but otherwise, get out of the way.”
Oil and Gas Workers Association: “President Trump’s EO for rapid buildout of data centers means more demand for reliable, affordable natural gas. Demand = Drilling … Drilling = Jobs … Thank you, @POTUS!”
Palantir: “AI is the birthright of the country that harnessed the atom and put a man on the moon. With today’s AI Action Plan, the Trump Administration has written the source code for the next American century. Palantir is proud to support it.”
QTS Co-CEO Tag Greason: “The Trump Administration’s AI Action Plan will advance efforts to ensure the United States maintains leadership in AI, including both technology development and critical digital infrastructure. As the digital infrastructure leader, QTS is focused on responsibly and sustainably building the future of our country and economy. We continue to listen and engage with the communities we call home with a steadfast commitment to providing job opportunities, fostering economic growth, working with local suppliers, and operating as trusted neighbors. This historic action and investment will directly benefit communities where we are developing data centers for AI.”
Salesforce Inc. President and Chief Legal Officer Sabastian Niles: “We welcome the Administration’s strong emphasis on AI adoption, workforce readiness, and government modernization in today’s AI Action Plan. Trusted AI will be a cornerstone of national competitiveness, security, and continued American innovation. Salesforce is committed to helping the public and private sectors harness its full potential.”
Siemens USA President and CEO Barbara Humpton: “Excited to join business leaders today for the launch of The White House’s #AIActionPlan boosting American leadership in #AI and innovation to greater heights. Every day, Siemens USA is using #IndustrialAI to revitalize U.S. #manufacturing, build critical #infrastructure, and expand what’s humanly possible for American workers. We’re creating a new industrial tech sector that combines the real and digital worlds, thanks to Industrial AI, digital twins, software-defined automation, and more. Of course, no company can truly lead in AI without a solid foundation of trust. That’s why I was so pleased to see a framework for accelerating innovation while maintaining security included in the AI Action Plan. By focusing on secure infrastructure, industrial R&D, digital transformation, and workforce development, we can help manufacturers of all sizes join the next AI-driven industrial revolution. It’s an exciting time for Industrial AI, and I can’t wait to see where Siemens, our customers, and our partners will go next with this industry-changing technology.”
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council President and CEO Karen Kerrigan: “America’s AI future is a powerful and positive one that expands opportunities and unlocks new possibilities and industries. U.S. entrepreneurs are the driving force behind AI innovation, and small business owners are already benefitting from transformative AI tools. The possibilities and opportunities are boundless, but the U.S. must continue to lead and win the AI race. ‘America’s AI Action Plan’ lays out a strategy to make that happen. The plan embraces America’s innovative potential and addresses the incentives and hurdles to fully harness innovation, including the human and physical infrastructure required to cement U.S. leadership. SBE Council congratulates President Trump and the White House team for developing an extraordinary AI Action Plan, and we look forward to working with the Administration and Congress on its implementation.”
Society for Human Resource Management: “The President’s plan is not just about technology—but about people. The emphasis is on a worker-first approach that addresses American competitiveness in an AI-driven workforce. The plan reflects a fundamental truth that SHRM has long championed: technology alone does not move the workplace forward—people do.”
Software & Information Industry Association SVP for Global Public Policy Paul Lekas: “The AI Action Plan represents a meaningful strategy to support innovation and security, strengthen U.S. competitiveness, and ensure the benefits of AI are broadly shared. This plan provides the roadmap to cement the United States as the global leader in AI by supporting innovation and security, strengthening U.S. competitiveness, and ensuring the benefits of AI are broadly shared. We’re especially encouraged by the plan’s focus on workforce development and AI literacy as core elements of AI infrastructure. These are key components for building trust and ensuring all communities can participate in and benefit from AI’s potential.”
Special Competitive Studies Project President Ylli Bajraktari: “Building on the foundational work of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), SCSP has consistently advocated for a comprehensive national strategy to secure America’s technological future. This AI Action Plan provides a critical component for winning the techno-economic competition of the 21st century. It correctly identifies that our national security and economic prosperity, as well as America’s global leadership position, are now intertwined with leadership in AI. We are committed to helping transform this strategic vision into enduring national policy.”
TechNet CEO Linda Moore: “TechNet strongly supports the administration’s AI Action Plan and is especially grateful for their willingness to work with industry to establish best practices. This policy framework takes critical steps towards developing a strong domestic workforce, building critical AI infrastructure, launching public-private partnerships, removing regulatory barriers to innovation, strengthening the domestic AI stack, and enhancing U.S. global AI diplomacy. The AI Action Plan makes clear that countering Chinese influence and securing America’s leadership in the AI race are top priorities for the United States. We look forward to continuing to work closely with the administration on policies that advance AI innovation while safeguarding the public interest and ensuring America’s global AI dominance.”
U.S. Chamber of Commerce EVP and Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley: “We applaud President Trump and his administration for issuing the AI Action Plan to strengthen U.S. global leadership in artificial intelligence. This forward-looking plan takes steps to accelerate innovation by fixing a regulatory landscape hobbled by conflicting state-level laws and activist-driven overreach, streamlining permitting for critical AI infrastructure, ensuring reliable and affordable energy for consumers and businesses, and advancing U.S. leadership in AI diplomacy. These proposed actions will position the United States to tackle our most pressing challenges and lead the global AI race by setting the gold standard for the development and deployment of responsible, transformative technologies. America is counting on this crucial technology to propel economic growth for all sectors, from small business to energy and health care, and the AI Action Plan presents a roadmap to unlock AI’s full potential. We will work with the administration to help implement this plan and foster a competitive, open, and innovation-driven AI ecosystem.”
USTelecom President and CEO Jonathan Spalter: “The Trump Administration’s AI action plan is a turbo boost for American innovation. From clearing regulatory roadblocks to reforming outdated permitting to doubling down on security, this is the kind of bold leadership we need to win the AI race. But even the best-engineered AI needs a track built for speed—and that’s where fiber comes in. Fiber broadband is the fast lane for America’s AI future: powerful, secure, scalable, and built to go the distance, whether you’re in a big city or a heartland town. Broadband providers are tuned up, fully fueled, and ready to work with the Administration to help America stay a lap ahead in the competition for AI leadership.”
Workday VP of Corporate Affairs Chandler Morse: “Workday has long advocated for federal action that drives critical AI innovation and builds trust. The Administration’s AI Action Plan, announced today, seeks to avoid excessive regulatory hurdles, elevate human potential through targeted and timely reskilling, and accelerate AI adoption at the federal level. This sends a strong message to federal agencies, the U.S. economy, and global stakeholders on the benefits of driving AI competitiveness.”
xAI: “Today’s announcement by the White House is a positive step toward removing regulatory barriers and enabling even faster innovation for the benefit of Americans and for humanity as a whole. We are pleased to see the White House prioritize AI innovation.”
Zoom Chief Global Affairs Officer Josh Kallmer: “Just got back from an inspiring day where I had the opportunity to be part of the conversation around the President’s #AI Action Plan. It was energizing to see so many leaders across industries coming together to talk about the future of AI in the U.S.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)
Six Months into Trump Admin, Pressley Reintroduces Bill to Codify Equity, Improve Government Services for Underserved Communities
Bill Text | Press Conference Video
WASHINGTON – As the nation marks six months of the Trump Administration, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07),Congressman Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Chair of the Congressional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Caucus, and their colleagues are affirming their unwavering commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives amid Donald Trump’s attacks and continuing to advance an affirmative, equitable vision for communities of color, the LGBTQIA+ community, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups.
Congresswoman Pressley was joined by Maya Wiley, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Marc Morial, President and CEO, National Urban League, Juan Proaño, CEO, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Rob Weissman, Co-President, Public Citizen, at a Capitol Hill press conference yesterday to discuss their broader fight to defend diversity amidst the Trump Administration’s harmful and unprecedented onslaught on DEI. The full video from their press conference is available here.
“Donald Trump’s first six months in office have been a precise, intentional assault on people of color, as well as our LGBTQIA+ siblings, folks with disabilities, and other marginalized people. Despite this, we’re more resolved than ever in our commitment to a more just, equitable, and diverse America,” said Congresswoman Pressley. “I’m proud to join my colleagues and movement partners in making plain that we will not be silenced and we will not stand by as Donald Trump and extremist Republicans resegregate America and continue rolling back our hard-earned civil rights. We must work to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion is the law of the land. That is why the Equity in Government Act is deeply necessary and will aide our efforts by helping to ensure the federal government works for all people.”
“Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not just policies—they are essential commitments to fairness and opportunity for all,” said Congressman Jackson, Co-Chair of the Congressional Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Caucus. “The escalating rollback of DEI protections is a direct attack on the rights and futures of Black, brown, Veterans, and disabled Americans. We will not accept the reckless undoing of progress won through generations of struggle. I stand with my colleagues and communities across this country to defend DEI, because every person in America deserves the dignity to thrive. This fight is about justice, about truth, and about building a nation where no one is left behind.”
“In a time when others seek to divide and exclude, this bill is a beacon of hope for Latino communities who have long been left behind. Ensuring equity in government isn’t just a box to check — it’s a lifeline for the more than 60 million Latinos in our country,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC. “By making diversity, equity, and inclusion the law of the land, this policy will uplift our families and ensure our voices are heard in every federal agency. LULAC is proud to stand with Congresswoman Pressley, Congressman Jackson, and their colleagues on this bold, affirmative vision for America, because an inclusive America is a stronger America for us all.”
“The Leadership Conference supports the Equity in Government Act because federal agencies are required by civil rights laws and principles to make sure they are serving all communities fairly,” said Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “Regardless of your race, ZIP code, or bank account, we need the government to make sure we are getting the health care, education, and other services we all need. We are witnessing cuts that harm a Latino child who attends Head Start or a student with disabilities who relies on educational supports in schools, in addition to the elimination of grants that address health disparities of people of color — all because they are part of advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. This bill ensures agencies have to collect data, listen to communities, and have dedicated teams focused on serving everyone equitably. Democracy is more than just a promise — it’s an obligation to enact and enforce civil rights. We will not go back to a time when this country didn’t care about all of us. We continue to fight for a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible future for all our people.”
“The National Urban League’s 2025 State of Black America report, ‘A State of Emergency: Civil Rights, Democracy, and Progress Under Attack’ lays bare a deliberate, coordinated campaign to reverse decades of progress,” National Urban League President and CEO Marc H. Morial said. “In the last six months, federal departments protecting civil rights have been defunded, voting protections rolled back, and diversity programs criminalized. Far-right actors have weaponized the term ‘woke’ to attack equity, inclusion, and even historical truth. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has been twisted into a tool of political retaliation. The National Urban League is proud to stand with Congresswoman Pressley and all our allies to meet this moment of crisis.”
“Every American should be appalled by the racist, sexist and ableist policies of this administration, which aim to exacerbate social and economic inequality. Every American should also understand that these policies are not only unjust, they make America weaker. Rollbacks in consumer protection, environmental protection, civil liberties and more – carried out under the cloak of “anti-DEI” policies – leave every American more vulnerable to abuses and the country itself far weaker. That’s why America needs Rep. Ayanna Pressley’s leadership and passage of the Equity in Governance Act.” – Rob Weissman, Public Citizen Co-President
“Inclusive America is a non-profit and bipartisan organization that works to ensure the government is as diverse as the American people. With this reasoning, our team worked with Rep. Pressley to push the Equity in Government Act which is a critical step towards a broader reform of civil rights and equal opportunity.” — Inclusive America Advocacy Team
As part of her fight to defend diversity, Congresswoman Pressley is introducing the Equity in Government Act, legislation to advance equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government. The bill would codify key ideas from the Biden-Harris Administration’s Executive Orders 13985 and 14091 —which Donald Trump revoked on his first day in office —to ensure that federal agencies continue their work to promote equal opportunity for all, including people of color, women, rural communities, individuals with disabilities, and others that have been systemically excluded from participating fully in economic, social, and civic life.
Full text of the Equity in Government Act is available here.
On his first day in office, President Biden signed Executive Order (EO) 13985, launching a historic, whole-of-government effort to advance equity by requiring federal agencies to identify and address barriers to serving underserved communities. In 2023, he followed with EO 14091, which expanded this work by establishing agency equity teams, a White House steering committee, and annual equity action plans to embed equity in federal planning.
This progress was long overdue. In 2021, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) found that most federal agencies lacked the demographic data necessary to identify barriers to equity in their programs and services – let alone develop serious plans to eliminate them. Yet, on his very first day in office, Trump dismantled these equity-focused efforts, underscoring the need for statutory protections.
The Equity in Government Act codifies several key ideas from the Biden EOs and ensures that agencies continue this work for years to come – regardless of who occupies the White House. Specifically, it would:
Require agencies include at least one goal relating to improving the equitable provision of services when they submit Agency Strategic Plans and Agency Performance Plans;
Require agencies to consult with community organizations and other stakeholders as they develop and revise their strategic plans and work towards their performance goals;
Permanently authorize the Federal Chief Data Officer Council, which works to improve the quality, use, and management of data for evidence-based government operations, and ensuring that the Council’s work facilitates fair and equitable outcomes;
Establish an Equity Subcommittee of the existing Performance Improvement Council, which would serve as an interagency working group to facilitate the development and sharing of guidance, data, and best practices for providing government services fairly, and would be required to solicit input directly from those receiving such services; and
Establish statutory requirements for an Agency Equity Advisory Team within each federal agency, led by the agency’s Performance Improvement Officer and with representation from key internal agency offices.
Co-sponsors of the Equity in Government Act include Representatives Alma Adams, Joyce Beatty, Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Shontel M. Brown, André Carson, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, Yvette D. Clarke, James Clyburn, Danny K. Davis, Cleo Fields, Valerie Foushee, Maxwell Frost, Robert Garcia, Sylvia R. Garcia, Steven Horsford, Jonathan L. Jackson, Pramila Jayapal, Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr., Robin L. Kelly, Timothy M. Kennedy, Summer L. Lee, Stephen Lynch, LaMonica McIver, Kweisi Mfume, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, Jamie Raskin, Lateefah Simon, Darren Soto, Melanie Stansbury, Shri Thanedar, Rashida Tlaib, Nydia Velazquez, Bonnie Watson Coleman, and Nikema Williams.
The bill is endorsed by the following organizations: AAPI Victory Alliance, ACLU, African American Policy Forum, American Oversight, Common Cause, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inclusive America, Interfaith Alliance, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), National Action Network, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, National Urban League, National Black Justice Collective, Popular Democracy, Public Citizen, and SEIU.
In April 2022, Rep. Pressley joined Administration officials at a White House event to announce the executive orders, which followed calls from Congresswoman Pressley and then-House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney for robust data collection, assessment tools, and stakeholder engagement to ensure the success of the initiative. Video of the event is available here.
Rep. Pressley has consistently advocated for race-conscious policies to help close the racial wealth gap in America, uplift Black, brown, and other marginalized communities, and transform the criminal legal system to center the dignity, humanity, and equality of everyone who calls America home —especially during the second Trump Administration.
On January 22, 2025, Rep. Pressley issued a statement slamming the Trump Administration’s harmful executive actions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), including the placement of DEI employees on leave ahead of their eventual layoffs.
In February, during Black History Month, Rep. Pressley and Senator Cory Booker reintroduced H.R. 40, legislation to establish a federal commission to examine the lasting legacy of slavery and develop reparations proposals for African American descendants of enslaved people.
In May, she and Senator Paul Tonko led 69 of their colleagues on a letter to the Inspector General of the Smithsonian Institution demanding an investigation of the impact of Donald Trump’s harmful Executive Order attacking Smithsonian museums – namely, the American Art Museum, the American Women’s History Museum, and the National Museum of African American History and Culture – attempting to erase histories of marginalized communities.
Earlier this year, Rep. Pressley delivered a floor speech slamming Trump’s attack on Smithsonian museums and affirming that Black history is American history.
Congresswoman Pressley and Senator Booker are the lead co-sponsors of the American Opportunity Accounts Act—also known as Baby Bonds—legislation that would create a federally-funded savings account for every American child in order to make economic opportunity a birthright for every child and help close the racial wealth gap.
Congresswoman Pressley is the lead sponsor of the People’s Justice Guarantee (PJG) – her comprehensive, decarceration-focused resolution that outlines a framework for a fair, equitable and just legal system.
I’m writing to let you know about two changes on our senior leadership team.
First, Jeffrey Geoghegan, who has served as Executive Vice President for Finance and Chief Financial Officer for both UConn and UConn Health since 2022, will be returning to UConn Health full-time as its CFO.
Under the leadership of Dr. Agwunobi, UConn Health continues to move forward with its important plans for strategic clinical growth in the years ahead. Due to the enormity and complexity of this process, on top of the normal work of managing UConn Health’s budget year-to-year, we agreed that Jeff’s exclusive focus must be on UConn Health during this critical time, rather than on overseeing the finances of the entire institution.
Prior to his current appointment, Jeff previously served as CFO of UConn Health beginning in 2013.
I want to thank Jeff for his excellent and exceptionally hard work over the last three years as he has helped guide our University through multiple budget cycles and in planning for our fiscal future.
Related, I have appointed Reka Wrynn as Interim Vice President for Finance for UConn. In this expanded role, Reka will continue to lead the development and management of the operating and capital budgets for Storrs and the regional campuses, as well as oversee mandatory institutional data reporting and analysis. In addition, her portfolio will now include oversight of the Financial Operations and Controller’s Division and the Procurement Office.
Reka has been at UConn since 1999 and has served as Associate Vice President for Budget, Planning and Institutional Research since 2022. I want to thank Reka for her continued service to UConn and her willingness to step into this interim role.
We will soon be launching a search for Executive Vice President for Operations and CFO for the Storrs and regional campuses. The membership of the search committee is below.
Nathan Fuerst (Search Chair), Vice President for Student Life and Enrollment, UConn Jeff Geoghegan, CFO, UConn Health Amy Yancey, President and CEO, UConn Foundation David Benedict, Director of Athletics, UConn Phil Hunt, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the President Eric Kruger, Vice President for Facility Services and University Planning, UConn Daniel Schwartz, Vice Provost for Academic Operations, UConn Janel Simpson, Chief Administrative Officer, UConn Health Reka Wrynn, Interim Vice President for Finance, UConn Margaret Feeney, Executive Director of Strategic Planning & Initiatives, UConn Lindsay DiStefano, Associate Vice President for Research Development, UConn/UConn Health Robert Day, Chair, Senate Executive Committee, University Senate, UConn Rachel Rubin, Executive Secretary to the Board of Trustees, UConn
We will be assisted in the search by the firm Russell Reynolds Associates.
UConn School of Medicine’s Chief of the Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Dr. Kwame Amankwah volunteered for the first ever Career Day at Horizons at Westminster School.
And you can see the joy and impact his time had on the middle schoolers from Hartford.
“It was truly a rewarding experience to be part of such an amazing event. Having the opportunity to introduce these young individuals to careers they might not have known about was very meaningful,” shared Amankwah of UConn Health who taught the summer program students more about their health, how to do health screenings like taking their own pulse, and even showed vascular surgery tools he uses in the operating room.
Dr. Amankwah teaching students of Horizons at Westminster School how to take their own pulse. (Photo by Westminster School).
Horizons at Westminster provides a free academic and enrichment program each summer to close opportunity gaps for students from Hartford. Participating Hartford Public School students attend for a six-week summer program—starting in kindergarten and returning every summer through 12th grade.
Horizon students can’t stop talking about the conversations they had with the Career Day participants like vascular surgeon Amankwah from UConn. Other successful Connecticut professionals they also had the opportunity to meet and learn from included a video game engineer, TV news anchor, sports news producer, former NFL player, real estate agent, insurance expert, state legislator, forensic scientist, podcaster, police officer, lawyer, biomedical engineer, and business developer.
The experts volunteering at the first Career Day of Horizons at Westminster School including UConn vascular surgeon chief Dr. Kwame Amankwah (fourth from left). (Photo by Westminster School).
Amankwah added, “Even more inspiring was seeing the students realize that all of these career paths are within their reach—that there is nothing they cannot achieve.”
Dr. Kwame Amankwah at Horizons at Westminster School (Photo by Westminster School).
“It was very clear to us how much the students enjoyed this and how important it is, particularly as Horizons at Westminster will continue to grow and support our students throughout high school,” shared Katie McKinney, development director for Horizons at Westminster School.
“It was definitely fun and educational,” concluded Amankwah about the special Career Day.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Eerke Boiten, Professor of Cybersecurity, Head of School of Computer Science and Informatics, De Montfort University
As of July 25 2025, people in the UK accessing web services with pornographic content will have to prove they are over 18 years of age. This development has been in the works for a while. It was proposed in 2014 by the video-on-demand regulator, and legislated for introduction in 2019 through the British Board of Film Classification.
It is of course important to stop children from accessing inappropriate material online. But, as often with technological solutions to societal problems, all available methods of age checking come with significant downsides in terms of privacy, security and human rights.
A strict separation between sites that do or do not have pornography means the definition of pornography, (not in itself illegal in the UK, becomes crucial. Tech companies are likely to use conservative algorithms (“overblocking”) in response. Historically this has affected sex education online, making it harder for young people to find sexual health advice or explore LGBT+ identities.
The failure to implement the law in 2019 was blamed on an administrative error, but the problems with technological solutions also played a role. Technology in this area has barely progressed, but nevertheless the regulator Ofcom ghas now said that several methods are capable of being highly effective.
The methods Ofcom suggests now come into two categories, which I will describe here as direct and indirect.
With direct methods, visitors will have to prove to the website that they are over 18. The most obvious way is by sharing both photo ID, such as a passport, and then also a selfie as proof that the passport belongs to them (in cybersecurity terminology, the passport is a “credential” and the selfie serves to “bind” the credential to the user).
Most people would obviously object to submitting these to a porn site. Part of the reason for this is that this would fully identify users, and allow the site to associate their identity to their preferences in browsing.
Anonymity on the internet may have got a bad name because of online “trolls”, but it has a serious positive human rights dimension, particularly also for children. Freedom of expression and association can be exercised much more safely if online anonymity is an option.
Anonymous access to any sites relating to sex can be viewed as liberating people to exercise their right to a sex life without interference or shame. Most age verification methods undermine anonymity to some extent, even if not as obviously and completely as passports and selfies do.
Indirect methods use an intermediary organisation to verify the person’s age. There are lobby groups associated with these organisations that have been influential in policy making for UK online safety for the last decade. Another strong influence has been politicians’ belief in the economic potential of the UK “safety tech” sector.
Users prove their age once with the intermediary, leading to a credential that may be used – typically multiple times – on the website without providing personal data. This looks like a nice clean solution, requiring trust in the intermediary but not in the “porn site”, until you consider “binding” – how do you know it’s the same user?
Borrowing or stealing of such credentials may be minor risks, but a black market in them could provide ways for teenagers to circumvent age restrictions (alongside virtual private networks VPNs, an encryption method which stop a user’s internet traffic from being intercepted by third parties).
Intermediaries do all promise to delete or protect the information used for the proof of age, after varying periods. This limits the associated security and hence privacy risks, but does not eliminate them.
There are also incidental indirect methods, where an existing third party happens to know we are over 18. This includes banks (the “open banking” verification method), credit cards (not allowed under 18 in the UK), or mobile phone companies that can confirm a person has been able to get their porn filter removed, proving they must be over 18.
All indirect methods have so-called “linkability” privacy issues. The credential becomes an identifier, which allows the website, the intermediary, or both to link different visits to the same site or to other sites, and build up a picture like a browsing history that will become more individual and more intrusive over time.
Age estimation
Finally there are methods that do not actually verify your age but only estimate it. One way is via your email address and detecting how much “adult behaviour”, such as buying insurance, it has been involved with.
For most of us who do not use throw-away email addresses, it drives home the extent to which our main email address forms the key to mass online surveillance of everything we do. Maybe we would rather not be reminded. It certainly seems excessive for proving our age.
A lot of commercial effort has also gone into face-based age estimation technology. As with human age checking for alcohol in supermarkets, it is very approximate and unfair on people who do not look their age. In both cases, another verification method needs to be added as a backup.
To make the online world safer for kids, technological measures have had adverse effect on freedom that go beyond just removing porn. As a result, additional online surveillance gets put in place for many of us. Creating additional sensitive databases of information also sets up targets for cybercriminals.
Even more seriously, the “database state” offers potential for the kind of repressive mass surveillance that privacy activists have been warning of for decades. In that context, can we really afford to add to internet surveillance?
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Eerke Boiten has in the past received funding from various research funding organisations, none of it relating to the topic of this article.
We are living in an age of anxiety. People face multiple existential crises such as climate change and conflicts that could potentially escalate into nuclear war.
So how do people cope with competing threats like this? And what happens to climate anxiety when wars suddenly erupt and compete for our attention?
Climate change affects our physical and mental health, directly through extreme climate-related droughts, wildfires and intense storms. It also affects some people indirectly through so-called “climate anxiety”. This term covers a range of negative emotions and states, including not just anxiety, but worry and concern, hopelessness, anger, fear, grief and sadness.
A team of researchers led by Caroline Hickman from the University of Bath surveyed 10,000 children and young people (aged 16 to 25 years) in ten countries (Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK and the US). They found that 45% of respondents said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily lives. It was worse for respondents from developing countries.
Climate anxiety can potentially serve a positive function. Anger, for example, can push people to act to help mitigate the effects of climate change.
But it can also lead to “eco-paralysis”, a feeling of being overwhelmed, inhibiting people from taking any effective action, affecting their sleep, work and study, as a result of them dwelling endlessly on the problem.
Climate anxiety is not included in the American Psychiatric Association’s authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders. In other words, it is not officially recognised as a mental disorder.
Some say this is a good thing. The author and Stanford academic Britt Wray wrote: “The last thing we want is to pathologise this moral emotion, which stems from an accurate understanding of the severity of our planetary health crisis.”
But if it is not officially recognised, will people take it seriously enough? Will they just dismiss people who suffer from it as “snowflakes” – too sensitive and too easily hurt by the hard realities of life. This is a major dilemma.
I explore how climate anxiety relates to other types of clinical anxiety in my recent book, Understanding Climate Anxiety, recognising that there are adaptive and non-adaptive forms of anxiety.
According to Steven Taylor, a clinical psychologist from the University of British Columbia, adaptive anxiety can “motivate climate activism, such as efforts to reduce one’s carbon footprint”. Maladaptive anxiety, however, may “take the form of anxious passivity”, he warned, where the person feels anxious but utterly helpless.
Identifying different types of climate anxiety, understanding their precursors and how they interact with personality is a major psychological challenge. Identifying ways of alleviating climate anxiety and making it more adaptive, and focused on possible climate mitigation, is a major societal challenge.
But there’s another important issue. Some global leaders, including Donald Trump, don’t believe in human-induced climate change, claiming it’s “one of the great scams”. He seems to view climate anxiety as an overblown reaction to propaganda pumped out by a biased media.
This can make the experience much worse for those who feel anxious but then having their feelings dismissed.
Some psychologists argue that climate anxiety can be a form of pre-traumatic stress disorder. This hypothesis arose from observations of climate scientists and their growing feelings of anger, distress, helplessness and depression as the climate situation has worsened.
In 2015, researchers devised a new clinical measure to assess pre-traumatic stress reactions using items found in the diagnostic and statistical manual for post-traumatic stress disorder, but now focused on the future rather than the past, asking about “repeated, disturbing dreams of a possible future stressful experience”, for example.
They tested Danish soldiers before their deployment in Afghanistan and found that “involuntary intrusive images and thoughts of possible future events … were experienced at the same level as post-traumatic stress reactions to past events before and during deployment”.
They also found that soldiers who experienced higher levels of pre-traumatic stress before deployment had an increased risk of post-traumatic stress disorder after their return from the war zone. Their hypervigilance primed their nervous system to react more strongly when anything untoward occurred.
This would suggest that we need to take stress reactions to future anticipated events such as climate change very seriously.
The crisis response
But how important is climate anxiety in the context of these other threats? Researchers assessed the emotional state and mental health of people aged 18 to 29 years in five countries (China, Portugal, South Africa, the US and UK) focusing on three global issues: climate change, an environmental disaster (the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan), and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
They found the strongest emotional engagement was with the ongoing wars, with climate change a close second, and the radiation leak third. The strongest emotional responses to the wars were concern, sadness, helplessness, disgust, outrage and anger. For climate change, the strongest responses were concern, sadness, helplessness, disappointment and anxiety.
All three crises made young people feel concerned, sad, and very importantly helpless, but climate change has this burning level of anxiety added into the bubbling mix.
It seems that climate anxiety still has this undiminished power regardless of all the other awful things that are currently happening in the world, and I suspect the stigma of being dismissed as “snowflakes” makes this particular fear response all the more unbearable.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?_
Geoff Beattie has received funding from the British Academy and the AHRC to investigate psychological barriers to climate change mitigation and the effects of climate change on emotional responses.
For the past few weeks the headlines about Gaza have focused on the hundreds of people who have been killed while queueing for food. The aid distribution system put in place in May, backed by the US and Israel and run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, has proved to be chaotic and allegedly resulted in violence, with both Israel Defense Forces personnel and armed Palestinian gangs blamed for killing about 1,000 people in the two months the new system has been operating.
Now the headlines are focusing on the growing number of people dying of starvation.
Harrowing reports from the Gaza Strip report almost daily on the children dying of malnutrition in hospitals and clinics that simply don’t have the food to keep them alive. Writing in the Guardian this week, a British volunteer surgeon working in one of Gaza’s hospitals, Nick Maynard, described patients who “deteriorate and die, not from their injuries, but because they are too malnourished to survive surgery”.
The UK and 27 other countries this week has condemned the “drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians” who are trying to get food and water. And yet, writes Simon Mabon, still the world’s leaders look on: “Most are apparently content to condemn – but little action has been taken.”
Mabon, a professor of international relations at Lancaster University, quotes the latest report from the IPC, which monitors food security in conflict situations. It estimates that 500,000 people in Gaza are considered to be facing “catastrophe”, while a further 1.1 million fall into the “emergency” risk category. Both categories anticipate a steadily rising death rate among civilians in Gaza.
So how can Israel’s allies apply pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to bring an end to the violence and allow Palestinian civilians access to the food, water and medical supplies they so desperately need?
Mabon canvasses a range of options. First of all, countries that have yet to recognise the state of Palestine can do so. It’s nonsense, Madon believes, to talk of a two-state solution – as the UK government does – when you haven’t actually recognised the second state in the equation.
Then they could stop selling arms to Israel. Many countries already have. But the US still issues export licenses for some weapons that are sold to Israel.
There are a plethora of other things world leaders could do to pressure Israel. Mabon recommends having a look at what the world did to isolate South Africa during the apartheid years, measures which eventually helped bring about meaningful change there.
As for Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister is reported to be considering an early election. In previous months this looked like a move freighted with jeopardy. An election loss brought on by a disenchanted electorate, heartbroken at the hostage situation and exhausted by the conflict, would probably mean having to face the charges of corruption which have hung over him for more than five years.
But recent polls have suggested a bump in popularity following his 12-day campaign against Iran. Netanyahu is nothing if not a clever political manipulator. But Brian Brivati, a professor of contemporary history and human rights at Kingston University, believes that to have a chance of winning, the prime minister will need to fight a campaign on three narratives of his government’s success: securing the release of the hostages, defeating Hamas and delivering regional security. “It is a tall order,” Brivati concludes.
Anyone following the situation in Gaza over the past 18 months will have encountered Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur for Palestine’s occupied territories. For three years she has monitored the human rights situation in Gaza and the West Bank, delivering trenchant criticism of Israel’s conduct and those who, by their inaction – and sometimes contrivance – have enabled it.
Earlier this months, the US government imposed sanctions on Albanese, because – as US secretary of state Marco Rubio insisted – she has engaged with the International Criminal Court (also subject to US sanctions) “in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel”. Also she has written “threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies”.
Alvina Hoffman, an expert in diplomatic affairs and human rights at SOAS, University of London, explains what a special rapporteur does and why their work is so valuable in the defence of human rights.
To Istanbul, where delegations from Russia and Ukraine met yesterday for their third round of face-to-face talks. All 40 minutes of them. There was another agreement of prisoner swaps and the two sides decided to set up some working groups to look into various political, military and humanitarian issues – but online rather in person.
The brevity of the talks came as no surprise to Stefan Wolff. Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham who has provided commentary for The Conversation throughout the conflict in Ukraine, points out that both sides remain wedded to their maximalist war aims. For Russia, this is for Ukraine to accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea and four provinces of eastern Ukraine, a ban on Ukraine’s membership of Nato and a much reduced military capacity. For Ukraine, it is getting their territory back and Russian acceptance of their national sovereignty, meaning it gets to determine for itself what alliances it seeks.
Donald Trump has told Vladimir Putin that, if there’s no ceasefire in 50 days, he’ll apply harsh secondary sanctions on the countries buying Russian oil and that he plans to supply Ukraine with American weapons (via Nato’s European member states, that is). Wolff believes both sides will now play the waiting game. They will calculate their next move after September 2, when the 50 days run out, and when they know more about what the US president plans to do.
Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, faces pressure from his own people. There have been days of protest at his decision to bring two formerly independent anti-corruption organisations under the direct control of the government. He argues that this was necessary to prevent Russian infiltration, while critics are saying that the Ukrainian president has launched a power grab designed to prevent independent investigation of alleged corruption against people close to him.
Jenny Mathers says these protests, which involve people from all political shades, including people who have fought in the defence of Ukraine since 2022, some with visible injuries, represents a fracture of the “informal agreement between the government and society to show a united front to the world while the war continues”.
Ukrainians protest after Zelensky signs law clamping down on anticorruption agencies.
It’s not as if Zelensky is in clear and present danger of losing his job. His party holds a majority of seats in the Ukrainian parliament, so he governs without having to depend on coalition partners. And the country’s constitution prohibits the holding of elections in wartime – whatever Putin, who regularly insists that Zelensky is an illegitimate leader because he is governing past his term limit, might think. Plus his approval rating sits at 65%.
Zelensky has been quick to soften his stance on this. Mathers says that political corruption is a very sore point in Ukraine, where there was decades of it until the Maidan protests of 2013-14 unseated the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. As she writes here, “the ‘Revolution of Dignity’ that rejected Yanukovych’s leadership and his policies was also a resounding demonstration of the strength of Ukraine’s civil society and its determination to hold its elected officials to account. Zelensky would be rash not to heed that.
He also knows it’s important for him to present a squeaky clean image to his supporters in the west. So while the protests may not present an immediate threat to his own position, he knows that unless he acts to root out corruption in Ukraine, it’ll be a threat to the future of the country itself.
But ethicist Marcel Vondermassen from the University of Tübingen believes another recent decision by the Ukrainian government is storing up trouble for the future. Ukraine has recently announced its decision to pull out of the Ottawa convention, the treaty that forbids the use of anti-personnel landmines.
In doing so, he’s following the example of Finland, Poland, Lithuania and Estonia which have all also quite the treaty in recent months for fear of Russian aggression.
But as Vondermassen points out, landmines don’t usually switch themselves off when a conflict ends and people are still being killed an maimed in former conflict zones around the world. Often it is farmers at work or children at play who are the victims. If other ways to protect countries from aggression aren’t pursued, as he puts it, in future decades we’ll still be “counting thousands of child casualties … from the landmines laid in the 2020s”.
Thailand-Cambodia: centuries-old dispute flares again
A dispute between the two south-east Asian countries that has been simmering since May flared into life yesterday when five Thai soldiers patrolling the border region were injured after stepping on a landmine – the second such incident in the past week. Both countries have sealed their border and there have been tit-for-tat ambassadorial expulsions.
Cambodia fired rockets and artillery into Thailand, killing 12 civilians. Thailand in turn has launched airstrikes against Cambodia. Both countries are blaming the other for starting it.
Petra Alderman, an expert in south-east Asian politics from London School of Economics and Political Science, traces the origins of this row, which go back to the colonial era in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Pandora Syperek, Tutor, History of Design, V&A/Royal College of Art, and Teaching Fellow, Institute for Creative Futures, Loughborough University
There has been a conspicuous turn to the sea as inspiration for art and exhibitions since the mid-2010s. This is a trend we have charted in our ongoing collaborative research project, Curating the Sea. So prolific has this become, that there are even gallery spaces dedicated entirely to the sea in contemporary art.
The sea has, of course, been the subject of art throughout history. However, our investigation into contemporary art and exhibitions has revealed a shift from celebrations of oceanic abundance and wonder towards more political projects.
In our research, we have argued for the importance of curation as a way to confront the issues facing the oceans today. So it was only natural that we turn our hands to curating our own exhibition about the sea, based on our extensive collaborative research.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Western art has tended to frame the ocean as an unfathomable and formidable force in the tradition of the sublime: art that produces or is inspired by the strongest emotions the mind is capable of feeling, often arising from the encounter with the natural world. Sea Inside counters this perspective. Collectively, artworks in the exhibition portray the sea not as a surreal or alien space, but as an entity that is intimately connected to humans.
Many Indigenous and diasporic communities have long been aware of the profound human connection to the sea. In our exhibition, Shuvinai Ashoona’s coloured pencil drawings illustrate the intermingling of Inuit mythology with everyday life in the Canadian Arctic. In one scene, mythical marine creatures populate a dentist’s office.
Meanwhile, Tyler Eash’s sculpture features a shell of the critically endangered abalone mollusc. They are known as “grandmother shells” among North American west coast Indigenous cultures as they are commonly passed down through families by female elders. The work speaks to ties of kinship (human and animal), their fragility and resilience.
A new sculpture we commissioned by the artist Gabriella Hirst explores tales of men being swallowed by whales alongside the industrial exploitation of whales in the 19th century. This inside-out journey from the whale’s belly to lighting up European cities (as whale blubber was used in oil lamps) aligns the perceived threat of these animals with capitalistic justifications for their slaughter. The sculpture is made from agricultural plastic, itself a product of the petrochemical industry that largely replaced whaling as a source of energy, lighting and everyday objects.
Beyond eco-realism
The perspective Sea Inside offers is found not only in the artworks’ subject matter but also their approach.
There has been a tendency towards a documentary approach within ecologically oriented exhibitions. This risks relegating art to a tool of climate communication and even replicating the sort of technological interventions into the landscape – and seascape – that the respective artworks and exhibitions call into question.
The artworks in Sea Inside examine the uses and limits of visual mediums for understanding the sea. Hiroshi Sugimoto’s photograph of a natural history diorama reframes this three-dimensional reconstruction of a seabed from hundreds of millions of years before the advent of humans, whereas Kasia Molga’s miniature aquaria entangle human tears and marine life.
Artists in the exhibition play with historical display practices and their ability to bring ocean life into human spaces while endeavouring to overcome the sense of detachment they have at times created.
In a video work by El Morgan, the artist aligns jellyfish breeding in a lab with her own experience of assisted reproduction. In doing so she momentarily suspends the distance from such radically different lifeforms and expands our understandings of gestation.
Likewise, Laure Prouvost’s speculative “cooling system” for global warming – a beautiful Murano glass shower-head that looks like an amorphous sea creature covered in nipples – reimagines models of care as both more-than-human and global.
Works such as these provide playful and humorous approaches to thinking through a topic with a serious undercurrent: our fragile ocean ecologies.
The artworks in Sea Inside offer ways of engaging with the existential threats facing our oceans that are emotive, imaginative and often very funny. They reflect on material culture, architecture and technology to acknowledge the aesthetic dimensions of an era that has been termed the Anthropocene, after the human impact on the planet, and even the Hydrocene in recognition of the centrality of water to our current epoch.
These subtler responses to the sea within offer visions of promise for the oceans’ and our own mutual survival.
Sea Inside is on show at the Sainsbury Centre, Norwich, until October 26 2025.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Sarah Wade works in the Department of Art History & World Art Studies, University of East Anglia, based at the Sainsbury Centre. Her ocean related research has received funding from University of East Anglia and the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art. She is a member of the Museums Association.
Pandora Syperek 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.
Technology platforms operating in the UK now have a legal duty to protect young people from some of the more dangerous forms of online content. This includes pornography, content that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for violence, promotion of self-harm and eating disorders. Those failing to comply face hefty fines.
Until now, parents have had the unenviable role of navigating web content filters and app activity management to guard their children from harmful content. As of 25 July 2025, the Online Safety Actputs greater responsibility on platforms and content creators themselves.
In theory, this duty requires tech organisations to curb some of the features that make social media so popular. These include changing the configuration of the algorithms that analyse a user’s typical behaviour and offer content that other people like them usually engage with.
This is because the echo chambers that these algorithms create can push young people towards unwanted (and crucially, unsolicited) content, such as incel-related material.
The Online Safety Act directly acknowledges the impact of algorithms in targeting content to young people. It forms a key part of Ofcom’s proposed solutions. The act requires platforms to adjust their algorithms to filter out content likely to be harmful to young people.
It’s yet to become clear exactly how tech companies will respond. There has been pushback over negative attitudes to algorithms, though. A response from Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, to Ofcom’s 2024 consultation on protecting children from harms online counters the idea that “recommender systems are inherently harmful”.
It states: “Algorithms help to sort information and to create better experiences online and are designed to help recommend content that might be interesting, timely or entertaining. Algorithms also help to personalise a user’s experience, and help connect a user with their friends, family and interests. Most importantly, we use algorithms to help young people have age-appropriate experiences on our apps.”
Age verification
A further safety measure is the use of age checks. Here, Ofcom is enforcing platforms to make “robust age checks” and, in the case of the most serious of content creation sites, these must be “highly effective”.
Users will need to prove their age. Traditionally, age-verification checks involve the submission of government-issued documents – often accompanied by a short video to verify the accuracy of the submission. There have been technological advances which some platforms are embracing. Age-estimation services involve uploading a short video or photo selfie which is analysed by AI.
If enforced, the Online Safety Act may not only restrict access to pornography and other recognised extreme content, but it could also help stem the flow of knife sales.
Research shows exposure to knife crime news on social media is linked to symptoms similar to PTSD. Research by one of us (Charlotte Coleman) and colleagues has previously shown that negative effects of seeing knife imagery may be more severe for girls and those who already feel unsafe.
Even on strongly regulated platforms, though, some harmful material can seep through the algorithm and age checks net. Active moderation is therefore a further requirement of the act. This means platforms need to have processes in place to look at user-generated content, assess the potential harm and remove it if appropriate to ensure swift action is taken against content harmful to children.
This may be through proactive moderation (assessing content before it is published), reactive moderation based on user reports, or more likely, a combination of the two.
Even with these changes, invisible online spaces remain. A host of private, encrypted end-to-end messaging services, such as messages on Whatsapp and snaps on Snapchat, are impenetrable to Ofcom and the platform managers, and rightly so. It is a vital fundamental right that people are free to communicate with their friends and family privately without fear of monitoring or moderation.
However, that right may also be abused. Negative content, bullying and threats may also be circulated through these services. This remains a significant problem to be addressed and one that is not currently solved by the Online Safety Act.
These invisible online spaces may be an area that, for now, will remain in the hands of parents and carers to monitor and protect. It is clear that there are still many challenges ahead.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Charlotte Coleman has previously received funding from UKRI to understand the negative online experiences of UK police staff.
Jess Scott-Lewis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marc Fullman, Docotoral Researcher in Organisational Behaviour, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex
If your first task of the day is triaging a bulging inbox at 6am, you are not alone. A recent Microsoft report headlined “Breaking down the infinite workday” found that 40% of Microsoft 365 users online at this hour are already scanning their emails – and that an average worker will receive 117 emails before the clock rolls around to midnight.
But that’s not all. By 8am, Microsoft Teams notifications outstrip email for most workers, and the typical employee is hit with 153 chat messages during the day.
The report states that, while meetings swallow the prime 9am–11am focus window, interruptions arrive every two minutes throughout the day. This perpetual work overload means a third of professionals reopen their inbox to answer more emails at 10pm.
In short, Microsoft’s telemetry of this “triple-peak” day (first thing, mid-morning and late at night) paints a vivid picture of a work rhythm that never stops.
From an occupational psychology perspective, these statistics are more than curious trivia. They signal a cluster of psychosocial hazards.
Boundary Theory holds that recovery depends on clear and solid boundaries – both psychologically and in terms of time – between work and the rest of life. Microsoft’s findings show those limits dissolving. This includes 29% of users checking email after 10pm.
Similarly, a four-day diary study of Dutch professionals found that heavier after-hours smartphone use predicted poorer psychological detachment and exhaustion the next day.
This can have wider consequences. When people are busy, rushed or harried, one of the first things to suffer is their regulation of online behaviour. Large-scale survey research shows that ambiguous or curt digital messages occur when we are depleted. These can obviously sap wellbeing in recipients.
In a 2024 study of workers in the UK and Italy, incivility in emails between colleagues predicted work-life conflict and exhaustion via “techno-invasion”, as workers reported being exposed to an ongoing torrent of unpleasant messaging.
So-called ‘techno-invasion’ could lead to work-life conflict and emotional exhaustion. fizkes/Shutterstock
My ongoing doctoral research examines how workers respond to messages they receive, and exposes the nuance on different communication platforms. Among the 300 UK workers involved, identical messages were rated as more uncivil on email than on Teams, particularly when they were informal. Frustration on the part of a recipient (in terms of how they interpret a message) accounted for nearly 50% of perceived incivility on email, but only 30% on Teams.
These findings suggest that choice of platform significantly influences how messages are received and interpreted. Using these insights, organisations can make informed decisions about communication channels, and potentially reduce workplace stress and improve employee wellbeing in the process.
Microsoft suggests that AI “agent bosses” will rescue workers. These tools could summarise inboxes, draft replies and free up humans for higher-order work.
The data, however, exposes a cultural contradiction. Managers tell staff to switch off, yet their appraisal spreadsheets tell a different story. In one set of experiments, the same bosses who praised weekend digital detoxing also ranked the detoxers as less promotable than colleagues who were glued to their inboxes.
Little wonder Microsoft’s own data shows the same late-night peak, despite widespread wellbeing guidance to switch off after hours. Without changing how commitment is signalled and rewarded, faster tools risk accelerating the treadmill rather than dismantling it.
What organisations can do
1. Individual level – let people feel they have control
Encourage “quiet hours” and teach employees to disable non-urgent notifications. Boundary-control research shows that when workers feel they have control over connectivity, it creates a buffer against fatigue caused by after-hours email.
2. Team level – communication charters
Teams should agree explicit norms for communication. This could include capping the numbers invited to meetings and insisting on agendas. Simple charters along these lines restore predictability for workers and cut “decision fatigue”.
3. Organisational level – redesign metrics
Organisations could shift from visibility (green dots and instant replies) to outcome-based metrics for productivity. This removes the incentive for workers to stay online and aligns with evidence that autonomy is a key resource.
4. Technological level – AI for elimination, not acceleration
Workplaces should deploy AI assistants to remove low-value tasks (for example, sorting email or drafting minutes), not just speed them up. Then they should conduct workload audits to ensure the time saved is reinvested in deep work, not simply swallowed up by extra meetings.
The Microsoft dataset is enormous, but there are two important points to note. First, European jurisdictions with “right to disconnect” laws may be missing from the figures. Second, some metrics (for example, interruptions) are calculated on the most active fifth of users, potentially overstating a typical experience.
But if the numbers in Microsoft’s report feel familiar, that is precisely the point. The technology designed to liberate workers is now scripting their day minute-by-minute. Occupational psychology researchers warn that without deliberate boundary setting, rising digital job demands will continue to tax wellbeing and dull performance.
AI can be a circuit breaker, but only if it is accompanied by cultural and structural change that gives employees permission to disconnect.
The infinite workday is not a law of nature, it is a design flaw. Fixing it will take more than faster software – it will demand a collective decision to prize focus, recovery and civility as fiercely as workers currently prize availability.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Marc Fullman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Travis Van Isacker, Senior Research Associate, School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, University of Bristol
On a cold, wet November evening, Issa Mohamed Omar and more than 30 other men, women and children set off from their informal camp near the northern French port city of Dunkirk. They walked through the darkness in near-silence for around two hours, until they reached the beach from where they hoped to start a new and better life.
As they arrived, five men were busy pumping up an inflatable dinghy and attaching an outboard engine. These people smugglers had charged each of their customers more than a thousand euros for a trip that costs someone with the right passport less than a hundred.
The travellers were given life-vests, arranged into rows and counted. “There are 33 of you,” one of the smugglers said. For many on board, this was not their first attempt at reaching England.
Most came from Iraqi Kurdistan, including Kazhal Ahmed Khidir Al-Jammoor from Erbil, who was travelling with her three children: Hadiya, Mubin and Hasti Rizghar Hussein, respectively aged 22, 16 and seven.
A father and son from Egypt were shown how the engine worked and provided a GPS device and directions to Dover, around 35 miles (60km) to the west across the Channel. Mohamed Omar would later recall:
The Egyptian man was put in charge of steering the boat by the smugglers. He was travelling with his son, who looked like he was in his late teens or maybe early 20s. I do not know how they came to be the driver and navigator.
There were also at least three Ethiopian nationals – one of whom, father-of-two Fikiru Shiferaw from Addis Ababa, sent his wife Emebet at home in Ethiopia a final WhatsApp voice message:
We have already boarded the boat. We are on the way. I will turn off my phone now. Goodnight, I will call you tomorrow morning.
These were the last words she would ever receive from her husband.
What happened to Fikiru Shiferaw and the other passengers on the night of November 23-24 2021 has been the subject of the UK’s Cranston Inquiry which, during March 2025, heard from 22 witnesses to the disaster, including officers involved in the UK’s search-and-rescue (SAR) response. Chaired by former High Court judge Sir Ross Cranston, the independent inquiry also heard from Mohamed Omar from Somalia – one of only two survivors – as well as family members of many of the dead and missing.
These hearings not only shed light on the actions of UK Border Force and His Majesty’s Coastguard officers during the failed rescue operation – designated Incident Charlie – in the early hours of November 24, but the agencies’ approach to “small boat crossings” in general dating back to 2017.
According to the testimonies, officers had been operating under extreme pressure in the months leading up to the disaster. Kevin Toy, master of the Border Force ship Valiant which was sent out to search for the missing dinghy that night, explained that in the run-up to the incident, “night after night” he could see his crew were “utterly exhausted” by the end of their shifts.
The evidence shows the British government was aware of the growing risk that Border Force and HM Coastguard could be overwhelmed by the rising number of small boat crossings – and that people might die as a result. In May 2020, a document produced by the Department for Transport acknowledged that “SAR resources can be overwhelmed if current incident numbers persist”. At least three senior HM Coastguard officers identified the same risk in August 2021.
Multiple communication failures have also been exposed by the inquiry – among British officers, with their opposite numbers in France, and between both countries’ emergency services and the increasingly desperate people aboard the sinking dinghy.
Despite numerous distress calls and GPS coordinates being shared via WhatsApp, a rescue boat failed to reach the travellers in time. Amid the confusion, when their calls stopped, the coastguard assumed Charlie’s passengers had been picked up and were safe. In fact, they were perishing in the cold waters of the Channel over more than ten hours.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
As part of my research into the digital transformation of the UK-France border, I attended the inquiry and have studied the many statements, call transcripts, operational logs, emails and meeting minutes it has made public. Initially, I wanted to understand how the November 2021 disaster became a watershed moment in the UK government’s response to people trying to cross the Channel by small boat or dinghy, catalysing the transformation of the UK’s maritime border into the hyper-surveilled space it is today.
But, after speaking to representatives for Mohamed Omar and the bereaved families as well as migrant rights organisations, larger questions have emerged. In particular, given the inquiry’s singular focus on this one catastrophic event in November 2021, those I spoke to are concerned that its recommendations will be unable to prevent further deaths from occurring in the Channel, which have risen dramatically over the last 18 months.
How ‘small boat crossings’ began
Since the UK and France began operating “juxtaposed” border controls in the early 1990s (meaning border checks occur before departure), asylum seekers trying to reach England have had to make irregular journeys across the Channel. Until 2018, these were typically aboard trains and ferries – after sneaking on to a lorry or through a French port’s perimeter security.
At the time of the “Jungle” camp near Calais in 2015-16, media coverage of collective attempts by its residents to enter French ports spiked UK government investment in the border. Between 2014 and 2018, it gave its French counterpart at least £123 million to “strengthen the border and maintain juxtaposed controls”. These funds paid for French police to patrol the ports and border cities, regularly evict migrants’ living sites, and finance detention and relocation centres.
As admitted by then-home secretary Sajid Javid in 2019, this increased security led people to find other ways across the Channel. Beginning in the winter of 2018, smugglers organised journeys in small, seaworthy vessels they had stolen from marinas along the French coast. These “small boats” continue to lend their name to this migration phenomenon – yet the unseaworthy inflatable dinghies used today, with no keel or rigid hull, are not worthy of the name.
Even in the context of the usual sensationalism surrounding irregular migration to the UK, small boat journeys were met with an especially intense response, both politically and in the media.
When 101 people crossed between Christmas and New Year in 2018, Javid declared it a major incident. Ever since, “stopping the boats” has been one of the UK government’s highest priorities. Despite small boat arrivals making up only 29% of UK asylum claimants in 2018-24, billions of pounds have been spent to try and control the route.
Frosty relations and the ‘pushback’ plan
As Channel crossings rose sharply over 2020-21, worsening relations between France and the UK due to Brexit complicated how the two governments worked together to respond. In his testimony, former clandestine Channel threat commander Dan O’Mahoney – appointed by Javid’s successor, Priti Patel, to “make small boat crossings unviable” – described relations between the two countries as already “very frosty” when he began in August 2020.
After France’s then-interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, axed a plan for UK vessels to take rescued migrants back to Dunkirk, O’Mahoney was tasked by senior ministers to come up with an alternative. The resulting “pushback” plan, called Operation Sommen, involved Border Force officers on jet skis driving into migrant dinghies to turn them back as they crossed the border line into UK waters. When France learned of the plan, O’Mahoney recalled:
They thought it went counter to their and our obligations around safety of life at sea … They objected to it very strongly, and it affected our already quite strained relationship with them further.
Operation Sommen was abandoned in April 2022 before having ever been used in anger. However, preparations were said to have taken up “a very considerable amount of time and resource” at both the Home Office and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency – and had “a detrimental effect” on the UK’s overall SAR response to small boat crossings.
At a meeting of senior officials in June 2021 to discuss Operation Sommen, ministers had made clear that the “numbers of people crossing [was] a political problem” – and that improving SAR capabilities did not “fit with [the] narrative of taking back control of borders”.
Although senior HM Coastguard officers recognised “it is extremely difficult to locate small boats or communicate with those onboard”, the inquiry heard that officers did not recall receiving “any small boat training before November 2021”, other than in the procedure to allow Border Force to push them back to French waters.
The head of Border Force’s Maritime Command, Stephen Whitton, told the inquiry he was under “a huge amount of pressure” to prevent small boat crossings, while also “providing the bulk of the support to search and rescue”. Despite carrying out 90% of all small boat rescues in the Channel and “regularly being overwhelmed”, Border Force Maritime Command received “no additional assets to manage the search and rescue response” before November 2021.
‘The pressure we were under’
When the decision was taken for Border Force – a law enforcement rather than search-and-rescue organisation – to be the primary responders to small boat crossings in 2018, only around 100 people were crossing each month. Yet by the time of the disaster three years later, according to an internal Home Office document, the total for 2021 was “already more than 25,000”.
At the inquiry, O’Mahoney stated: “As 2021 went on, it became much clearer that … frankly, we just needed more [rescue] boats.” Whitton admitted that before the disaster, Border Force, HM Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other support organisations were all “on our knees in terms of the pressure we were under, and it was getting hugely challenging”.
The evidence shows this pressure was acutely felt inside Dover’s Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre, which sits atop the port’s famous white cliffs offering a commanding view of the Channel. Inside, Coastguard officers coordinate SAR operations and control vessel traffic in the Dover Strait – one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.
On the night of November 23-24, three coastguard officers were on search-and-rescue duty: team leader Neal Gibson, maritime operations officer Stuart Downs, and a trainee – unnamed by the inquiry – who was officially only present as an observer.
HM Coastguard’s Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre at Dover overlooking the Channel. Travis Van Isacker, CC BY-NC-SA
Staffing appears to have been a longstanding issue at the Dover coastguard station where, according to divisional commander Mike Bill, there was “poor retention of staff” and “experience and competence weren’t the best”. Only the day before the disaster, during a migrant red days meeting – convened when, due to good weather, the probability of Channel crossers is considered “highly likely” – chief coastguard Peter Mizen had warned that only having two qualified officers at Dover on nights “isn’t enough”.
Over recent months, as the station had become busier responding to small boat crossings and in the wake of an unsuccessful recruitment drive, staff were having to work flat-out throughout their shifts, and were being asked to come in on scheduled days off.
On the night of November 23-24, owing to staff shortages, team leader Gibson told the inquiry he had to cover traffic control duties for three hours from 10.30pm. This meant he was away from the SAR desk at 00.41am, when a message arrived from the national rescue coordination centre along the coast in Fareham, stating that the Coastguard’s scheduled surveillance aeroplanes would not be flying over the Channel that night due to fog.
The officers were told they would be “effectively blind” – and should not allow themselves “to be drawn into relaxing and expecting a normal migrant crossing night”. The message warned: “This has the potential to be very dangerous.”
‘Their boat – there’s nothing left’
According to Mohamed Omar, the sea was calm when he and the other passengers departed the French beach around 9pm UK time. Giving his evidence to the Cranston Inquiry from Paris – he still cannot travel to the UK – a ship approached them around an hour into their voyage:
They came up to us to see what we were doing, and shone a light on us. I remember seeing a French flag on the boat. It was a big boat and I am certain it was the French coastguard. I had heard from people I met in the camp in Dunkirk that this happened sometimes, and that the French boat would follow until you reached English waters.
In fact, Mohamed Omar said, the French ship left the travellers again after about an hour. Shortly after this, the problems began.
A French warship patrols the shore of Mardyck in northern France, close to where Charlie is thought to have departed. Travis Van Isacker, CC BY-NC-SA
Around 1am, seawater began entering the dinghy. By now, it was in the vicinity of the Sandettie lightvessel, around 20 miles north-east of Dover. At first, passengers managed to bail out the 13°C water – but soon the flooding became uncontrollable. The dinghy’s inflatable tube began losing pressure, and a couple of the Kurdish men used air pumps to try to keep it inflated. Others tried to prevent panic spreading among the passengers.
Many onboard began to make frantic calls for rescue. What were reported to be leaked transcripts of some of these calls were published by French newspaper Le Monde a year after the sinking. They showed the first distress call from the dinghy was received by the French coastguard at 12.48am. Speaking in English, the caller said there were 33 people on board a “broken” boat.
According to Le Monde, three minutes later, another call was transferred to the French maritime rescue coordination centre at Cap Gris-Nez by an emergency operator who reported: “Apparently their boat – there’s nothing left.” Following procedure, the French coastguard officer asked the caller to send a GPS position by WhatsApp so she could “send a rescue boat as soon as possible”. At 1.05am UK time, the GPS position arrived.
Rather than send a French boat, Le Monde reported that the officer phoned her counterparts in Dover to warn them a dinghy 0.6 nautical miles from the border line would soon be crossing into UK waters. On the other end of the line was the trainee officer, who was handling routine calls that night despite officially only being an observer.
After the call finished, according to Downs’s evidence to the inquiry, the trainee mistakenly told him the dinghy was thought to be “in good condition” – information he recorded in the log for Incident Charlie. This miscommunication may have affected the urgency of the UK’s SAR response, preventing HM Coastguard and Border Force from appreciating the severe distress the “broken” dinghy was in.
Just before 1am, the French coastguard had sent its migrant tracker spreadsheet, containing information on all small boat crossings that night, to HM Coastguard for the first time. It showed four migrant dinghies at sea – which Gris-Nez had been aware of “for many hours”, according to Gibson.
The issue of the French coastguard appearing to withhold information about active small boat crossings had been raised by HM Coastguard’s clandestine operations liaison officer during a July 2021 review. And earlier that very evening, Gibson told one of his colleagues:
Sometimes they just seem to keep it quiet. Like we’ll not get anything – then we’ll get a tracker at three in the morning with 15 incidents, and they go: ‘Mostly these are in your search-and-rescue region.’ Wonderful.
At 1.20am, Downs phoned Border Force Maritime Command in Portsmouth to request a Border Force vessel search for the dinghy Charlie. He provided the GPS position received from his French counterpart and the number of people onboard – but also the incorrect information that “they think it’s in good condition”.
Ten minutes later, the Valiant, Border Force’s 42-metre patrol ship stationed at Dover, was tasked to proceed towards the Sandettie lightvessel. At the same time, the first direct call to the Dover rescue coordination centre came in from Charlie. The distressed caller said they were “in the water” and that “everything [was] finished”.
Around 15 minutes later, at 1.48am, Gibson took a call from 16-year-old Mubin Rizghar Hussein, who spoke good English. Despite the noise and commotion, he managed to provide Gibson with a WhatsApp number – in order to share their GPS position. The transcript of this call records voices shouting in the background: “It’s finished. Finished. Brother, it’s finished.”
A ‘grave and imminent threat to life’
Gibson told the inquiry that after his call with Rizghar Hussein, he had a “gut feeling that this doesn’t feel quite as usual”. By “usual” he meant what was, according to maritime operations officer Downs, a commonly held belief at the Dover coastguard station that with “nine out of ten”“ callers from small boats: “It would generally be overstated that the boat … was sinking, people were drowning … Whatever was going on would be overstated.”
Acting on his gut feeling, at 2.27am Gibson took the unprecedented decision to broadcast a Mayday Relay – denoting a “grave and imminent threat to life”. By maritime law, this alert required other vessels to offer their assistance.
Gibson told the inquiry he did this to get the French warship Flamant to respond. He could see on his radar screen that Flamant was closest to Charlie’s position and was the best vessel to rescue the people if the dinghy really was sinking.
Why the Flamant did not respond is at the centre of an ongoing criminal investigation in France into two of the warship’s officers and five coastguards from Gris-Nez, for “non-assistance of persons in distress”. This investigation’s strict confidentiality obligation means the inquiry was unable to access any information from the French side about their operations that night.
At 2.01 and again at 2.14am, HM Coastguard had received new GPS positions via WhatsApp showing the dinghy to be more than a mile inside UK waters.
Valiant, having been tasked at 1.30am, only exited the port of Dover at 2.22am and would need at least another hour to reach the Sandettie. Despite this, no other vessel was sent to join the search. At 3.11am, when asked during a call by Border Force Maritime Command whether Charlie was “still a Mayday situation”, Gibson replied: “Well, they’ve told me it’s full of water.”
With a total of four small boats being shown in the Channel that night by the French tracker spreadsheet, Gibson suggested there could be as many as 110 people on board these dinghies – beyond Valiant’s capacity for taking on survivors. Nevertheless, Border Force and HM Coastguard opted to “wait and see what the numbers are, and whether Valiant can deal with that … We don’t want to call any other assets out just yet.”
In a call with Christopher Trubshaw, captain of the Coastguard rescue helicopter stationed at Lydd on the Kent coast, aviation tactical commander Dominic Golden explained that Border Force was “not prepared to bring in their crews who are pretty knackered” unless “we can convince them there are people in real danger”. He then asked Trubshaw to search the Channel for the small boats shown in the French tracker, as the surveillance aeroplanes had been unable to take off.
In her closing submission to the inquiry, Sonali Naik, a legal representative of the survivors and bereaved families, highlighted Golden’s “dismissive attitude” towards Charlie’s distress when he gave Trubshaw the reason for the request, which included the following:
As usual, the catalogue of phone calls is beginning to trickle in … You know, the classic ‘I am lost, I am sinking, my mother’s wheelchair is falling over the side’ etc. ‘Sharks with lasers surrounding boat’ and ‘we are all dying’ type of thing.
Nevertheless, Golden asked the helicopter crew to pack a liferaft. “I can’t imagine we’re going to need it but … potentially you get to play with one of your new toys.”
While Golden described his words as “unwise” or “flippant”, Naik said they were “more than that” – suggesting they revealed rescuers’ general perceptions of the occupants of small boats and the widely held scepticism towards their distress calls.
‘We are dying. Where is the boat?’
With the water inside rising fast and their dinghy collapsing, Charlie’s increasingly desperate passengers kept trying to get rescuers to appreciate how dire their situation was.
At 2.31am in the Dover rescue coordination centre, Gibson received a second call from Mubin Rizghar Hussein, who pleaded: “We are dying, where is the boat?”
Gibson replied: “The boat is on its way but it has to get …” only to be interrupted by Rizghar Hussein saying: “We all die. We all die.”
“I get that,” Gibson told the terrified teenager, “but unfortunately, you’re going to be patient and all stay together, because I can’t make the boat come any quicker.” He ended the call saying:
You need to stop making calls because every time you make a call, we think there’s another boat out there – and we don’t want to accidentally go chasing for another boat when it’s actually your boat we’re looking for.
Gibson broke down briefly when recounting this second call during his evidence to the inquiry, explaining:
If you don’t understand what’s fully going on and you’re getting ‘we’re all going to die’, it’s quite a distressing situation to find yourself in, sitting at the end of a phone – effectively helpless. You know where they are, you want to get a boat to them, and you can’t.
Call records also show that coastguards on both sides of the Channel passed responsibility for rescuing the sinking dinghy off to one another. According to Le Monde, during one call a passenger told the French coastguard officer he was “in the water” – to which she replied: “Yes, but you are in English waters.”
The transcript of the last call before Charlie capsized, made at 3.12am, reveals that Downs asked “where are you?” 17 times – despite the caller being unable to answer anything beyond “English waters”. The maritime operations officer finished by instructing the caller to hang up and dial 999: “If it won’t connect on 999, then you’re probably still in French waters.”
In her closing submission, Naik pointed to “discriminatory stereotypes and attitudes towards migrants on small boats which fatally affected the SAR response” for Charlie – as rescuers, in her words, “jumped to premature conclusions”. According to survivor Mohamed Omar:
Because we have been seen as refugees … that’s the reason why I believe the rescue, they did not come at all. We feel like we were … treated like animals.
Fatal assumptions
At 3.27am, Border Force’s ship Valiant arrived at Charlie’s last recorded GPS position (from 2.14am) – but found nothing. Its master, Kevin Toy, decided to head north-easterly towards the Sandettie lightvessel, the way the tide was flowing.
En route, Valiant spotted two other dinghies in the darkness using its night vision – one still making its way towards the English coast, the other stopped in the water. The stationary dinghy was in greater danger from the Channel’s shipping traffic, so Valiant went to it and began rescuing those onboard – radioing back that it had “engaged unlit migrant crafts stopped in the water” with approximately 40 people onboard.
In the Dover rescue coordination centre, Gibson assumed this dinghy could be Charlie and gave Mubin Rizghar Hussein’s name and telephone number so Valiant’s crew could verify whether he was on board. At 4.16am, Gibson himself tried calling the WhatsApp number that Rizghar Hussein had shared, but the call failed.
At 4.20am, Valiant completed its first rescue of the morning. Two more followed after the Coastguard helicopter spotted two other dinghies in the Sandettie area – but nobody in the water. A near-capacity Valiant then returned to Dover just after 8am with 98 survivors on board.
None of the three rescued dinghies matched the description of Charlie. All were in good condition, differently coloured, and with disparate numbers of people onboard – yet the misplaced assumption Charlie had been rescued persisted amid the night’s murky information environment. Gibson stated that, while he had soon received additional information matching Valiant’s first rescue to a different dinghy, he was still “fairly certain Charlie had been picked up”.
“Once Valiant had picked up these [three] boats,” he explained, “we no longer received calls from Charlie, and a call to a known phone number on Charlie failed.” As a result, neither Valiant nor the Coastguard helicopter were sent back out to continue searching for the stricken dinghy.
In fact, Gibson’s call to Rizghar Hussein’s WhatsApp number did not fail because Charlie’s passengers had been rescued – nor because they had thrown their phones into the sea when Border Force arrived. Rather, it was because the dinghy had capsized and everyone had fallen into the Channel’s freezing waters.
‘No one came to our rescue’
In harrowing evidence to the inquiry, Mohamed Omar explained how, as one side of the dinghy deflated, the passengers – “hysterical and crying” – panicked and moved to the opposite side. This shift in weight caused the dinghy to capsize:
The screaming when the boat tipped and people fell in the water was deafening. I have never heard anything as desperate as this. I was not thinking about whether we were going to be rescued any more; it was all about how to stay alive.
As the passengers were thrown into the water, the dinghy flipped on top of them. Mohamed Omar described having to swim out from underneath to catch a breath: “It was dark and I could not really see. It was extremely cold and the sea was rough.”
As he surfaced, he saw Halima Mohammed Shikh, a mother of three also from Somalia and travelling alone, struggling as she couldn’t swim. She screamed his name for help, and he tried to get her back to what was left of the dinghy – but couldn’t. “I think she was one of the first people to drown,” he told the inquiry.
Others managed to cling to the broken inflatable, hoping rescue was on its way – but “no one came to our rescue”. Pushed and pulled by the waves, some lost their grip and drifted away before dawn. Mohamed Omar recalled:
All night, I was holding on to what remained of the boat. In the morning, I could hear the people were screaming and everything. It’s something I cannot forget in my mind.
By the time the sun finally rose at 7.26am, he estimated that no more than 15 people were left clinging to the broken dinghy – adrift on the tide in a busy shipping lane:
I do not recall speaking with anyone in the water. Those who were alive were half-dead. There was nothing we could do any more. I could see bodies floating all around us in the water. I presume most people were either already dead or were unconscious.
Shortly afterwards, Mohamed Omar said he let go of the dinghy and began to swim, thinking to himself: “I am going to die [but] I don’t want to die here. At least if I die whilst swimming, I won’t feel it.”
He swam towards a boat he could see in the distance and, as he got closer, began to wave his life jacket for attention. A French woman, out fishing with her family, saw him and jumped in the water to save him.
As he finished telling his story, Mohamed Omar told the inquiry: “I’m a voice for those people who passed away.”
Bodies are found
Around 1pm on the afternoon of November 24, 12 hours after the first distress calls from Charlie, a French commercial fishing vessel began finding bodies in the sea nine miles north-west of Calais. But as the news came in, no one at HM Coastguard or Border Force appears to have made the connection with Incident Charlie.
Days later, when the accounts of Mohamed Omar’s fellow survivor, Mohammed Shekha Ahmad from Iraqi Kurdistan, and a relative of two of the deceased emerged, the Home Office refuted their claims that the dinghy had sunk in UK waters as “completely untrue”.
However, five days after the disaster, Gibson contacted the small boats tactical commander to share his concerns that the reported deaths could be from Charlie. He had read a news article in which “the survivor states a male called Mubin called the emergency services, which could possibly be the ‘Moomin’ [sic] I spoke to”.
On December 1, clandestine Channel threat commander O’Mahoney responded to a question from the UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, as to whether the migrants whose bodies had been found in French waters had made distress calls to the UK authorities. O’Mahoney told the committee:
We are looking into that. To manage your expectation, though, it may never be possible to say with absolute accuracy whether that boat was in UK waters [and] I cannot tell you with any certainty that the people on that particular boat called the UK authorities.
Thanks largely to their grieving families tireless pursuit of the truth, however, it is now possible to say definitively that Charlie had been in UK waters – and that a number of its passengers spoke to HM Coastguard officers.
It was only after these families raised concerns that the disaster had involved the UK authorities that the Department for Transport commissioned a safety investigation into the incident in January 2022. A lawyer for the bereaved families suggested to me that without the threat of legal action, the Department for Transport “would likely not have done anything” – despite this being Britain’s worst maritime disaster for decades. Meanwhile, according to inquiry evidence, the Home Office is understood not to have conducted an internal review or investigation into its role in the disaster.
After a frustrating two years of waiting for the survivors and bereaved families, the Marine Accidents Investigations Branch published its report – which both confirmed most of their accounts and substantiated their criticisms of the SAR response.
Soon afterwards, the Cranston Inquiry was announced. Despite no bodies having been recovered in UK waters, it has been run almost like an inquest. In his final report – to be published by the end of 2025 – Sir Ross Cranston has promised to “consider what lessons can be learned and, if appropriate, make recommendations to reduce the risk of a similar event occurring”.
A ‘crucial and unique opportunity’
HM Coastguard and Border Force officers have repeatedly told the inquiry how the UK’s approach to small boat search-and-rescue has changed since the November 2021 disaster. More officers have been hired, Border Force has contracted additional boats to conduct rescues, information sharing has improved, and cooperation with French colleagues is better. Today, there are significantly more rescue ships on both sides of the Channel which can intervene faster when dinghies come to be in distress, and have undoubtedly saved many lives.
There has also been massive investment in drones, aeroplanes and powerful shore-based cameras to reduce the risk that HM Coastguard loses “maritime domain awareness” again if some of its surveillance aircraft are unable to fly. New technology automatically translates coastguard officers’ messages into different languages and extracts live GPS locations and images from travellers’ mobile devices.
Such investments make it unlikely that another dinghy could be lost in the middle of the Channel after its passengers call for help, in the way Charlie so catastrophically was.
Nevertheless, people continue dying while attempting to cross the Channel – with 2024 having been by far the deadliest year yet. At least 69 people lost their lives, according to the Refugee Council. So far in 2025, 24 people are documented as dead or missing at the UK-France border by Calais Migrant Solidarity, amid a record number of attempted crossings for the first half of the year.
Some migrants’ rights NGOs have suggested the UK’s “stop the boats” policies, and European efforts to disrupt the supply chain of dinghies and other equipment used in crossings, has driven such deadly overcrowding.
But it is also unlikely that the circumstances surrounding more recent deaths in the Channel will ever be investigated as thoroughly as Incident Charlie, if at all. Lawyers for the bereaved families have therefore been keen to highlight the Cranston Inquiry’s “crucial and unique opportunity” not only to look back and offer answers about one of Britain’s worst maritime disasters in recent decades – but to look forwards and “prevent the further loss of life at sea”.
The survivors, families and migrants’ rights organisations who contributed their evidence thus hope the inquiry’s recommendations go beyond purely operational and administrative improvements to search-and-rescue, to address the fundamental role that UK, France and European border policies play in why more people are dying in the Channel, despite the improvements to search-and-rescue strategies and resources.
Above all, they ask why only some people are able to travel to the UK in comfort and safety while others must make the journey in precarious, overcrowded inflatable dinghies – and thus entrust their lives to the search-and-rescue services whose success can never be guaranteed. As Halima Mohammed Shikh’s cousin, Ali Areef, told the inquiry:
It makes me feel sick to think about crossing the Channel in a ferry where others including a member of my family lost their lives because there was no other way to cross. I will never take a ferry across the Channel again.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Travis Van Isacker gratefully acknowledges the support of the Economic and Social Research Council
(UK) (Grant Ref: ES/W002639/1).
Maritime folklore has long been shuffled to the margins of nautical history, presented as the quaint, colourful oddities of a former age. Yet this body of beliefs, practices and stories can offer important insights into how seafarers of the 19th century viewed and understood their working environment.
Beneath the dominant histories of European exploration, heroic naval battles and imperial claims to mastery of the seas, there was the daily reality of working, living and, not uncommonly, dying in a dangerous marine environment.
This folklore – which was exchanged between multinational crews of mariners and carried across the oceans – provides a way into appreciating their everyday fears, longings and hopes. It reveals a rich emotional and psychological engagement with the ocean, a history of sea fearing that does not sit easily with the stereotypical macho image of mariners.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Much of maritime folklore spoke to anxieties about the temperamental ocean and storms, which boiled down to a fear of disaster and drowning.
To protect themselves from such a fate, 18th- and 19th-century sailors went to sea armoured with magical charms. A popular one was a caul. It was believed owning a caul – the membrane that protects a baby in the womb – would protect a seafarer from drowning.
Such items were openly sold in newspaper advertisements in the 19th century. Three advertised in the Liverpool Mercury in 1873 were priced from 30 shillings to four guineas, no small amount for a common mariner to pay for an idle “superstition”.
Nineteenth-century sailors and fishermen also developed a rich system of omens and predictions. They were attentive to their behaviour and even words (“pig” and “rabbit” being among the worst) that might provoke the ocean or attract bad luck.
Life in the Ocean Representing the Usual Occupations of the Young Officers in the Steerage of a British Frigate at Sea by Augustus Earle (1836). National Maritime Museum
One such example was whistling aboard ships, which was believed to stir winds or gales. The idea that the temperamental winds could be provoked by the smallest actions of the tiny human beings who passed over the ocean’s surface spoke to both mariners’ vulnerability at sea, but also a sense of personal responsibility for the good or bad fortune of their voyage.
That concerns about death haunted seafarers is also seen in a superstitious reluctance to have coffins, dead bodies or clergymen (associated with funerals) aboard ship. As the author and critic William Jones wrote in Credulities Past and Present (1880), the sailor who was fearless in battle or in the face of physical danger, often “shrinks with indescribable apprehension … at the sight of a coffin”.
This was reinforced by maritime ghost stories. Numerous tales of ghost ships, most famously The Flying Dutchman, served as a reminder of the haunting prospect of death at sea.
In telling stories of those who had been lost, seafarers could also express concerns about their present circumstances and future travails. Aboard ships, such tales could also serve as reminders of health and safety concerns. Stories about ghostly crew members who had fallen from the rigging or been washed overboard served as cautionary tales.
The decline and return of maritime folklore
Nineteenth-century critics of mariners’ “superstitions” attempted to debunk their ideas. They pushed the idea that this body of folklore was fading out with the transition from sail to steam power.
No longer reliant on the winds, the steamship symbolised a more rational, mechanical world that had no time for the supernatural whimsy of the age of sail. Yet, indicating its ongoing importance as a way of addressing seafarers fears and concerns, such ideas did not simply disappear. Rather they adapted to the modern world.
The Shipwreck by Joseph Mallord William Turner (1805). Tate
While the price of cauls had dropped in the late 19th century, suggesting declining belief in their protective power, there was a sudden revival in their trade when submarine warfare became a feature of the first world war. Accounts of ghost ships were updated to include steam and later diesel vessels in the 20th century.
Maritime folklore history reminds us that our proclaimed “mastery of the waves” has always been built on rhetoric as much as reality.
In an age of mounting concern about our relationship with the oceans, in which we are having to radically reassess our control over and influence on the natural world, it is perhaps time for this history to resurface.
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Karl Bell 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.
The House of Lords this week approved government legislation that will allow foreign states to hold up to a 15% stake in British newspaper publishers.
This vote clears the way for the American investment company Redbird to take control of the troubled Telegraph newspaper group following two years of uncertainty. An integral element of that bid is a 15% stake by the sovereign investment fund IMI which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates.
The heated Lords debate raised fundamental questions about who should own newspapers, and the link between ownership and editorial content. On one side were those who argued that Britain’s newspapers faced an “existential threat” without outside investment. On the other were those who warned against the potential influence of a foreign power on one of the UK’s longest standing publishers.
Media mergers and acquisitions are often contentious. But given the parlous state of the newspaper industry, they are likely to become more frequent.
A very different kind of newspaper deal was completed last December, when news website Tortoise Media bought The Observer. Tortoise, which was founded in 2018 by former Times editor and BBC director of news James Harding, startled analysts and journalists alike by taking over a newspaper first published in 1791.
The deal prompted strong opposition from some Observer and Guardian journalists. But from a business perspective, the deal suited both sides.
The Scott Trust, owners of the Observer since 1993, never seemed wholly committed to the Observer. (There was, for example, no dedicated Observer website). Tortoise, meanwhile, was keen to exploit the brand values of an established print product. It saw the Observer as a suitable vehicle for its approach of news analysis and explanation rather than breaking stories.
The media world has also been fixated on the succession story of the Murdoch family and its implications for his UK newspapers. The Sun, News of the World (until its closure in 2011), the Times and Sunday Times have been the bedrock of Rupert Murdoch’s economic and political power in the UK for decades.
In December, he lost the battle to give his eldest son Lachlan exclusive control of his media empire.
Speculation has grown as to whether any of Rupert’s progeny will want to continue the family’s print tradition after his death. His empire has suffered repeated financial and reputational hits since the phone hacking scandal. It is perfectly feasible that, once he goes, all the Murdoch press interests will be up for sale.
These various battles beg the question: why does it matter who owns a newspaper? In short, it matters because ownership, to a large extent, determines content.
Who owns the news?
From the very beginning of printed news, proprietors have exercised control over their title’s political direction and journalistic values. Prewar Britain saw Lord Beaverbrook famously exploiting his Express newspapers to campaign for free trade within the British empire.
Meanwhile, fellow newspaper baron Lord Rothermere turned his Mail newspapers into propaganda sheets for Oswald Mosley’s blackshirts, and cheerleaders for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the 1930s.
The Rothermere family’s continued ownership of the Mail has guaranteed a consistent anti-immigration, anti-Europe rightwing worldview to the present day. How this consistent framing has been transmitted through the Mail’s editors has been well documented by journalist Adrian Addison.
Murdoch’s UK newspaper empire has also pursued his personal free market, anti-EU political vision. He has used his papers to attack the publicly funded BBC and the regulator Ofcom. Murdoch has, however, been slightly more flexible in adjusting his papers’ party political allegiance (guaranteeing a succession of prime ministerial genuflections from Margaret Thatcher through to Keir Starmer).
At the other end of the political spectrum, the Scott Trust – owners of the Guardian – was conceived by the son of C.P. Scott as a vehicle for sustaining his father’s liberal mission for the paper. It has a policy of no editorial interference, apart from continuing the paper’s editorial policy on “the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore”. Editors are therefore enjoined to focus on the kind of progressive news agenda championed by Scott.
The trust model allows a level of freedom from traditional commercial oversight. Editors can pursue the Guardian’s well-established liberal tradition without worrying about shareholders driven by short-term profit maximisation, or an individual owner with a specific ideological agenda. This partly explains the hostility of Observer journalists to the Tortoise takeover.
Why it matters
The Lords debate focused on the risks of foreign state investment in British newspapers. But all commercial ownership models – and all owners – have their problems. Whether it be greedy shareholders, a power-hungry narcissist, an ideologically-driven family or a foreign state seeking influence in the UK, commercial models all involve editorial compromises.
One approach to the problems raised by commercial ownership is an insistence, through legislation, on a plurality of owners. But this is increasingly difficult in an industry whose traditional advertising-funded business model is under severe pressure. This context is precisely why the Telegraph’s new owner was desperate to access IMI funds.
Upmarket publications such as the Financial Times and the Times can monetise subscriptions, but paywalls discourage easy access and diminish journalistic reach. Subscriptions are also a much less attractive proposition for tabloids whose readers are less willing to pay.
Another approach is to diversify ownership models. Non-profit and charitable publishers, such as OpenDemocracy or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, can leverage donations and are less vulnerable to the whims of corporate owners or powerful individuals. But this model is much less developed in the UK than the US.
I and colleagues have argued elsewhere that there are strong arguments for making charitable journalism easier. These models can enhance journalistic freedom, but they also come with potential downsides that need to be acknowledged.
All these options presuppose, of course, that newspapers and their online sites still have sufficient relevance and reach for us to continue to worry about ownership at all – a topic for another article.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Steven Barnett is on the management and editorial boards of the British Journalism Review. He is a member of the British Broadcasting Challenge which campaigns for Public Service Broadcasting. He is on the Advisory Board of the Charitable Journalism Project which campaigns for public interest journalism and on the board of Hacked Off which campaigns for a free and accountable press.
DALLAS, July 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Mark Cuban Foundation today announced significant updates and a nationwide expansion of its free AI Bootcamps, designed to bring advanced artificial intelligence education to underserved high school students and educators. The program will operate in 29 cities across the U.S. this fall, reinforcing the foundation’s commitment to closing the digital divide and nurturing future innovators.
Applications are now open for high school students (grades 9–12) and educators interested in the Teacher Bootcamp, a year-long, free professional development initiative. The AI Bootcamps are open to all high school students, and prioritize accepting girls, students of color, first-generation college-goers, and students from low-income backgrounds. Applications will be accepted through September 30, 2025.
“As AI becomes an integral part of daily life, it’s essential that all young people have access to this powerful technology,” said Mark Cuban, Founder of the Mark Cuban Foundation. “Our goal is to ensure that every interested student, regardless of background or resources, can explore AI and its limitless possibilities.”
The updated curriculum includes hands-on experience with generative AI tools, modules on ethical AI, and specialized tracks covering healthcare, arts and entertainment, business and entrepreneurship, computer science, sports science, and future readiness. Participants will complete capstone projects under mentorship from industry professionals. Additionally, each location will now have a dedicated Teacher Fellow to further enhance educational outcomes and community involvement. Applications for the Teacher Fellowship program open in January.
All student bootcamps will take place over three Saturdays (November 1, 8, and 15, 2025, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.), with meals, transportation assistance, and technology provided at no cost.
Charlotte Dungan, Chief Learning Officer at the Mark Cuban Foundation, emphasized, “By equipping underserved students and educators with practical AI skills and ethical insights, we’re actively working toward equity in education and preparing young people for the future.”
Confirmed 2025 Bootcamp Locations:
Arizona: Tempe
California: Mountain View
Colorado: Denver
Connecticut: Hartford
Florida: Melbourne, Miami
Georgia: Atlanta
Illinois: Chicago
Indiana: Fort Wayne, Indianapolis
Iowa: Johnston (Des Moines area)
Kansas: Hutchinson
Michigan: Pontiac
Minnesota: Minneapolis
Missouri: St. Louis
Nebraska: Omaha
New York: New York City
North Carolina: Charlotte, Raleigh
Ohio: Cleveland
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
Rhode Island: Providence
Texas: Houston, Richardson, San Antonio, Plano
Utah: Salt Lake City
Virginia: Richmond
Key local partnerships include Girls Inc. in San Antonio, Miami Dade College in Florida, Electric Works in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Perficient in St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Plano, TX.
Since 2019, the Mark Cuban Foundation AI Bootcamp has successfully provided AI education to thousands of students in over 30 cities nationwide. The Teacher Fellowship, which began in March 2025 and runs through May 2026, supports 30 selected educators with stipends, mentorship, and national opportunities to showcase their achievements. Teacher Bootcamps have participants in 48 states and impact over 100,000 students.
Interested students and educators can apply for bootcamps now at markcubanai.org.
Companies interested in hosting a future bootcamp can complete our interest form.
Watch Mark Cuban’s message about Mark Cuban Foundation’s AI bootcamps and access the full media kit here.
This bootcamp is facilitated with support from Mark Cuban Foundation AI Bootcamp Program’s media partner, Notified, a globally trusted technology partner for investor relations, public relations and marketing professionals.
About Mark Cuban Foundation’s AI Bootcamp Initiative The Mark Cuban Foundation is a 501(c)(3) private non-profit led by entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban. The AI Bootcamps Program at MCF seeks to inspire young people with emerging technology so that they can create more equitable futures for themselves and their communities. Over 3 consecutive Saturdays, underserved 9th – 12th grade students learn what AI is and isn’t, where they already interact with AI in their own lives, the ethical implications of AI systems, and much more. Learn more about the no-cost AI Bootcamp program at markcubanai.org.
Source: United States Senator for Wyoming Cynthia Lummis
Washington, D.C. – Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), along with Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), today introduced the STUDENT Act, legislation that would impose necessary limitations and conditions on the National Education Association’s (NEA) federal charter to bring it in line with other federally chartered organizations and redirect it toward its original purpose of supporting teachers in America.
The NEA, which received its federal charter through an act of Congress, has strayed far from its original educational mission. Despite claiming to be “non-partisan,” the nation’s largest union has repeatedly supported divisive political causes through endorsements and financial contributions that harm students’ education and undermine parental rights. Earlier this month, the NEA members voted to cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) over its support for Israel.
“The NEA has exploited its federal charter to advance a radical political agenda that puts ideology before education,” said Sen. Lummis. “Wyoming parents and teachers deserve better than a union that prioritizes woke politics over student achievement. The resolution passed at the NEA Representative Assembly to cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League because of its support for Israel is abhorrent and does nothing to stem the rising tide of antisemitic incidents we’ve witnessed nationwide. Federal charters should be reserved for organizations that serve patriotic, charitable, historical, or educational purposes – not for unions that push divisive and antisemitic ideologies.”
“The NEA long ago transformed from an educational association into a political machine, pushing a progressive agenda that puts activists ahead of students’ needs,” said Congressman Scott Fitzgerald. “The STUDENT Act reins in NEA’s federal charter, restores accountability, and demands a return to its original purpose: educating, not indoctrinating, American children.”
“The National Education Association has failed to respect its duties as a federally chartered organization or as a steward of children’s education,” said Sen. Ricketts. “Rather than promote educational outcomes, they promote a radical agenda that supports illegal immigration and teaches harmful gender ideology. It is time for Congress to restore oversight of the entity it created and make sure young Americans receive the education they deserve.”
“Rep. Fitzgerald and Sen. Lummis should be commended for their leadership in introducing the STUDENT Act, which would address some of the NEA’s most concerning conduct and make it more accountable to the public and even its own members,” said Freedom Foundation CEO Aaron Withe. “The Freedom Foundation is proud to stand with these courageous lawmakers in the fight to restore sanity to public education.”
“The Endowment for Middle East Truth, EMET, is proud to endorse the STUDENT Act,” said Sarah Stern, President of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). “We solidly stand behind the ADL’s fight against the rising tide of antisemitism, which has skyrocketed in our country since October 7, 2023, as well as their position on Israel. We are appalled by the National Education Association’s blatant refusal to entertain the ADL’s professional, fair and balanced point of view, and that they have chosen to take a position that effectively condones Hamas’ atrocities against the Jewish people. It’s unfortunate that the NEA no longer works to fulfil its core mission of advancing an American bias-free education and has instead dedicated itself to political indoctrination and prejudice.”
In addition to Senators Lummis and Ricketts, U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jim Risch (R-ID), and Tim Sheehy (R-MT) are original cosponsors.
Background:
A 2023 Freedom Foundation report revealed that the NEA’s federal charter is unusually brief compared to other Title 36 federally-chartered organizations, allowing the union to operate with minimal oversight while enjoying taxpayer-funded benefits.
Key Provisions of the STUDENT Act:
Bans promotion of antisemitic beliefs, including harmful stereotypes about Jewish people, Holocaust denial or minimization, and hatred based on Jewish identity or connection to Israel
Prohibits the union from promoting or requiring adherence to critical race theory concepts.
Prohibits the NEA from engaging in electoral politics and lobbying, a restriction included in 60 percent of federal charters;
Eliminates the NEA’s exemption from Washington, D.C. property taxes
Requires explicit member consent for all dues and fees
Mandates comprehensive record-keeping and document accountability
Directs all assets to the Department of Treasury if the NEA dissolves
Prohibits discrimination and hiring quotas
Prevents the NEA and its affiliates from calling strikes or work stoppages
Requires all NEA officers to be U.S. citizens
Establishes transparent governance standards
So far, the STUDENT Act has been endorsed by the following state and national organizations:
The review board is the federal agency that was set up 1987 to ensure that the prices for patented drugs are not “excessive.”
Comparing prices
Up until now, one of the criteria the PMPRB used in making the decision about what was an excessive price was to compare the proposed Canadian price for a new drug with the median price in 11 other countries. The median is the 50 per cent mark; in other words, the price in half of the other countries was below what’s proposed for Canada, and the price in the other half was above the proposed Canadian price. Under the new guidelines, set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, the Canadian price can be up to the highest in those other 11 countries.
Right now, the median price in the 11 countries Canada is compared to is 15 per cent below the price of patented drugs in Canada. The highest international price, which will be the new standard, is 21 per cent above the median Canadian price, meaning Canadian prices for new drugs will be significantly higher than they otherwise would have been.
Sometimes a drug is not available in any of the 11 other countries when it comes onto the Canadian market. In that case, the company can price the drug at whatever level it wants and keep it at that price until it comes up for its annual price review. The executive director of the PMPRB told the Globe and Mail that this would incentivize drugmakers to bring their products to the Canadian market first.
Incentivizing drug companies may be a reasonable idea, but that’s not part of the mandate of the PMPRB. As laid out in Section 83 of the Patent Act, its mandate is to ensure drug prices aren’t excessive.
Additional therapeutic value
In the past, one of the factors that the PMPRB took into account in determining if prices were excessive was the additional therapeutic value of a new drug compared to what was already on the market. The lower the value, the lower the price. In this regard, the PMPRB was advised by its Human Drug Advisory Panel, an independent group of experts.
The ranking of new drugs against existing ones was also of significant value to Canadian clinicians. It helped them to decide on the best treatment option for their patients and countered the hype about new drugs that came from the manufacturers.
Since the new guidelines have abandoned looking at therapeutic improvement of new drugs, that leaves only one remaining Canadian source for that type of information, the Therapeutics Letter, a bimonthly publication targeting identified problematic therapeutic issues in a brief, simple and practical manner.
If there is an in-depth review of a new drug’s pricing — a preparatory step to determine whether there should be a formal hearing to investigate if the price is excessive — it is only the manufacturer that is allowed to submit information to the PMPRB. Clinicians who prescribe the drug, patients who take the drug, and organizations and individuals that pay for the drug do not have that same right.
Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs are already threatening to drive up drug prices and make prescription drugs inaccessible to many Canadians. Higher drug prices will also almost certainly affect Canada’s already limited pharmacare program. Higher prices for new drugs will make an expanded pharmacare plan more expensive and less appealing to the federal government. The new PMPRB guidelines help ensure higher drug prices and no pharmacare expansion.
Between 2022-2025, Joel Lexchin received payments for writing a brief for a legal firm on the role of promotion in generating prescriptions for opioids, for being on a panel about pharmacare and for co-writing an article for a peer-reviewed medical journal on semaglutide. He is a member of the Boards of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the Canadian Health Coalition. He receives royalties from University of Toronto Press and James Lorimer & Co. Ltd. for books he has written. He has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in the past.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kevin Kriese, Senior Wildfire and Land Use Analyst, Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria
As the summer heat intensifies, people across Canada are facing the full brunt of wildfire season. Communities are being evacuated and properties are being destroyed as fires grow in size.
Over the past decade, wildfires in Canada have broken numerous records, including the area burned in the largest single fire in recent history.
More frequent fires are unsettling communities, causing rapid changes to ecosystems and having a negative impact on society and our economy.
Increased wildfire risk is driven by a variety of factors, including more extreme fire weather (high temperatures, low humidity and powerful winds) made worse by climate change, fire deficits, the accumulation of fuels like trees and other organic materials on the landscape and changing land-use and settlement patterns.
Fire is a natural, necessary and inevitable part of many ecosystems in Canada. Historically, wildfire created a mosaic of diverse ecosystems and habitat conditions, which supported healthy watersheds and contributed to the cultures and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples.
Beneficial fire typically includes Indigenous cultural burning, prescribed fire and managed wildfire. These fires are managed for their ecological, cultural and community benefits, while minimizing adverse effects.
One reason we’re seeing more catastrophic fires now is because of a history of widespread wildfire suppression, which can allow fuels to accumulate. When fuels accumulate, the risk from wildfire increases.
In certain places and contexts, suppression remains the appropriate approach. It will continue to play a critical role in keeping communities safe and conserving ecosystem services like clean water and special places. But suppression alone is not viable or desirable. Instead, a suite of proactive actions from a variety of stakeholders is required.
In British Columbia, Indigenous communities are returning cultural burning to their territories. A burn by the ʔaq̓am First Nation, with support from the BC Wildfire Service and local fire departments, was credited with helping save lives and homes from the St. Mary’s wildfire in summer 2024.
Later in 2024, portions of a wildfire near the Wet’suwet’en community of Witset were allowed to burn while firefighting efforts focused on the part of the fire that threatened the community. This approach protected the village of Witset while still allowing the fire to create ecological benefits.
Despite increasing awareness that some fires are beneficial, community opposition to cultural and prescribed fires — as well as to letting wildfires burn — persists. This opposition stems from a longstanding fears of fire and the very real threats posed to communities, people and property.
A whole-of-society approach
Until people feel safe from wildfire, the ability to return fire to the landscape will be limited and pressure for maximum suppression will likely continue. However, when people feel safe in their homes and communities, they may be more likely to accept more beneficial fire on the landscape.
Risk reduction programs, such as FireSmart, take a holistic approach to wildfire resilience and include practical measures proven to reduce property loss.
Homeowners who live near fire-prone ecosystems (referred to as the wildland-urban interface) can take simple actions, such as removing flammable material within 1.5 metres of buildings, while communities can plan effective evacuation routes.
Experience in other jurisdictions indicates that voluntary measures, like FireSmart, are more effective when combined with mandatory minimum standards for fire-resistant building construction, vegetation management and landscaping.
Reducing risk and increasing beneficial fires requires co-ordinated action from a diverse array of parties. For example, creating home-hardening requirements demands updated provincial building codes and local government plans that consider wildfire resilience.
When a diverse array of entities is required to work towards a common goal, co-ordination and collaboration are vital and a whole-of-society approach is required. This type of approach fosters innovation, local agency and broader accountability — ultimately resulting in better outcomes on the ground.
Crown governments have historically worked in a top-down wildfire management model: provincial and territorial governments are in charge and select partners, such as industry, have been engaged to carry out specific actions.
As Canadians face another intense wildfire season, in which we’ve already experienced loss of life and property, meaningful action across all of society is essential.
Provincial governments must work in collaboration with Indigenous, local and federal governments, as well as industry, civil society, practitioners, local experts and communities.
Individuals can take action to reduce the risk to their homes by managing the vegetation around their homes and using more fire-resistant building materials. Communities can engage in risk reduction and resilience planning. And governments at all levels can facilitate changes in how we manage our landscape to increase beneficial fires.
Taken together, these diverse actions across all of society will be crucial for protecting people and ecosystems as we all learn to live with fire.
Kevin Kriese is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Andrea Barnett receives funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Oliver Brandes receives funding from Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the BC Real Estate Foundation.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jim Costa Representing 16th District of California
WASHINGTON – Congressman Jim Costa (CA-21) announced $35.4 million in federal funding through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support Head Start and Early Head Start services in Fresno and Tulare counties. These programs provide critical early childhood education, healthcare, and family support services to families across the San Joaquin Valley.“Every child deserves a fair shot, no matter their zip code or family income. I’ve always fought to protect Head Start because it gives kids the tools to succeed,” said Congressman Costa. “This funding means more children will walk into kindergarten ready to learn, and more families will have access to reliable, affordable childcare they can count on.”BACKGROUNDHead Start is a federally funded program administered by HHS that promotes school readiness for children from birth to age five. It provides comprehensive services, including early education, health screenings, nutrition assistance, and parental support to underserved families across the country.Research consistently shows that children who participate in Head Start programs are more likely to start school on track and succeed in later academic settings. As part of its latest funding cycle, HHS awarded the following grants to support local operations:
Fresno County: $23.7 million for the Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission (EOC) Tulare County: $11.6 million for the Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE)
These grants will support ongoing program operations, staff retention, classroom improvements, and expanded access to services for eligible families in the region.
overnor Kathy Hochul today highlighted more momentum for New York’s implementation of distraction-free schools this fall, as approximately 300 school districts statewide have now submitted their plans for bell-to-bell smartphone restrictions in advance of the State’s August 1 deadline. School districts are continuing to share their distraction-free policy with the New York State Education Department (NYSED). As districts finalize their policy in advance of the deadline, they can continue to utilize the resources seen on the Distraction-Free Schools page on Governor Hochul’s website for distraction-free schools, which provides a policy FAQ, external informational toolkit and other resources.
“Our young people succeed when they’re learning and growing, not clicking and scrolling — and that’s why New York will be ready to implement bell-to-bell smartphone restrictions on the first day of school,” Governor Hochul said. “I’m pleased that most school districts across the state have either already implemented or are finalizing their distraction-free policy — and my team continues to provide the resources and tools to ensure school districts publish their policy by the August 1 deadline.”
This new requirement will take place in the 2025-26 School Year and applies to all schools in public school districts, as well as charter schools and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES).
This month, Governor Hochul has held roundtable discussions with school district administrators, teachers and other stakeholders from New York City and the Capital Region to highlight their plans for implementing bell-to-bell smartphone restrictions when school resumes this fall. With NYC Public Schools being the nation’s largest school system, teachers and administrators, unions, school safety officers and students spoke about their plans for this upcoming school year, alongside New York City Public Schools Chancellor Melissa Aviles-Ramos.
In a conversation with the Governor and Melinda Person, President of New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), Albany City School District, Schenectady City School District, Utica City School District and East Greenbush Central School District shared their highlights as they have finalized their distraction-free policy in advance of the State’s August 1 deadline.
State Senator Shelley B. Mayer said, “I am pleased that approximately 300 school districts across New York have submitted considered, bell-to-bell cell phone restriction plans. The bell-to-bell cell phone restriction and the plans submitted demonstrate a real commitment to creating learning environments that put students’ academic focus and mental well-being first. Importantly, each district has worked to craft a policy that meets the unique needs of their own school community. I commend school leaders, educators, and families for coming together to support students and take meaningful action to reduce distractions and improve outcomes in our classrooms.”
State Senator John Liu said, “This milestone of approximately 300 school districts submitting plans for keeping phones out of school shows that New York schools are moving swiftly to implement distraction-free policies. This rapid momentum puts us on a fast track for a statewide bell-to-bell phone restriction and moves us one step closer to safer, healthier, and academically engaging learning environments.”
Governor Hochul’s cellphone policy creates a statewide standard for distraction-free schools in New York including:
Prohibits unsanctioned use of smartphones and other internet-enabled personal devices on school grounds in K-12 schools for the entire school day (from “bell to bell”), including classroom time and other settings like lunch and study hall periods
Allows schools to develop their own plans for storing smartphones during the day — giving administrators and teachers the flexibility to do what works best for their buildings and students
Secures $13.5 million in funding to be made available for schools that need assistance in purchasing storage solutions to help them go distraction-free
Requires schools to give parents a way to contact their kids during the day when necessary
Requires teachers, parents and students to be consulted in developing the local policy
Prevents inequitable discipline
Governor Hochul’s policy clarifies that students will have authorized access to simple cellphones without internet capability, as well as internet-enabled devices officially provided by their school for classroom instruction, such as laptops or tablets used as part of lesson plans.
Additionally, the Governor’s policy includes several exemptions to smartphone restrictions, including for students who require access to an internet-enabled device to manage a medical condition, where required by a student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), for academic purposes or for other legitimate purposes, such as translation, family caregiving and emergencies.
Governor Hochul pursued this initiative after engaging in a statewide listening tour with teachers, parents, and students. Her report “More Learning, Less Scrolling: Creating Distraction-Free Schools” underscores the following:
Smartphones distract students and inhibit learning and creativity
Phone-free environments do not compromise student safety
Phone-free environments support the mental health of students and teachers
Open communication and direct guidance for all stakeholders is key for successful implementation
Schools must address any parent concerns about staying in contact with their children during the day
An effective distraction-free policy must focus on the entire school day, rather than solely on time in the classroom
Schools can strengthen their distraction-free environment by connecting more students with in-person engagement like clubs, sports, arts and other programming
Prime Minister Narendra Modi held wide-ranging talks with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer during his official visit to the United Kingdom from July 23-24. The meeting, held at the British Prime Minister’s country residence, Chequers in Buckinghamshire.
The two leaders held a one-on-one meeting followed by delegation-level talks, covering the full spectrum of bilateral cooperation.
During the talks, the two sides welcomed the signing of the historic India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The agreement is expected to boost trade, investment, economic collaboration, and job creation in both countries, taking the strategic partnership to a new level.
In a key development, the two countries also agreed to negotiate a Double Contribution Convention, which will support professionals and service industries by reducing operational costs and promoting competitiveness. Prime Minister Modi also proposed deeper cooperation between India’s GIFT City-India’s first international financial services centre-and the UK’s financial ecosystem.
The two leaders adopted the India-UK Vision 2035, a roadmap for the next decade that aims to enhance cooperation in the areas of economy, technology, innovation, research, education, defence, climate action, health, and people-to-people ties.
The finalisation of a Defence Industrial Roadmap was also welcomed. It aims to promote joint design, development, and production of defence products for domestic use and global markets. Both leaders expressed satisfaction with the growing defence partnership and regular engagement between the armed forces.
Underlining the importance of emerging technologies, the Prime Ministers agreed to accelerate the implementation of the Technology and Security Initiative (TSI). The TSI, which completed one year, focuses on areas such as telecom, critical minerals, AI, biotechnology, semiconductors, health technology, advanced materials, and quantum research.
In the education sector, the leaders hailed the growing collaboration under India’s New Education Policy (NEP). Notably, Southampton University became the first foreign university to open a campus in India, in Gurugram, on June 16. Several other UK universities are expected to follow suit.
The two Prime Ministers also acknowledged the significant contribution of the Indian diaspora in the UK across various fields, calling them a “living bridge” between the two countries.
Prime Minister Modi thanked Prime Minister Starmer for his support and solidarity following the Pahalgam terror attack. Both leaders reiterated their commitment to combat terrorism and agreed to intensify bilateral cooperation to counter extremism and radicalisation. PM Modi also sought the UK’s assistance in bringing economic offenders and fugitives to justice.
The leaders also exchanged views on key regional and global developments, including in the Indo-Pacific, West Asia, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Prime Minister Modi extended an invitation to Prime Minister Starmer to visit India at a mutually convenient time and thanked him for the warm hospitality.
The following documents were signed/adopted by the two sides during the visit:
● Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement [CETA]
● India-UK Vision 2035
● Defence Industrial Roadmap
● Statement on Technology and Security Initiative
● MoU between Central Bureau of Investigation, India and National Crime Agency of UK
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (Virginia 4th District)
Washington, D.C. –Today, Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (VA-04) issued the following statement after the Department of Justice and Department of Education launchedinvestigationsinto George Mason University for allegations of racial discrimination and antisemitism:
“Less than a month after demanding the removal of former University of Virginia President James Ryan, the Trump Administration now sets its sights on George Mason University, the largest public research higher education institution in Virginia.
“These investigations hijack existing civil rights laws to advance this Administration’s extreme agenda to undermine local governance of educational institutions, reshape them in its ideological image, and undo the progress made to open educational opportunities to more people. The Trump Administration has already sought to defund and dismantle the Department of Education entirely, a move that undermines the Department’s core mission to ensure every student, regardless of background, receives a safe and quality learning environment and education.
“These attacks don’t just distract and drain resources that could be used for cases of genuine civil rights violations, but take a deeply concerning step towards stripping away the independence and academic freedom entitled to our higher education institutions. I fear for the future of Virginia’s education system.”
People in Leeds are being asked to take note of the traffic and travel arrangements that have formed a key part of the planning for a major new sporting event.
The inaugural IRONMAN Leeds triathlon is being held this Sunday, July 27, with around 2,500 athletes set to push themselves to the limit as they tackle a 2.4-mile swim in Roundhay Park’s Waterloo Lake followed by a 112-mile bike ride and a 26-mile run.
A wide-ranging programme of temporary road closures will be in place in and around north Leeds to ensure that the event – which is being organised by the IRONMAN Group with support from Leeds City Council – passes off safely and smoothly.
And, with the final countdown to the big day now under way, residents are being encouraged to take a few minutes to acquaint themselves with the closure timings and locations.
Significant traffic disruption is expected, with the epic nature of the event – and the lengthy race times that come with it – meaning restrictions will be in force for much of Sunday.
The IRONMAN team has been working hard to publicise the plans for the day, with a total of 60,000 information leaflets being distributed to local properties.
More than 100 businesses in affected areas have also received direct e-mails with details about the event that they can share with their staff and customers.
Vehicle crossing locations will be dotted along the cycling and running routes, while full emergency service road access will be maintained throughout. Pedestrians will be able to cross the routes at any point, provided it is safe to do so.
People with enquiries regarding road access – including carers who need to carry out home visits – are asked to contact the IRONMAN team via leeds@ironmanroadaccess.com or 03330 116600.
Enquiries about other IRONMAN-related matters should be e-mailed to leeds@ironman.com.
Leeds is one of only two places in the UK hosting a full IRONMAN challenge in 2025, with previous events in locations such as Bolton and Pembrokeshire generating millions of pounds for their local economies.
Councillor Jonathan Pryor, Leeds City Council’s deputy leader and executive member for economy, transport and sustainable development, said:
“IRONMAN Leeds promises to be a fantastic occasion, and one that will further strengthen our city’s reputation as a respected host of high-profile sporting events.
“The exploits of local triathletes such as the Brownlee brothers have given Leeds a real interest in this sport, so hopefully people will be turning out in numbers on Sunday to support the competitors in Roundhay Park and along the rest of the course.
“The road closures that are needed for the safe operation of the event will inevitably cause some disruption and we thank the public in advance for their patience and understanding.
“Please do take the time, if you haven’t already, to familiarise yourself with all the relevant traffic and travel arrangements and how they might affect your plans.”
IRONMAN Leeds will have a staggered start, with the first swimmers venturing into Waterloo Lake from 6am on Sunday.
The event’s second discipline, the bike race, begins and ends in Roundhay Park and will cover three loops of a circular route that runs through or near communities such as Shadwell, Thorner, Bardsey, Wike, Harewood, Eccup, Arthington, Adel and Alwoodley.
Roads that will be affected by the closure programme needed for this part of the day include:
Carr Lane between Shadwell and Thorner (closed 6am to 3.30pm)
Bramham Road and part of Thorner Road, both to the east of Thorner (closed 6am to 3.30pm)
The A61 Harrogate Road between the A659 at Harewood and Wike Lane (closed 7am to 4.30pm)
The A61 Harrogate Road between Wike Lane and Wigton Approach, near the Grammar School at Leeds (closed 7am to 5.30pm)
Alwoodley Lane between its junctions with King Lane and the A61 Harrogate Road (closed eastbound 7.30am to 5.30pm)
IRONMAN Leeds’s third and final discipline, the run, will follow a looped course that takes in the western side of Roundhay Park and a host of residential streets in the wider Roundhay area.
Athletes are expected to start crossing the finishing line – which will be located near the park’s cricket pavilion – from around 2pm.
Spectators heading to this area to cheer the runners home can look forward to a party atmosphere as well as food stalls, music and other attractions.
Roads in Roundhay that will be closed for much of Sunday to facilitate both the run and general event access include North Park Grove, Gledhow Avenue, Jackson Avenue, Old Park Road and the stretch of Street Lane between Devonshire Avenue and Princes Avenue. Park Avenue will be closed near the Lakeside Cafe from 6am on Saturday until 5pm on Monday (July 28).
Tropical World will be open as normal throughout the event.
Lewis Peacock, race director for IRONMAN Leeds, said:
“We can’t wait to welcome thousands of athletes to the home of triathlon as the very first IRONMAN Leeds heads to town.
“It’s set to be an incredible day of racing and a great moment to have a full distance IRONMAN race return to England for the first time since 2023.
“The spectator support in Roundhay Park is expected to be massive, so make sure you head down to soak up the atmosphere!”
Further information about road closures along the cycling and running routes – together with suggested diversions for people wanting to drive to Harewood House on Sunday – can be found here.
The #ErasmusDays are an international six-day celebration of the Erasmus+ programme. During these days, people throughout the world are invited to come together and either organise or participate at events that celebrate the projects and opportunities proposed by Erasmus+. For students, teachers, trainers, professionals and more generally, all citizens, the #ErasmusDays represent a unique moment to promote the multitude of benefits that result from the programme. In 2025, the 9th edition of the #ErasmusDays will take place from the 13th until the 18th October.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alvina Hoffmann, Lecturer in Diplomatic Studies, Department of Politics and International Studies, SOAS, University of London
The United States has imposed sanctions against the UN’s special rapporteur in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese. It’s an unprecedented situation. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, cited as the reason her direct engagement with the International Criminal Court “in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel”.
The statement also described Albanese’s “threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies” as an escalation of her strategies. The sanctions were framed as preventing “illegitimate ICC overreach and abuse of power” and as part of Trump’s Executive Order 14203 on imposing sanctions on the ICC.
This raises the question: who are special rapporteurs and why would Albanese’s performance of her role elicit such a strong reaction from the US? Special rapporteurs are independent human rights experts, part of the UN Human Rights Council’s special procedures system established in 1979. There are 46 “thematic mandates” on issues such as extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and the environment, and 14 “country mandates”, including in Palestine.
Experts on human rights from academia, advocacy, law and other relevant professional fields are appointed to fulfil a variety of tasks. These include undertaking country visits, sending communications to states about individual cases of human rights violations, developing international human rights standards, engaging in advocacy and providing technical cooperation based on their legal and thematic expertise.
In 1967, 22 years after it was set up, the United Nations established institutional provisions for independent experts on human rights. This happened first in 1967 when it appointed an ad hoc working group of experts on apartheid and racial discrimination in southern Africa. In 1968 the same group of experts was appointed to investigate “Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories”. This is still in place today.
Neither South Africa nor Israel allowed experts to enter their territories to inspect their human rights record at the time. But in 2003, nearly a decade after it first held democratic elections, South Africa issued a standing invitation to all thematic special procedures, meaning they committed themselves, at least in theory, to always accept requests to visit from rapporteurs.
Attacks on individual rapporteurs
Albanese, a specialist in international human rights law, is the eighth rapporteur since the creation of her mandate in 1993. She was appointed to this pro bono position in 2022 for three years, and her mandate was recently renewed for another period of three years.
It was her most recent report from June 30 which led to her being sanctioned by the US. The report focused on the role of the corporate sector in “colonial endeavours and associated genocides” and named over 60 companies as “complicit”.
A host of institutions and leading human rights figures have come to her defence. Agnes Callamard, a former special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, now the secretary general of Amnesty international noted the “chilling effects for all special rapporteurs” of the US decision. Top UN human rights officials denounced this dangerous precedent and called for its reversal.
In February 2024, the government of Israel declared Albanese persona non grata in response to her remark that “the victims of the October 7 massacre were not murdered because of their Jewishness, but in response to Israeli oppression”. As with the newly imposed sanctions, she called this step a distraction and called upon the world to keep their focus on Gaza.
Diplomatic immunity
Special rapporteurs are granted diplomatic immunity which, in theory, should enable them to speak up or write critical reports without the fear of reprisals. But in 1989 and 1999 the ICJ had to intervene with an advisory opinion on two cases when this status was jeopardised after the home countries of two special rapporteurs tried to restrict their freedom of speech. This involved Romanian national Dumitru Mazilu, tasked with writing a report on “Human rights and youth”, and Malaysian national Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
Special rapporteurs wrote a collective letter denouncing the second case, when the Malaysian government filed several legal proceedings against Cumaraswamy. The body of experts called this “judicial harassment of a special rapporteur” and “a challenge to the status of the United Nations as a whole, its officials and its experts on mission”.
Special rapporteurs occupy an ambiguous institutional position. They take their mandate from the Human Rights Council, but they act in their personal capacity, and hence are not considered to be UN officials. In practice, they need to balance relations carefully between the UN secretariat, civil society, state representatives and, at times, their own countries.
The advisory opinions helped clarify that it was the secretary general, as the head of the United Nations, that entrusts them with the privileges of diplomatic immunity. The arrangement also leaves the door open for national courts to disagree with the secretary general. This enabled individual countries in some cases to exercise some form of control over their own nationals.
The recent attack on Albanese adds to the broader budgetary crisis of the UN, as the Trump administration is withholding funds of about US$1.5 billion (£1.2 billion) in addition to other countries such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. These are serious challenges for the UN human rights and humanitarian aid programmes. As past cases of attacks against individual rapporteurs have shown, it is important for all rapporteurs to stand together as one body and defend the integrity of the system as a whole.
Despite these attacks on her integrity and person, Albanese maintains faith in the human rights law instruments. As she stated during a public talk I attended at SOAS University of London in November 2024, we are yet to unlock the full potential of these instruments. This can only be done as a collective.
Alvina Hoffmann has previously been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (UKRI).
