Initially expected to result in a decisive Conservative victory, the Canadian federal election took a dramatic turn as Mark Carney led the Liberals to victory. It also offered an important lesson in the power of strategic voting — driven not just by domestic politics but by external pressures from the United States and a re-energized Liberal campaign.
The pushback against the Conservatives, and in particular their leader, Pierre Poilievre, led to him losing in his own riding, although the Conservatives gained more seats overall.
The Liberals benefited from strategic voting, but it was the NDP that appeared to lose the most from this strategy.
My first book, Voting Radical Right in Western Europe (2009), focused on the impact of strategic voting. At the time, I observed that political parties would often try to induce voters to vote strategically for a party or candidate that might not otherwise be their first choice.
This type of strategic voting was clearly on display in the second round of the French presidential election in 2002, when Jean-Marie Le Pen of the far right National Front faced Jacques Chirac in the second round.
This strategy worked again in the July 2024 legislative elections in France, where the left and mainstream right-leaning parties came together to make sure that they didn’t split the vote in districts where it could lead to a win by the far-right Rassemblement National (National Rally). In both cases, voters chose more moderate candidates, reducing the influence of the far right.
Electoral systems are often designed to encourage voters to choose a more moderate candidate. This approach includes putting electoral hurdles in place. For example, parties in Germany have to win at least five per cent of the vote or win three district seats to enter the legislature.
The ability of that party to gain votes in the former East Germany has been the main reason for its success.
Winners and losers in Canada
Canada presents an interesting case for strategic voting. In the lead-up to the federal election, many voters were posting suggestions for strategic voting in districts where the vote was being split between parties, particularly on the left.
For example, there was a close race in a riding in British Columbia between the Green and Conservative candidates. I noticed social media posts in which voters were encouraged to shift their vote from the NDP or Liberal candidates to give the Green candidate a better chance of winning the riding.
Given the fact that the Canadian electoral system is winner-take-all in each riding, it’s important that voters understand the broader impact of their vote on the national outcome.
It’s likely that many voters switched their votes from their smaller, preferred party — particularly the NPD — to one of the main parties, depending on the kind of poll projections they might have been seeing in their ridings.
This situation exemplifies the importance of parties providing clear information on potential outcomes to encourage voters to use their vote strategically to get a desired outcome at the national level.
Terri Givens 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: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Deputy Prime Minister Dmytro Chernyshenko made a working visit to the Kherson region.
The Vice Prime Minister assessed the progress of construction and restoration of institutions in the spheres of education, youth policy, sports, religion, and also talked to their representatives. The events were attended by the Governor of the Kherson region Volodymyr Saldo.
The event “The glory of these days will not fade!” was held at Genicheskaya School No. 1. In the presence of Dmitry Chernyshenko, students recited poems about the Great Patriotic War and performed songs about Russia.
In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister assessed the work of the school museum “History of One Family”. It features the exhibition “Suitcase of Memory” dedicated to the Great Patriotic War and the SVO.
“On the eve of one of the most important holidays – Victory Day – I express my deep gratitude to the teachers and mentors who so carefully preserve the history of their native land. Let’s make sure that your experience with the “Memory Suitcase” is spread. At the very least, we will start with your sister schools, and then we will conduct such a relay race throughout the country. Everything that you have come up with here will now be repeated by your friends, colleagues from other cities of our vast country,” Dmitry Chernyshenko emphasized.
Currently, the school has 14 sister schools throughout Russia, including in Krasnodar Krai, Volgograd, Adygea, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Khabarovsk.
The Deputy Prime Minister thanked the Republic of Adygea and its head Murat Kumpilov for the renovation of the physical education and health complex and the music room, and also noted the need for major repairs at the school.
In conclusion, he presented the school with a certificate for improving its material and technical base and history textbooks. “Promise that you will definitely study and try. After all, the most important thing you can do for our country now is to study well. And we, on our part, on the instructions of President Vladimir Putin, will continue to create conditions so that you can realize your potential and talents. And you have a lot of talents – we are convinced of this!” the Deputy Prime Minister addressed the students.
Also in Genichesk, Dmitry Chernyshenko assessed the progress of the comprehensive reconstruction of the Kherson Technical University and talked to students. The Deputy Prime Minister was provided with detailed information about the work of the Russian Children and Youth Movement “Movement of the First”, the physics and chemistry laboratory, the design department, as well as a presentation of the computer sports development center and the UAV research laboratory. In conclusion, the Deputy Prime Minister handed over a certificate to the university for the purchase of a vehicle.
“In the Kherson region, I see a huge focus on raising the level of socio-economic development. The most important thing is that on the eve of such an important holiday for our country – Victory Day – we decided to focus on children and youth and on the opportunities that are provided in accordance with the national goal outlined by President Vladimir Putin, to realize the potential and develop the talents of each person,” said Dmitry Chernyshenko.
He emphasized the professional involvement of teachers and also noted the importance of the role of modern defenders of the Fatherland: “We are very grateful to our heroes today, the participants of the SVO, who protect us and strive to ensure that peaceful life comes as soon as possible and we continue our positive development.”
In addition, Dmitry Chernyshenko and Vladimir Saldo visited the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where they discussed work issues with Metropolitan Filaret of Novaya Kakhovka and Genichesk and Archpriest Alexander Demkin.
“This is one of the most significant Orthodox churches in the Kherson region. A place where history, faith and national unity have always been close. The church is more than a century old – it has had to endure a lot at different times. Today it is open to people again, lives and receives parishioners. For the Kherson region, preserving churches is not just caring for buildings. It is preserving our history, our roots, which give us the strength to move forward,” said Volodymyr Saldo.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Since President Donald J. Trump took office 100 days ago, it has been a nonstop deluge of hoaxes and lies from Democrats and their allies in the Fake News suffering from terminal cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
In no particular order, here are some of the most egregious hoaxes peddled by the usual suspects so far in President Trump’s second term:
HOAX: Fake News CNN attempted to “fact check” President Trump’s claim that the Biden Administration spent millions on “making mice transgender.”
HOAX: The Fake News claimed the Department of Defense removed Gen. Colin Powell’s name from a list of notable Americans buried at Arlington Cemetery.
FACT: No service members’ names were removed from that section — and Gen. Powell’s name remains among those listed.
HOAX: Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) claimed “no president” presided over more plane crashes during their first month in office as President Trump.
FACT: “There were 55 aviation accidents in the U.S. between Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 21, 2021, and Feb. 17, 2021, compared to 35 during the same period for Trump,” Fox News reported.
FACT: It was actually the U.S. Secret Service investigating a threat unrelated to immigration.
HOAX: Far-left influencers and other leftist hacks falsely claimed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Elon Musk were out to “cut Social Security.”
FACT: They were referencing an interview in which Musk was clearly referring to the tremendous amount of waste, fraud, and abuse within entitlement programs.
HOAX: The media smeared DOGE as “young, inexperienced engineers” engineering a “government takeover.”
FACT: In reality, DOGE is led by seasoned industry professionals, including successful CEOs who paused their lives to aid in the effort of streamlining government and holding the bureaucracy accountable.
HOAX: NBC’s Peter Alexander peddled the lie that “constituents in some traditionally red districts” were unhappy with President Trump’s effort to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in government.
FACT: The same “protests” cited by the Fake News were funded and organized by far-left special interest groups.
HOAX: NPR claimed NASA astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore — who were stuck on the International Space Station for more than nine months following problems with their spacecraft — were “not stranded.”
FACT: NPR itself had described the astronauts as stranded in prior reporting, and only seemed to take issue with the description once President Trump and Elon Musk made it a priority to bring them home.
HOAX: A foreign Fake News outlet reported that President Trump “shut down” the British prime minister during a news conference.
FACT: In reality, President Trump was simply moving on from a reporter who was trying to goad the two leaders into division.
HOAX: NPR falsely claimed the White House was actively searching for a new secretary of defense.
HOAX: The Fake News attempted to paint illegal immigrant gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia as an innocent “Maryland father” who was unjustly deported by the Trump Administration — and actively censored the truth about him.
FACT: Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador and was deported to his home country amid overwhelming evidence of his gang affiliation.
HOAX: Deranged “filmmaker” Michael Moore questioned whether deported illegal immigrants would go on to cure cancer or stop “that asteroid (sic) that’s gonna hit us.”
FACT: Moore’s statement was a strong early contender for the dumbest, most ridiculous statement of the year considering those deported illegal immigrants were violent criminals.
HOAX: The Fake News portrayed Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Hamas radical who led violent protests at Columbia, as an innocent graduate student with an absolute right to remain in the U.S.
FACT: An immigration judge ruled Khalil — who is not a U.S. citizen — can be deported.
HOAX: The Financial Timesreported that Senior White House Counselor Peter Navarro wanted to remove Canada from the “Five Eyes” intelligence sharing network.
FACT: Mr. Navarro immediately shut down this fake story.
HOAX: A foreign Fake News reporter claimed President Trump referred to European nations as “parasites.”
FACT: President Trump immediately pushed back on this ridiculous claim — as did the Italian prime minister.
HOAX: Fake News CNN’s Brianna Keilar implied the Trump Administration was somehow wrong for stopping illegal immigrants from stealing taxpayer dollars in the form of welfare benefits.
FACT: Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller summarily embarrassed her with the facts: “The federal government will find EVERY illegal alien who is stealing American taxpayer dollars — and that’s what Americans expect to happen. I don’t even fathom the premise of your question.”
HOAX: A favorite refrain of the Fake News is that Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is “anti-vaccine.”
FACT: Kennedy debunked the lie in his confirmation hearings: “This has been repeatedly debunked … Bringing this up right now is dishonest.”
HOAX: WIRED falsely claimed the Social Security Administration is “shifting its public communication exclusively to X” under President Trump.
HOAX: Reuters falsely reported that the Trump Administration “stalled a United Nations program in Mexico aimed at stopping imported fentanyl chemicals from reaching the country’s drug cartels.”
FACT: The Department of State is actually trying to expand the initiative.
FACT: The Fake News frequently pushed the lie that as part of the Trump administration, Secretary Kennedy would implement a national abortion ban and “restrict or even ban medication abortion without a single act of Congress.”
FACT: Secretary Kennedy consistently pledged to implement President Trump’s policies — which include leaving abortion to the states, ending barbaric late-term abortions, protecting conscientious objections, and ending federal funding for abortions.
HOAX: Fake News savant Tara Palmeri falsely reported that President Trump’s proposal for Gaza was conceived by Jared Kushner.
FACT: This lie was immediately and summarily debunked by the Trump Administration: “The worst reporter in America makes up fake news for clout because she has no real sources. Sit down, dummy.”
HOAX: Sen. Chris Murphy, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and media outlets claimed President Trump’s directive to pause radical, wasteful government spending meant an end to Medicaid, food assistance, and other individual assistance programs.
FACT: Individual assistance programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. — were explicitly excluded, as was made clear by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and the Office of Management and Budget. Only unnecessary spending — DEI, Green New Scam, NGOs that undermine the national interest — were included in the directive.
HOAX: A “physicians advocacy group” was widely cited as opposing President Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
FACT: The “advocacy group” was really an astroturfed partisan organization funded by prominent left-wing donors — and accepted fake signatures.
HOAX: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and other Democrats pushed the lie that DOGE posted “classified information” on their website.
FACT: That alleged “classified information” was really just an employment headcount — which has been publicly available for years.
HOAX: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) claimed Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem called all Venezuelan immigrants “dirtbags.”
FACT: Secretary Noem actually called illegal immigrant members of the vicious Tren de Aragua gang “dirtbags,” which is true.
HOAX:The New York Timeswrote that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., wanted to “ban fluoride in drinking water” and “reverse … one of the most important public health practices in the country’s history.”
FACT: New York Times made no mention of their own reporting that fluoride may be “linked to lower IQ scores in children.”
HOAX: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) repeatedly lied about President Trump “going after” Social Security.
FACT: President Trump has repeatedly pledged to protect Social Security and make it more robust for American citizens.
HOAX: Sen. Mark Kelley (D-AZ) attempted to scare veterans by shamelessly claiming their care was in jeopardy due to “layoffs” at VA hospitals.
FACT: The lie was debunked by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins: “What changes are you talking about? We’ve not had those layoffs… I put $360 million back into community care… It’s concerning to me that a veteran would actually tell stories to veterans that are not true.”
HOAX: Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) exploited the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport plane crash tragedy by claiming President Trump “froze the hiring” of air traffic controllers.
FACT: Air traffic controllers were exempt from the federal hiring freeze.
HOAX: Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) implied that “cutting” members of an aviation advisory committee was somehow a cause of the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport plane crash tragedy.
FACT: The advisory group hadn’t met since 2023 and was comprised of business and union leaders who gave “advice” to the TSA and had nothing to do with actual air travel.
HOAX: A far-left writer claimed Elon Musk and DOGE staffers “illegally installed a commercial server to control federal HR databases that contain sensitive personal information, including SSNs, home addresses, and medical histories.”
FACT: A top official confirmed “there’s nothing illegal and no server, just more made up tall tales from uninformed career bureaucrats.”
HOAX:The Washington Postalleged the Trump Administration was setting “quotas” for immigration authorities — and gave the administration just four minutes to comment before publishing.
FACT: The illegal immigrant was a confirmed member of the vicious Tren de Aragua gang. An immigration judge ordered his removal, and he was deported along with other threats to national security.
HOAX:The Wall Street Journalalleged that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was receiving sensitive information on a personal phone while in Moscow and that Russian Intelligence must’ve had access to the information.
FACT: This was a total fabrication. Special Envoy Witkoff did not even have a personal phone with him in Russia. He had only a government phone; a secure line of communication.
HOAX:The Wall Street Journalclaimed the Trump Administration “sought to portray” deported criminal illegal immigrant gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia as “violent.”
FACT: Abrego Garcia’s own wife filed an order of protection against him and testified that he brutally beat her.
HOAX: An AP reporter claimed that FAA staff who worked on “radar, landing and navigational aid maintenance, among others” were “harassed on Facebook” by DOGE.
FACT: That was a total lie. DOGE doesn’t have a Facebook page and no professionals who perform critical safety functions were fired.
HOAX: The Daily Beast claimed Vice President JD Vance “broke one of the most notorious Vatican rules during his Easter weekend visit” by being photographed in the Sistine Chapel.
FACT: Buried all the way down in the 14th paragraph, The Daily Beast admitted the vice president was given special permission by the Vatican to have photographs taken inside the Sistine Chapel.
HOAX: Left-wing social media accounts promoted fake, AI-generated audio of Vice President Vance “disparaging Elon Musk in private.”
HOAX:The New York Timesreported that funding for the Women’s Health Initiative was being slashed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
FACT: Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., himself declared this Fake News and recognized the project is “mission critical.”
HOAX: Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin gave legitimacy to a hoax from delusional Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth requested nearly $140,000 in “upgrades” to his government residence.
FACT: This lie was debunked by Secretary Hegseth — and it was so outrageous, even the AP was forced to admit it was completely fake.
HOAX: Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) and many others claimed the Supreme Court ordered the return of illegal immigrant gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States.
FACT: Even CNN admitted that’s not what happened: “They did not order the administration to return him to the United States … they could’ve said ‘we order him returned,’ but they didn’t do that.”
HOAX: Joe Biden accused the Trump Administration of “taking aim at Social Security.”
FACT: As usual, he was lying — President Trump has repeatedly pledged to protect Social Security.
HOAX: Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) claimed the arrest of a Milwaukee judge who helped an illegal immigrant evade arrest was “unprecedented.”
HOAX: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) called the arrest of a Milwaukee judge who helped an illegal immigrant evade arrest a “gravely serious and drastic move.”
FACT: The judge violated the law by obstructing an ICE arrest of an illegal immigrant.
HOAX: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) claimed the arrest of the Milwaukee judge who obstructed an apprehension of a criminal illegal immigrant “threatens the rule of law.”
FACT: It literally does the opposite because no one is above the law.
HOAX: Politico claimed the Trump Administration “wipe[d] out firefighter health and safety programs.”
FACT: The programs remain a top priority for the administration — and will remain intact.
HOAX: Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed that President Trump’s policies make it so “no one wants to make investments in the United States.”
FACT: President Trump has secured more than $5 trillion in investments since taking office, which is expected to create more than 451,000 new jobs — and the list is only expected to grow.
HOAX: NBC’s Kristen Welker peddled a Fake News hoax that the Trump Administration was deporting children.
FACT: Secretary of State Marco Rubio shut down her desperate attempt at a hoax by highlighting how the mother, who was in the country illegally, made that choice all on her own.
HOAX:The New York Timesimplied President Trump was alone in wearing a blue suit to the funeral of Pope Francis.
FACT: Photos show dozens of world leaders and other attendees — many situated near President Trump — alsowearingblue clothing.
HOAX: Teachers’ union boss Randi Weingarten accused President Trump of taking teachers’ salaries and giving them to “billionaires” by cutting the Department of Education.
FACT: President Trump has repeatedly called teachers “the most important people in this country” who should be paid more, not less. The federal government does not pay the salaries of teachers; state and local governments do.
HOAX: The Fake News and their predictable allies ran with a story that claimed an American citizen was detained by authorities after he informed them he was, in fact, a citizen.
FACT: That’s not what happened. The individual “approached Border Patrol in Tucson and stated he had entered the U.S. illegally through Nogales. He said he wanted to turn himself in and completed a sworn statement identifying as a Mexican citizen who had entered unlawfully … A few days later, his family presented documents showing U.S. citizenship. The charges were dismissed, and he was released to his family.”
HOAX: PBS News claimed “DOGE operatives attempted to gain access to secure spaces,” implying they attempted to access classified information without approval.
HOAX: The AP falsely claimed Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said President Trump is “very good friends” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
FACT: The AP was humiliatingly forced to retract its story, admitting they were wrong. Stephanie Ruhle also had to issue a correction. DNI Gabbard was referencing President Trump’s relationship with Indian PM Narendra Modi.
FACT: Wrong. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “When you apply to enter the United States and you get a visa, you are a guest… If you tell us when you apply for a visa ‘I’m coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events,’ that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States… If you had told us you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa.”
In 1966, the United States sued Plaquemines Parish School Board seeking to desegregate its schools. By 1975, the Court found the schools had been properly integrated, but the case was never removed from the Court system. Thus, for nearly a half century the case remained open.
That ended today. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon righted a historical wrong, freeing the local school district of federal oversight. For decades, the Parish was forced to yield to the demands of past Administrations, unnecessarily subjecting schools and students to probing federal oversight.
“No longer will the Plaquemines Parish School Board have to devote precious local resources over an integration issue that ended two generations ago,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This is a prime example of neglect by past administrations, and we’re now getting America refocused on our bright future.”
“Louisiana got its act together decades ago, and it is past time to acknowledge how far we have come,” said Leo Terrell, Senior Counsel to the Civil Rights Division. “America is back, and this Department of Justice is making sure the Civil Rights Division is correcting wrongs from the past and working for all Americans.”
SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Silvaco Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SVCO) (“Silvaco” or the “Company”), a provider of TCAD, EDA software and SIP solutions that enable semiconductor design and digital twin modeling through AI software and innovation, today announced the strategic acquisition of Tech-X Corporation, a leading provider of multi-physics simulation software used in applications such as Photonics, Electromagnetics and Plasma Dynamics.
Tech-X cutting-edge tools enable:
Multi-physics simulation of electromagnetic, and electrostatics in complex dielectric and metallic environments;
Combination of computational speed leveraging GPUs, and high-fidelity results for Photonics applications;
Plasma Dynamics simulation trusted by engineers and researchers in aerospace and semiconductor manufacturing; and
Monte Carlo simulation solution used for radiation analysis in aerospace applications.
By combining Tech-X’s unique multi-physics simulation tools with Silvaco’s Victory TCAD platform, customers will be able to create more accurate digital twin models for photonics, semiconductor devices and wafer-scale plasma etching —accelerating innovation across the industry. Tech-X brings deep expertise to Silvaco in developing state-of-the-art algorithms that harness high-performance, multi-node GPU-based computing to significantly improve simulation speed and accuracy.
“Bringing Tech-X’s expertise and multi-physics simulation technology into Silvaco represents a significant step forward in our growth strategy for expansion into AI applications with technologies, talent and new customers,” said Babak Taheri, CEO of Silvaco. “By leveraging our TCAD foundation, we are expanding further into fast multi-physics transistor-level simulation from device to wafer-scale geometries, for photonic components, processes, materials, and plasma modeling. We’re also thrilled to welcome Professor John Cary to the team. His 40+ years of experience in computational physics will play a key role in accelerating our innovation and expanding our presence in the rapidly growing photonics market.”
“We are excited to join forces with Silvaco and take advantage of the many synergistic capabilities between our organizations,” said John Cary, CTO of Tech-X and Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “By leveraging Silvaco’s global reach and strong technical team, we see tremendous opportunities to expand the application of Tech-X’s advanced photonics and plasma modeling technologies across the semiconductor and photonics industries.”
Needham & Company acted as financial advisor to Silvaco in the transaction.
About Silvaco Silvaco is a provider of TCAD, EDA software, and SIP solutions that enable semiconductor design and digital twin modeling through AI software and innovation. Silvaco’s solutions are used for semiconductor and photonics processes, devices, and systems development across display, power devices, automotive, memory, high performance compute, foundries, photonics, internet of things, and 5G/6G mobile markets for complex SoC design. Silvaco is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and has a global presence with offices located in North America, Europe, Brazil, China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Learn more at silvaco.com.
Safe Harbor Statement This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including but not limited to, statements regarding Silvaco’s acquisition of Tech-X Corporation, technologies and product offerings, business strategy, plans and opportunities, industry and market trends including TAM estimates and the expected benefits and impact of the transaction and combined business on Silvaco’s growth. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections. Words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “believe,” “hope,” “target,” “project,” “goals,” “estimate,” “potential,” “predict,” “may,” “will,” “might,” “could,” “intend,” “shall” and variations of these terms and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside Silvaco’s control. For example, the markets for Silvaco’s products and services may develop more slowly than expected or than they have in the past; operating results and cash flows may fluctuate more than expected; Silvaco may fail to successfully integrate Tech-X Corporation; Silvaco may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition; Silvaco may incur unanticipated costs or other liabilities in connection with acquiring or integrating Tech-X Corporation; the potential impact of the announcement or consummation of the transaction on relationships with third parties, including employees, customers, partners and competitors; Silvaco may be unable to motivate and retain key personnel; changes in or failure to comply with legislation or government regulations could affect post-closing operations and results of operations; and macroeconomic and geopolitical conditions could deteriorate. The forward-looking statements included in this press release represent Silvaco’s views as of the date of this press release, and Silvaco disclaims any obligation to update any of them publicly in light of new information or future events.
The Vietnam War (1955–1975) was more than just a chapter in the Cold War.
For some, it was supposed to achieve Vietnam’s right to self-determination. For others, it was an attempt to found a nation-state independent of both capitalist and communist influences.
In the 50 years since the war ended, the stories we’ve heard about it have struggled to convey these many different views. Cinema – in Hollywood and in Vietnam – offers some insight into this struggle, which we continue to face today.
A war by any other name
The war is known by many names, and each one highlights the different objectives of the forces involved.
For the United States, “The Vietnam War” was one battleground against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. To prevent communism from spreading, the US sent resources to establish the Republic of Vietnam (known informally as South Vietnam) as its proxy. It had already used this strategy with West Germany and South Korea.
The Communist Party of Vietnam thought of US involvement as a form of colonialism.
By calling the conflict “the sacred resistance against the US to salvage the country” (Cuộc Kháng Chiến Chống Mỹ, Cứu Nước), or “the American war” (Chiến Tranh Mỹ) for short, the communist party encouraged the perception of the war as a stepping stone towards Vietnam’s full independence following Chinese imperialism (circa 111 BCE–939 CE), French colonialism (1862–1954) and Japanese occupation (1940-45).
The communist objective was to “liberate” South Vietnam from the US and its puppet administration, and reunify the country. This is why, in Vietnam, April 30 is called “Reunification Day” or “Independence Day”, to commemorate the communists’ victory in capturing Saigon.
However, former citizens of South Vietnam call April 30 the “Day of National Mourning” (Ngày Quốc Hận), as it marks the Republic’s defeat and the beginning of decades of political persecution and refugee displacement. Although the South Vietnamese were pluralistic in their political beliefs, they were united in their anti-communism.
For them, the conflict was “the Civil War” (Nội Chiến), fought between communists and anti-communists over the future of Vietnam. After the Republic fell, many grieved (and still do) the vision of what South Vietnam could have become.
Apocalypse then
While the US eventually lost control over South Vietnam, it continued to influence how Vietnam was thought of in the West through Hollywood.
Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now is loosely based on Joseph Conrad’s classic novel, Heart of Darkness. Shutterstock
In the 1970-80s, Vietnam War films such as Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979), Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) and Oliver Stone’s Platoon (1987) established these directors as household names.
The films focus on US soldiers’ psyche and discontent with incompetent leadership, pushing the Vietnamese people and their struggles for independence into the background. They frame the war as something done to American society, rather than something the US orchestrated.
This victimhood fostered what became known as “the Vietnam syndrome” – an unofficial condition in American mindset characterised by feelings of woundedness and a loss of trust in the capability of the US.
In Vietnam, early communist-controlled cinema in the north depicted the Vietnamese as an oppressed people who must band together to defeat Western corruption. Wartime films such as Along the Same River (1959) and 17th Parallel, Days and Nights (1972) leaned into melodramatic love stories to allegorise the divided Vietnam as separated lovers who must be reunited.
As directors in the north slowly gained some freedom from the communist party, films increasingly dealt with the war’s immense impact and questioned the party’s ability to bring about the classless society it had promised. The Girl on the River (1987) and Living in Fear (2005) are two good examples.
Living in Fear (Sống trong sợ hãi) trailer.
Meanwhile, filmmakers in the south were independents who occasionally collaborated with the state or military, as seen with the classic 1971 film Faceless Lover (also known as Warrior, Who Are You?).
South Vietnamese people saw film as a medium to negotiate their fledgling national identity. For them, it was important to establish and safekeep an identity that was distinct from the “foreign ally” (the US) and the “domestic foe” (the communists).
This is why films from the south often portrayed love triangles, where the hero must choose between the vessels of modern Vietnamese femininity and Western excess. Some examples include Afternoon Sun (1972) and Late Night’s Dew (1972).
Apocalypse now
New perspectives on the war are emerging as historically marginalised groups gain footing in Western media. And some of these challenge early portrayals.
Spike Lee’s Da 5 Bloods (2020) was the first major production to show the war through Black American veterans’ eyes. Hollywood neglected to do this, despite the over-representation of Black soldiers in conscription, combat and casualties during wartime.
Although Da 5 Bloods still fails to account for the Vietnamese’s fight for self-determination, it acknowledges Black Americans’ and the Vietnamese people’s mutual suffering under white supremacy.
One independent feature from a son of refugees, Journey from the Fall (2006), conveys the resentment many exiled South Vietnamese people feel towards the communist party. It also explores the trauma of leaving Vietnam by boat and resettlement in the US.
Most recently, the 2024 TV series The Sympathizer, adapted from Viet Thanh Nguyen’s novel, moved the needle by probing at complex issues such as wartime loyalty, complicity and authenticity.
Communist narratives persist
In Vietnam today, the scale of communist party-funded movies has grown immensely, with many films resembling Hollywood blockbusters. But the messages have become more conservative.
Films such as The Scent of Burning Grass (2012) and The Legend Makers (2013) continue to support the communist party narrative by omitting South Vietnam’s anti-communist objective. They also undermine women’s contributions to the war efforts, whereas earlier films put women at the centre of community organisation.
A new generation of filmmakers is challenging these narratives through collaboration with international production companies and distributors. Features such as Viet and Nam (2024) experiment with film form to show the true costs of war, including the widening wealth disparity in Vietnam, and the lengths many would go to close this gap.
Viet and Nam trailer.
Scarlette Nhi Do 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.
US President Donald Trump declared earlier this year he would forge a “colour blind and merit-based society”.
His executive order was part of a broader policy directing the US military, federal agencies and other public institutions to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Framing this as restoring fairness, neutrality and strength to American institutions, Trump argued DEI programs “discourage merit and leadership” and amounted to “race-based and sex-based discrimination”.
In Australia too, debates over gender quotas and “the war on woke” have repeatedly invoked meritocracy as a rallying cry against affirmative action.
The narrative of rewards going to the most qualified people is compelling. Yet decades of research show this is flawed. Far from being the great equaliser, an uncritical reliance on “merit” can perpetuate bias and inequality.
The myths of meritocracy
The merit rhetoric invokes the ideal of a neutral, objective system rewarding talent and effort, regardless of identity.
In theory, merit-based evaluations such as exams, performance reviews, employee recruitment processes and competitive bids, should be impartial.
In practice however, there are several myths associated with the notion of merit.
1. Merit is purely objective or unbiased. In the employment context for example, studies show that even so-called objective and standardised cognitive or aptitude tests can systematically favour men due to the type of questions asked.
Decision-makers may unknowingly redefine merit to fit whoever already belongs to a favoured group. A study of elite law firms, for example, found male applicants were rated as more qualified than identical resumes from women.
This is known as “plasticity of merit”, meaning the criteria of excellence can bend to preference, all while appearing objective.
Supposedly merit-based judgments can reflect unconscious bias, or comfort with candidates who fit a traditional mould. Over time, preference may be given to a particular type of candidate irrespective of their actual contribution. Privilege and prejudice can be baked into merit-based evaluations.
In reality however, past inequalities shape present opportunities. What counts as merit is dynamic and socially shaped, not an eternal universal standard.
For example, during the second world war there was a shortage of male workers. Qualities women brought to jobs previously held by men such as capacity for teamwork were suddenly deemed meritorious. But these same qualities were downgraded when the men returned.
Merit is often defined in masculine terms. For example, physicality or hyper-competitive traits have long been seen as prerequisites for military service and policing.
Merit is often defined in masculine terms commonly associated with military, policing and firefighting services. Charnsitr/Shutterstock
This alignment of masculine norms with standards of merit has been termed “benchmark man”.
Science careers too were built in an era when women were largely excluded. They were predicated on long-hours work and total availability – requirements that clash with caregiving responsibilities. The result is women in STEM careers leave or are pushed out.
3. Outcomes are the result of personal choice or deficiencies, not structural barriers. Meritocracy carries a moral narrative: those at the top earned their place while those left behind didn’t measure up or chose not to compete.
Research shows, for example, that when women don’t advance, it’s explained as lifestyle choices, or they lack ambition, or have opted out to prioritise caregiving.
This narrative wilfully overlooks the structural constraints impacting choices. When a woman “chooses” a lower-paying, flexible job, it may be less about preference than inadequate social supports.
By accepting unequal outcomes as the natural result of individual choices, institutions can conveniently obscure disadvantage and discrimination and erase responsibility to correct inequities.
How the merit mandate undermines equality
Trump’s vision is to remove equity initiatives and programs that monitor or encourage fair hiring and promotion, cease training that alerts employees to hidden biases, and fire or reassign DEI staff.
This is conceptually flawed and will actually entrench the very biases and barriers that have kept institutions unequal.
In the military, for example – an area highlighted by Trump – leaders have recognised they need to foster more inclusive cultures.
For years, defence forces have grappled with sexual harassment, recruitment shortfalls and retention of skilled personnel. In Australia, the Australian Defence Force undertook major reviews to identify violent and sexist subcultures, understanding a more inclusive force is a more effective force.
Yet Trump’s order bars the Pentagon from even acknowledging historical sexism in the ranks.
Favouring the in-group
Removing equity measures under a banner of neutrality means hiring and promotion will increasingly rely on informal networks and subjective judgements. These can tilt in favour of the in-group – usually white, male and affluent.
DEI initiatives can increase representation of women, or people from diverse racial or cultural backgrounds, in an organisation or occupational group.
However, without challenging the norms of merit, or without broadening the definitions of talent and leadership, people in those groups may continue to feel like outsiders.
Australian experts and business leaders increasingly acknowledge objective merit is mythical.
Redefining merit
Fair rewards for effort can improve performance. However, we need to stop pitting merit against diversity. True fairness requires acknowledgement structural inequality exists and bias affects evaluations.
Organisations need to re-imagine merit in ways that work with inclusion, rather than against it. This includes refining hiring and promotion criteria to focus on competencies that are measurable and relevant.
Paula McDonald currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Magnus Söderberg, Professor & Director, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University
In an otherwise unremarkable election campaign, the major parties are promising sharply different energy blueprints for Australia. Labor is pitching a high-renewables future powered largely by wind, solar, hydroelectricity and batteries. The Coalition wants more gas and coal now, and would build nuclear power later.
So how might these two competing visions play out as Australia goes to the polls this Saturday?
Research shows clear generational preferences when it comes to producing electricity. Younger Australians prefer renewables while older people favour coal and gas. The one exception is nuclear power, which is split much more on gender lines than age – 51% of Australian men support it, but just 26% of women.
While many voters are focused squarely on the cost of living, energy prices feed directly into how much everything costs. Research has shown that as power prices rise, the more likely it is an incumbent government will be turfed out.
Coal, renewables or nuclear?
About half of young Australians (18–34) want the country powered by renewables by 2030, according to a 2023 survey of energy consumers. Only 13% of the youngest (18–24) group think there’s no need to change or that it’s impossible. But resistance increases directly with age. From retirement age and up, 29% favour a renewable grid by 2030 while 44% think there’s no need or that it’s impossible.
On nuclear, the divide is less clear. The Coalition has promised to build Australia’s first nuclear reactors if elected, and Coalition leader Peter Dutton has claimed young people back nuclear. That’s based on a Newspoll survey showing almost two-thirds (65%) of Australians aged 18–34 supported nuclear power.
But other polls give a quite different story: 46% support for nuclear by younger Australians in an Essential poll compared to 56% support by older Australians. A Savanta poll put young support at just 36%.
There’s a gender component too. The demographic most opposed to nuclear are women over 55.
Younger voters remain strongly committed to environmental goals – but they’re also wary of cost blowouts and electricity price rises. Some see nuclear as a zero emissions technology able to help with the clean energy transition.
Older Australians are more likely to be sceptical of nuclear power. This is likely due to nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl as well as the prospect of nuclear war during the Cold War.
It’s an open question how robust support for nuclear would be if the Coalition was elected and began the long, expensive process of construction. New findings by the National Climate Action Survey shows almost 40% of Australians would be “extremely concerned” if a nuclear power plant was built within 50 kilometres of their homes and another 16% “very concerned”.
These energy preferences aren’t just found in Australia. In recent research my co-authors and I found a clear divide in Sweden: younger favour renewables and nuclear, older favour fossil fuels. Why the difference? Sweden already gets about 40% of its power from nuclear, while renewables now provide about 40% of Australia’s power.
We found younger Swedes strongly favoured renewables – but also supported nuclear power, especially when electricity prices rose. That is because nuclear is perceived to stabilise the supply of electricity. They wanted clean energy, as long as it was reliable and affordable. Our study found older people were not necessarily pro-fossil fuels, but were more focused on keeping energy affordable – especially for businesses and industry.
When electricity prices rose in Sweden, our survey respondents broadly became less concerned about climate change and more likely to be favourable to nuclear energy.
In Australia, the cost of the clean energy transition has crept up. While solar and wind offer cheap power once built, there are hidden costs.
If electricity prices keep rising, we should expect to see declining support for the clean energy transition.
Overcoming the energy divide
During Australia’s decade-long climate wars from roughly 2012 to 2022, climate change was heavily politicised and energy became a political football. Under a Coalition government in 2014, Australia became the first nation to abolish a carbon tax.
Labor took office in 2022 pledging to end the climate wars and fast-track the clean energy transition. But the Coalition has opened up a new divide on energy by proposing nuclear power by the 2040s and more gas and coal in the meantime.
This election, the cost of living is the single biggest issue for 25% of voters in the ABC’s Vote Compass poll. But climate change is still the main concern for about 8% of voters, energy for 4% and the environment 3.5%. Here, Coalition backing for fossil fuels and nuclear may attract some older and younger voters but repel others. Labor’s renewable transition may attract younger voters but lose older energy traditionalists.
Energy preferences could play out through a cost of living lens. Parties pushing too hard on green policies this election risk alienating older voters concerned about rising costs. But going nuclear would be very expensive, and keeping old coal plants going isn’t cheap. Downplaying climate action or dismissing nuclear outright could alienate some younger Australians, who are climate-conscious and energy-savvy.
Policymakers should resist framing energy as a zero-sum game. There is a path forward which can unite generations: coupling ambitious climate targets with pragmatic policies to protect consumers. Transitional supports such as energy rebates, time-of-use pricing or community-scale renewables and batteries can soften any economic impact while building public trust.
Our research suggests electricity price rises can quickly erode support even for well-designed energy policies.
As Australia navigates a complex and costly transition, keeping both younger and older generations on board may be the greatest political – and moral – challenge of all.
Magnus Söderberg 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.
According to a study from the United States, women experience weight stigma in maternity care at almost every visit. We expect this experience to be similar in Australia, where more than 50% of women of reproductive age live in larger bodies.
Weight stigma can present as stereotyping, negative attitudes and discriminatory actions towards larger-bodied people.
It occurs in other areas of health care and in society at large. But our research is focused on weight stigma in maternity care, which can cause significant harm for larger-bodied women and their babies.
What does weight stigma look like in maternity care?
Sometimes weight stigma is explicit, or on purpose. Explicit weight stigma includes health-care professionals having negative attitudes towards caring for larger-bodied pregnant women. This might present, for instance, when health professionals make negative comments about weight or accuse women of dishonesty when they discuss their dietary intake.
Sometimes weight stigma is implicit, or unintentional. Implicit weight stigma includes maternity care providers avoiding physical touch or eye contact during consultations with larger-bodied women.
Policies, guidelines and environments also contribute to weight stigma. Women in larger bodies frequently report feeling stigmatised and unable to access the type of maternity care they would prefer. Lack of availability of adequately fitting hospital clothing or delivery beds are other notable examples.
In a review published last year, we looked at weight stigma from preconception to after birth. Our results showed larger-bodied women are sometimes automatically treated as high-risk and undergo extra monitoring of their pregnancy even when they have no other risk factors that require monitoring.
This approach is problematic because it focuses on body size rather than health, placing responsibility on the woman and disregarding other complex determinants of health.
One doctor told me I was terrible for getting pregnant at my weight, that I was setting up my baby to fail […] I was in tears, and he told me I was being too sensitive.
A 2023 Australian paper written by women who had experienced weight stigma in maternity care recounted their care as hyper-focused on weight and dehumanising, robbing them of the joy of pregnancy.
According to one woman, “there was no compassion or conversation, just blame”.
Beyond making women feel humiliated and disrespected, weight stigma in maternity care can affect mental health. For example, weight stigma is linked to increased risk of depressive symptoms and stress, disordered eating behaviours and emotional eating.
One of the key reasons why weight stigma is so damaging to pregnant women’s health is because it’s closely linked to body image concerns.
Society unfairly holds larger-bodied women up to unrealistic ideals around their body shape and size, their suitability to be a mother, and the control they have over their weight gain.
Self stigma occurs when women apply society’s stigmatising narrative – from people in the community, the media, peers, family members and health-care providers – to themselves.
Larger-bodied pregnant women can face stigma from health-care professionals and society at large. antoniodiaz/Shutterstock
While we know these things can also be linked to higher body weight, emerging evidence shows weight stigma may have a stronger link with some outcomes than body mass index.
There are a variety of possible reasons for these links. For example, weight stigma may result in delayed access to and engagement with health-care services, and, as shown above, poorer mental health and reduced confidence. This may mean a woman is less likely to initiate and seek help with breastfeeding, for example.
In turn, the adverse effects of weight stigma can also affect the baby’s health. For example, gestational diabetes has a range of potential negative outcomes including a higher likelihood of premature birth, difficulties during birth, and an increased risk of the child developing type 2 diabetes.
But the burden and blame should not fall on women. Pregnant and postpartum women should not have to accept experiences of weight stigma in health care.
Weight stigma in maternity care has been linked to a higher likelihood of caesarean birth. photosoria/Shutterstock
What can we do about it?
While it’s essential to address weight stigma as a societal issue, health services can play a key role in undoing the narrative of blame and shame and making maternity care more equitable for larger-bodied women.
Addressing weight stigma in maternity care can start with teaching midwives and obstetricians about weight stigma – what it is, where it happens, and how it can be minimised in practice.
We worked with women who had experienced weight stigma in maternity care and midwives to co-design resources to meet this need. Both women and midwives wanted resources that could be easily integrated into practice, acted as consistent reminders to be size-friendly, and met midwives’ knowledge gaps.
The resources included a short podcast about weight stigma in maternity care and images of healthy, larger-bodied pregnant women to demonstrate the most likely outcome is a healthy pregnancy. Midwives evaluated the resources positively and they are ready to be implemented into practice.
There is a long road to ending weight stigma in maternity care, but working towards this goal will benefit countless mothers and their babies.
Briony Hill receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Some research reported in this article was funded by the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre was supported through the NHMRC partnership centre grant scheme with the Australian Government Department of Health, ACT Health, Cancer Council Australia, NSW Ministry of Health, Wellbeing SA, Tasmanian Department of Health, and VicHealth. It is administered by the Sax Institute.
Haimanot Hailu 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.
While many Australians have already voted at pre-poll stations and by post, the politicking continues right up until May 3.
So what’s happened across the country over the past five weeks?
Here, six experts analyse how the campaign has looked in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.
New South Wales
David Clune, honorary associate, government and international relations, University of Sydney
The campaign in NSW is concluding much as it began, largely mirroring the Australia-wide trend with little evidence of localism.
The main themes of both sides remain similar: cost-of-living alleviation, improved health care and housing affordability. Both leaders quickly matched each other’s promises: it could be described as the “Albanutton” campaign.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s campaign continued to be hampered by slip-ups and a lack of focus, detail and discipline. Although the government’s record had given him plenty of scope, Dutton struggled to land a blow.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had his share of gaffes, but appeared more coherent and convincing. Labor’s negative campaign to portray Dutton as a local Trump clone seems to have been effective.
Some in the Liberal Party argue there’s pent-up resentment against the government in Western Sydney that hasn’t been picked up by opinion polls. Whether this hypothetical backlash turns into seats on polling day remains to be seen.
Bennelong (notionally Liberal after the redistribution) and Gilmore, seem the most likely Liberal gains. Parramatta, Reid, Paterson, Robertson and Werriwa are also in play. There is speculation about an independent threat in the safe Labor seat of McMahon.
The Coalition has a fight on its hands to retain Cowper and Bradfield, with strong independent challenges in both seats. There is a tight three-way contest in Calare between former National turned independent, Andrew Gee, a National and a Teal.
As there is little real policy differentiation between the major parties; it seems to come down to which side the voters find more credible and trustworthy in uncertain times.
According to a Newspoll published on April 27, Albanese led Dutton as preferred prime minister by 51% to 35%. Only 39% of those surveyed believed the government deserved to be re-elected. However, 62% believed the Coalition was not ready to govern.
An aggregate of polling data showed in NSW, as at April 28, Labor’s two-party preferred vote was 53.0%, an increase since the March Budget of 2.8% and of 1.6% since the 2022 election.
Queensland
Paul Williams, associate professor of politics and journalism, Griffith University
In the campaign’s closing week, Queensland remains largely inconsequential as to whether Albanese or Dutton will call The Lodge home.
But that doesn’t mean the Liberal National Party (LNP) isn’t concerned about its prospects north of the Tweed.
While the LNP still leads Labor in the two party-preferred vote, 54 to 46, across Queensland – roughly the 2022 result – last week’s YouGov poll found that result to be a three-point fall for the LNP from the previous week.
While Labor is hardly going to blitz Queensland, some LNP seats are nonetheless more vulnerable than at any time over the past decade. These include the regional seats of Leichhardt (3.4 %) and Flynn (3.8%), the outer suburban seats of Dickson (held by Dutton by just 1.7%), Longman (3.1%), Forde (4.2%) and Petrie (4.4%), and the middle-suburb mortgage-belt seat of Bonner (3.4%).
Independent Suzie Holt might also worry the LNP in the usually safe seat of Groom, around Toowoomba.
But the last-minute “rescue” of the LNP by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) – Hanson (reciprocating the LNP’s preferencing of PHON) pulped existing how to vote cards and printed new ones placing the LNP second in most seats – might just save the opposition.
However, the campaign has offered little clarity on the prospects in other key Queensland contests: the battles for three Greens-held inner-urban seats of Brisbane, Ryan and Griffith.
But a mid-April DemosAU poll found the Greens’ primary vote falling by 1.7 points to 29%, a figure exactly tied with Labor’s, which has risen 2.7% since 2022.
Problematically for Dutton, the LNP, whose primary vote remains locked at 36%, appears not to have capitalised on cost-of-living angst in inner Brisbane.
Despite 58% of inner Brisbane leaning centre-left, these figures suggest the LNP may fail to win any Greens seats, with the contest a close one between the Greens and Labor only. The result rests on who runs third: Labor or the Greens. There could be a mere 100 votes in these must-watch seats.
In the Northern Territory, the seat of Lingiari, which takes in Alice Springs and Katherine, is held by Labor’s Marion Scrymgour by 1.7%. In 2022, just one in three enrolled voters cast a ballot in the electorate, prompting the Australian Electoral Commission to try to increase voter turnout. In the wash-up, it will be interesting to see if this improves.
South Australia
Rob Manwaring, associate professor of politics and public policy, Flinders University
Given SA is home to only a handful of marginal seats, it’s not a well-trodden part of the campaign trail. That’s typical of most federal elections.
What’s not so typical is the overall feel of the campaign. The rhythms of Australian elections are changing. On one level, there are the familiar tropes and activities; TV debates, campaign launches and letter box blitzes in key marginal seats.
Yet, on the other hand, voters behave differently than they used to. Data from the Australian Election Study(AES) tells us far fewer voters have made their decision “a long time ago” (55% in 2007, down to 36% in 2022).
This means the number of “soft” voters is probably much higher as major parties have fewer “lifetime voters”. Voters are much more transactional.
Voters are more distanced from parties, too. The study shows fewer voters use how to vote cards (51% used them in 2007, 31% in 2022). We can’t rely on traditional metrics in the same way, such as the national two-party preferred vote given the number of “non-traditional seats”.
In short, it’s now harder to more know how the campaigns are tracking. So while the Coalition campaign has been beset by a number of mis-steps, how this is playing out is far less clear.
Further, a strange paradox of the emergence of the Teals and other independents is there is a stronger local focus on representation, rather than broader policy debates. Again, AES data suggests most voters tend to vote for policy reasons (like the economy or health) but the current media focus on the major parties, especially through the TV debates, actually seems to narrow the broader policy discussions.
So while the proof will be in the pudding when the votes are counted, it may be high time to reflect on what campaign strategies work best for politics in 2025.
Tasmania
Robert Hortle, deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania
In Lyons, Tassie’s most marginal electorate (ALP by 0.9%), the latest polls have swung behind the ALP’s Rebecca White. Her popularity as a state MP for the electorate has been bolstered by some crucial slip ups from Liberal candidate Susie Bower.
One potentially vote-winning policy announcement that has gone under the radar nationally is Labor’s commitment of $24 million to guarantee the continued operation of the Boyer Paper Mill in Lyons, an important employer and regional symbol of economic activity.
Franklin has been full of drama. 19-year-old Greens candidate Owen Fitzgerald had to withdraw his candidacy after it emerged that he is likely to still be a New Zealand citizen. It seemed like the Greens would encourage their voters to preference independent anti-salmon candidate Peter George.
However, when the party’s how to vote cards were published, they said “Vote 1 – Owen Fitzgerald”.
According to the Greens, this was to make sure that voters completed their ballot correctly. The Liberal Party argued the Greens were just trying to secure public funding.
The result is likely to rest on how Liberal voters feel about salmon farming and how this influences their preferences. Are they so anti-Labor that they will preference Peter George ahead of Julie Collins despite his anti-salmon stance? Or will they put Collins ahead of George based on Labor’s support for the industry?
In Braddon, where salmon farming is again a key issue, Labor’s Anne Urquhart has been more visible on the campaign trail than Liberal Mal Hingston. Although the margin at the last election was 8% in favour of the Liberals, last-minute polling (albeit with a small sample size) has offered Labor hope of winning the crucial seat.
Bridget Archer, Liberal MP for Bass, has had a solid if unspectacular campaign. She was helped by Labor selecting a low-profile first-time candidate, Jess Teesdale, who the party sees as “one for the future”. Teesdale revealed her “greenness” – in both senses of the word – by accidentally contradicting the ALP’s position on native forest logging, which is always a flashpoint in Tassie.
Victoria
Zareh Ghazarian, senior lecturer in politics, school of social sciences, Monash University
With just days to go in this campaign, Victoria still looks like a key state that will determine who governs for the next three years. Many seats across the state have new boundaries following the AEC redistribution.
Victoria is also home to the most marginal seat in the country. Deakin, which covers the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, is held by Liberal Michael Sukkar with a margin of just 0.02%, according to ABC Election Analyst Antony Green.
Deakin will be the seat to watch on election night. If the Liberal Party can’t hold on to Deakin, it would be unlikely to be able to win government.
There are also other seats that will provide a fascinating contest on Saturday night. Labor will face its own test in trying to retain Chisholm and Aston, both in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.
Chisholm is a swinging seat. It has been won by both Labor and Liberal parties over the past 40 years and is currently held by Labor with a margin of 3.3%. It has had a significant redistribution, losing strong Labor booths in the north and south parts of the electorate.
Aston is also on a similarly slim margin of 3.6% and was famously won by Labor at the by-election in 2023. Holding onto Aston will be a crucial test for Labor. Losing this seat may threaten Labor’s chances of forming a majority government after the election.
There are also the two seats held by the independents which promise to be tight contests. The previously safe Liberal seats of Kooyong and Goldstein, which were won by Monique Ryan and Zoe Daniel respectively, have been targeted by the Liberal Party. The independents will face a significant battle and, if successful, will demonstrate a significant shift in voting behaviour has occurred in these electorates.
Western Australia
Narelle Miragliotta, associate professor in politics, Murdoch University
The idea that WA would determine the outcome of government has been a persistent theme throughout the campaign, reinforced by four visits from Albanese and three from Dutton. The amount of attention WA has received from the major party leaders was more than any state or territory other than the three big population states: NSW, Victoria and Queensland. Even then, Albanese made one more visit to WA than he did Queensland at the time of writing.
Both major parties brought their big guns on the campaign trail. Former Liberal PM John Howard visited Curtin, Tangney and Bullwinkel. The newly re-elected WA Labor Premier Roger Cook campaigned heavily with Albanese during his visits. And in the final days of the campaign, Mark McGowan, the popular former premier, was seen on the hustings with Labor candidates in four marginal seats.
Neither major party leader ventured to places where they might receive an unwelcome reception. Dutton’s intention to steer clear of the Shire of Collie, particularly the town of Muja, the proposed site of the one of the seven nuclear power plants, was signalled early in the campaign. Albanese avoided electorates in the state’s southwest opposed to coastal wind farms.
There were no significant candidate blunders. However, questions were raised about the whereabouts of Andrew Hastie, shadow defence minister and (putative) future Liberal leader. Hastie was also questioned about the missing party logo (as against party authorisations) on his campaign materials.
The competition between the Nationals and Liberals in the seat of Bullwinkel was without major media incident. This includes when the Nationals’ candidate, Mia Davies, broke with the federal coalition over support for Labor’s production tax credits plan.
The contest for Curtin attracted outsized local media attention. In the final days of the campaign, there were renewed efforts to link the independent incumbent, Kate Chaney, to the Greens. All the proof the West Australian newspaper required was Chaney’s connection to a senior Greens party official, evidenced by a 2024 donation totalling $104, a photo and an author’s credit.
To what extent has the leader visits and the campaign moved the needle? A recent study found party leader visits make only a modest impact on the vote. Polling for Labor and the Liberals in WA has remained very steady. This doesn’t mean some seats won’t change, but to which party or candidate remains unclear.
Paul Williams is a research associate with the T.J. Ryan Foundation.
David Clune, Narelle Miragliotta, Rob Manwaring, Robert Hortle, and Zareh Ghazarian do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Dunne, PhD researcher, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick
As in life, trust matters in international politics. Vital for cooperation and reciprocation, trusting someone nevertheless leaves one vulnerable should they break faith and pursue self-serving goals. As US political scientist Andrew Kydd recognised, trust is the belief that someone “prefers mutual cooperation to exploiting and suckering others”.
Two versions of trust matter in international relations. Strategic trust, in the form of institutionalised agreements and organisations which provide certainty – as well as material incentives – to encourage people and nations to honour their commitments. And moralistic trust, based on what social scientists call an “implicit theory of personality” that involves people making everyday judgements regarding a person’s character and integrity.
A brief look at the liberal post-war economic order shows how trust has proved fundamental. The Bretton Woods system of multilateral institutions that developed after the second world war, including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization, created a rules-based consistency for mutual benefit.
The WTO, for example, promised members that economic conditions between countries would not opportunistically and suddenly change. If they did, independent recourse was available through its appellate body.
This certainty encouraged many otherwise hesitant states to engage. The collapse of the appellate body in 2019 – after the US, under then-president, Donald Trump, blocked further appointees, thus denying it the required quorum – was a critical first step towards the present crisis in trust.
How is Donald Trump’s presidency shaping up after 100 days? Here’s what the experts think. If you like what you see, sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter.
Across the opening 100 days of his second term, Trump has broken both these conceptions of trust. In doing so, he has devastated – perhaps irreparably – economic confidence in the US.
Viewed from Canada and Mexico, Trump’s actions were an unambiguous breach of trust and the US-Mexico-Canada agreement, which Trump had personally signed in 2020. Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, reacted by forewarning that “its clear the US is no longer a reliable partner” and predicted a “fundamentally different relationship” between the two countries going forwards.
When it comes to moralistic trust, Trump was on weak ground before even becoming president. Beyond his business dealings – which have historically involved unpaid vendors and fraudulent practices – as well as serious allegations of abuse, Trump’s first term was marked by numerous reputational failings. These included a historic two impeachments, the second for his role in the January 6 insurrection that attempted to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election result.
“Liberation Day” on April 2, which was when Trump announced the details of his tariffs, delivered a singular blow. The heavy targeting of poorer countries such as Cambodia and Lesotho – while exempting Russia – strengthened reservations about Trump’s character. Equally, the blatant idiocy of many tariffs – most prominently the Heard and McDonald Islands, which are uninhabited save for penguins – further limited confidence in his administration’s competency and judgement.
Combined with Trump’s imperialistic bullying of other nations, from Greenland, to Panama to Ukraine, his remaining integrity in economic affairs has imploded. Although the full effects (and damage) of Trump’s actions on America’s reputation are not yet known, adverse consequences should be expected in both the short and longer terms.
The long and the short
In the short term, decreased economic trust will prolong market volatility. April 3-4 saw the largest-ever two-day loss, as US$6.6 trillion (£5 trillion) was erased from US stocks. Trump’s tariffs are also expected to depress growth, both at home and abroad.
JP Morgan now rates the likelihood of a recession this year at 60% – more than double when Trump took office. Consumer confidence, meanwhile, is at its second lowest since records began.
Increased prices for groceries – two-thirds of US vegetable imports come from Mexico – as well as energy bills – the US imports 61% of its oil from Canada – is also likely. Higher tariffs on goods from China will similarly impact domestic spending.
Perhaps most significantly, declining global trust will accelerate processes of de-dollarisation and reduce reliance on the dollar as a reserve currency. The ending of the “exorbitant privilege” – the advantage enjoyed by the US thanks to the dollar being the global reserve currency – could spell disaster vis-à-vis borrowing costs and, ultimately, risk a balance of payments crisis. More broadly, de-dollarisation would leave the US economically marginalised in a more multipolar global economy.
Extending beyond economics, however, Trump’s trade policy will eviscerate American soft power unless corrected. With trust in the US dwindling, an increase in coercive forms of bargaining with international trade partners over more cooperative approaches becomes inevitable. Despite the demonstrable superiority of the latter approach, mutual trust is required to facilitate successful collaboration.
Without trust, negotiation itself becomes an impossibility. And if trust is consistently broken, even those predisposed towards cooperation will be deterred.
The US under Trump is fast becoming untrustworthy. American reliability must now be broadly questioned, from collective security to the rule of law. The effect of this widespread loss of trust – embodied by Trump’s indiscriminate and ill-mannered economic attacks – will be the neutering of US soft power.
If Trump truly wishes to make America great again, then betraying allies through coercive mistreatment is not the answer. Honest engagement that builds trust is.
Steve Dunne receives funding from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Peter Gammon, Professor of Power Electronic Devices, School of Engineering, University of Warwick
A silicon carbide wafer, from which microchips are manufactured.Peter Gammon
Silicon microchips underpin our modern lives. They are at the heart of our smartphones and laptops. They also play critical roles in electric vehicles and renewable energy technology.
Today, more than three-quarters of microchips, also known as semiconductors, are produced in Asia. But in the 1990s, chip production was more widely distributed across the globe – and the UK punched above its weight.
Scotland’s central belt – the area of highest population density, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and the towns surrounding them – became known as “Silicon Glen”, employing 50,000 people in the electronics industry at its peak.
The region exported everything from PCs to Playstation chips. Multinational companies like NEC, Motorola and Texas Instruments operated major facilities there. In the 2000s, the dotcom crash triggered industry-wide consolidation and a shift to lower-cost manufacturing facilities in east Asia. The UK’s domestic capability was almost wiped out.
But the UK semiconductor industry is quietly bouncing back. A new wave of companies is focusing on microchips designed for clean energy technology. These chips power electric vehicles and are vital for integrating renewable energy into the grid. They’re also widely used in data centres.
Whereas most microchips are based on the element silicon, these new chips are made from “compound” semiconductors: silicon carbide (SiC) and gallium nitride (GaN).
The chemical compounds SiC and GaN offer a range of attractive properties, including the ability to conduct an electrical current efficiently at high temperatures and to withstand electric fields more than nine times stronger than those silicon on its own can tolerate before breaking down.
This allows SiC chips to be nine times thinner than equivalent silicon chips. This in turn results in lower resistance to electrical current in the devices they’re used in – translating to greater efficiency.
If you know how hot a phone or laptop charger can get, you’ve experienced inefficient power conversion. This heat is the result of silicon chips switching thousands of times per second to transform one type of electrical current, known as AC, to another, called DC.
In the case of chargers, 230 volts (V) in AC from the wall socket is transformed into the 19V in DC that a laptop battery needs – with some energy lost as heat. SiC and GaN devices switch faster than their silicon counterparts and dissipate less energy as waste heat.
This makes them ideal for high-performance, compact and energy-efficient charging systems. GaN-based wall chargers are now becoming common and they’re smaller, lighter and more efficient.
Chips used in electric car charging need to withstand high voltages. 4045 / Shutterstock
This efficiency boost is vital for electric vehicles too, in which a large power converter changes DC electricity coming from the batteries to AC electricity, as required by the electric motor. SiC-based power converters can reduce the energy lost by this converter by over 60%, a saving that means the car’s range can be extended by up to 5%.
Producing SiC and GaN requires complex, expensive and energy-intensive manufacturing processes. It wasn’t until the 2010s that materials like these could be produced at the scale and cost needed for mass market adoption. Silicon carbide, for instance, must be grown under extreme temperatures and pressures over the course of a week, forming a small cylindrical crystal – or boule – often less than 5cm long.
In contrast, to source silicon for chips, metre-long silicon ingots are pulled continuously from a vat of molten silicon, known as the melt. This fundamental difference drives the cost gap: SiC chips remain around three times more expensive than their silicon counterparts, posing a challenge for widespread adoption. Nevertheless, SiC chips remain vital for specific applications.
New industry hubs
In March 2024, US-based Vishay Intertechnology acquired Newport Wafer Fab – one of the UK’s last major semiconductor plants – for US$177 million (£132 million). In March 2025, it announced a further £250 million investment to expand production, modernise equipment and grow the workforce at the Welsh facility. Around 400 jobs were safeguarded.
The focus in Newport will be on compound semiconductors, beginning with SiC chips destined for electric vehicles, data centres and industrial applications. At capacity, thousands of silicon carbide wafers, or discs, will be processed every month. It is from these wafers that the chips are cut. Measuring 200mm in diameter, each wafer will yield enough SiC chips to supply more than 15 electric vehicle power converters.
Chip manufacturing has also returned to Silicon Glen. In Lochgelly, Fife, Clas-SiC Wafer Fab was founded in 2017 and it too produces SiC chips. The processing carried out at Lochgelly is similar to that at Vishay, except that Clas-SiC operates what’s known as a foundry model, producing devices to the designs of international customers. This model separates out the design and manufacturing aspects of the chip industry.
Compound semiconductors also play a crucial role in national security. The UK Ministry of Defence recently made keyinvestments in UK semiconductors. One of these aims to secure the domestic supply of gallium arsenide and gallium nitride chips, which are critical for radar systems and fighter jets.
World-class research in UK universities is fundamental to success stories like these. More than a decade of coordinated public investment – particularly through the 2010s – helped build globally recognised academic expertise.
As the UK government looks to drive growth through clean energy and advanced
manufacturing, its recent support for this sector via the UK semiconductor strategy has been significant. The forthcoming industrial strategy presents a clear opportunity to build on this momentum.
The challenge ahead is to ensure that the next generation of compound microchip technologies – developed in UK universities and labs – can grow and scale up here in the UK, rather than abroad.
Peter Gammon works as a Professor of Power Electronic Devices at the University of Warwick, and as the Founder of PGC Consultancy Ltd. At Warwick, he receives funding from UKRI, Horizon Europe and industrial partners. This work is supported via the Rewire Innovation and Knowledge Centre.
Wood is often hailed as a low-carbon hero, a natural alternative to steel, concrete and plastic. It’s a vital tool in the UK’s strategy for reaching net zero. But there’s a catch – the country don’t grow nearly enough of it.
The UK has one of the lowest levels of forest cover in Europe, with just 14% of land forested. It is also the second-largest importer of wood in the world, meeting only 20% of its wood demand from domestic sources.
That leaves the UK not only exposed to volatile global markets, but also facing a serious challenge of “wood security”. And our new research shows the problem goes well beyond economics.
Relying heavily on imported timber, especially from boreal forests in Scandanavia and the Baltic States, could actually undermine the carbon-cutting benefits of using wood in place of high-emissions materials.
Boreal forests occurring in colder northerly environments grow slowly. The carbon stored in them takes decades, sometimes centuries, to recover after harvesting through the growth of the next generation of trees.
In contrast, conifer forests in the UK’s warmer temperate climate restock carbon through regrowth more quickly after harvesting. This makes them much better suited for higher yields of sustainable wood production.
So, how can countries such as the UK increase wood use without making the climate crisis worse? To address this, we created a new model that tracks carbon at every stage of a tree’s journey, from how it grows in the forest to how it’s harvested, transported, processed and used. This includes temporary storage of carbon in wood products, and the avoidance of having to use high-emitting materials and energy sources that would be needed in the absence of wood.
We combined this with models of how carbon storage changes in forests under different harvesting intensities. Our analysis showed that it is possible for rising wood demand to make a positive contribution to national and global net zero targets. But that’s only if the domestic production of wood is dramatically increased in temperate countries such as the UK.
Even a modest annual increase in demand (1.1%) would require a 50% expansion in the area of productive forest over the next 50 years. A more ambitious approach, such as doubling productive forest area and increasing tree growth rates by 33%, could boost the overall contribution of wood use to slowing global warming by 175%. But that would require huge changes in forestry practice and land use policy.
In contrast, under a scenario of higher demand growth (2.3% per year), we found that the climate benefit of wood use is reduced. And only a doubling of forest area and a 33% increase in growth rates would be enough to deliver a meaningful contribution to slowing global warming over the next century.
These benefits would be at risk if forest productivity is undermined by increasing incidence of pests, disease or drought as climate change progresses.
Challenges ahead
Our findings point to three major challenges the UK must address if wood is to play a meaningful role in its net zero strategy.
First, the expansion of productive conifer forest in the UK has slowed to a standstill over the past 30 years. The amount of wood available for harvest is projected to fall after 2039. This trend will have to be reversed very soon to rapidly increase the area of conifer forests. This will need a rethink of how the UK balances land for forestry, farming and nature recovery.
Second, forest management must be improved to sustain productivity under increasing stress from pests, pathogens and drought.
Third, wood must be used more efficiently. That includes reducing waste during processing, designing products for longevity and reusing wood products as many times as possible.
So, the UK’s net zero policy must connect the push for using more wood with a clear plan for how it will grow and manage the forests needed to supply it. At the same time, when policymakers assess the climate effects of cutting down trees, they need to look at the whole picture. That means considering not just what’s lost from the forest, but how the wood is used, how long it stores carbon and how much it replaces more polluting materials.
This kind of joined-up, forward-looking analysis – like the one we developed in our study – is essential if wood is to play a truly sustainable role in fighting climate change.
John Healey receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council, the Centre for Forest Protection, and the Wildlife Trusts. He is affiliated with Woodknowledge Wales, Rainforest Builder and the Institute of Chartered Foresters.
David Styles received funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (UK) and from the Department of Environment, Climate & Communications (Ireland) for research related to this article.
Eilidh Forster received funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (UK) for research related to this article.
The Office of Global Affairs’ Global Training and Development Institute (GTDI) at the University of Connecticut, in collaboration with the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, recently marked a significant milestone with the graduation of the 20th cohort of the Nexus Startup Hub.
Administered by UConn and funded by the U.S. Department of State, the Nexus Entrepreneurship Empowerment Program (NEEP) operates under the broader Nexus 3.0 initiative. Its mission is to strengthen India’s startup ecosystem while deepening economic and cultural ties between India and the United States. By offering intensive training, expert mentorship, and access to critical business resources, NEEP empowers Indian entrepreneurs to build scalable, high-impact ventures that contribute to both local communities and global markets.
Tolga Turker, Director of Global Entrepreneurial Programs, highlighted the international scope of the program’s vision, stating, “Nexus training helps drive American economy and growth by fostering innovation, attracting investments, and expanding global market opportunities.”
Participants in the program receive comprehensive support to refine their business models, explore funding opportunities, and tackle the challenges of entrepreneurship. This holistic approach not only cultivates successful startups but also contributes to broader goals of community resilience and economic empowerment.
Several graduating entrepreneurs shared the personal and professional impact of the program. One participant remarked, “Nexus has made a larva into a butterfly. That’s exactly my experience.” Another added, “Post coming to Nexus, we have grown our revenue by 7x, which is a significant number.” These reflections speak to the program’s ability to transform early-stage ideas into thriving, mission-driven enterprises.
The program also nurtures a global mindset, encouraging entrepreneurs to think beyond local markets. “With the understanding that we have received at Nexus, we are now looking to scale our operations in different parts of the world,” said a graduating entrepreneur, highlighting the program’s focus on international growth and long-term sustainability.
The graduation ceremony further emphasized the value of international collaboration. Gloria Berbena, Minister-Counselor of Public Diplomacy at the U.S. Embassy in India, addressed the cohort with words of encouragement: “The prosperity of the United States has long been fueled by visionary entrepreneurs who push boundaries of innovation. Your startups have the potential to join that global landscape.”
This spirit of partnership and cross-cultural learning is woven into the fabric of Nexus. As the program continues to evolve, it remains a powerful example of how institutions like UConn can drive meaningful impact on a global scale by investing in people, ideas, and innovation.
With the 20th cohort now moving forward to scale their businesses and deepen their impact, the Nexus Startup Hub continues to serve as a launchpad for entrepreneurs committed to solving pressing challenges, building community resilience, and fostering economic opportunity across India and beyond. As Nexus advances its mission, the University of Connecticut remains a proud partner in shaping a more connected, innovative, and inclusive global future.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
Senator Murray: “Let’s face it, billionaires like Elon Musk and Trump already had a “head start” in life, so of course they don’t care if anyone else needs a little help. But this is make or break for everyone else—and I mean everyone, not just for families, not just for parents, but for businesses as well, and for our economy which is powered by our working families.”
ICYMI: Head Start funding lags by nearly $1 billion this year, causing some preschool closures
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member and former Chairof the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, joined a press conference hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on their announcement of a lawsuit against the Trump administration for seeking to dismantle the Head Start program. Senator Murray spoke about how critical Head Start is in helping kids and families across the country thrive.
Head Start currently serves over 750,000 kids nationwide, and the program has served nearly 40 million children and their families nationwide since its inception in 1965. There are over 17,000 Head Start centers nationwide and these centers are particularly important in serving rural communities with fewer options for care.
Since taking office, President Trump has gutted the offices that keep Head Start centers and child care programs across the country running. In late February, the Trump administration fired scores of staff at the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Head Start and Office of Child Care. Earlier this month, Trump continued to hollow out HHS, including by shuttering half of the regional offices at the Office of Head Start, which are responsible for ensuring high-quality Head Start services are available to families nationwide. The Trump administration has failed to articulate how it will ensure that uninterrupted services are available to families and that appropriate oversight will be carried out despite gutting the very offices charged with these responsibilities.
As data compiled by Senator Murray’s office shows, the Trump administration has failed to get out nearly $1 billion in funding for Head Start programs this year, part of a larger, sweeping funding freeze Trump has ordered since taking office.
Senator Murray’s full remarks, as delivered, are below:
“Well thank you all for being on this call, I really, really do appreciate it. And I just want to say that when I first got into politics to fight for child care and early education programs, I met with a few politicians who really did not get it—and a lot of parents who absolutely did. Well, we made our voices heard, we made a difference in that fight, and now, we have to keep it up!
“I still, constantly, hear from parents about child care and pre-K, and I take their stories back with me here to the Capitol to fight for change. We have made a lot of progress over the years making the case for child care, making historic investments in our families, and changing the conversation.
“But then, a couple of billionaires with no idea about what they are doing came along and decided to take an axe to Head Start. I mean talk about clueless. Talk about careless! Instead of giving our kids a Head Start Trump and Musk want to give billionaires another tax break and give families the cold shoulder.
“We already got a hint of how bad this could get for Washington state—when funding delays forced a Head Start program to the point of closure. 450 kids temporarily lost access to early education programs and support they counted on. And more than 70 employees were out of a job. To say nothing of the hundreds of parents who were about to be forced out of work because they lost pre-K.
“That chaos was from just one provider facing funding delays, if Trump and Musk get their way, if they zero out Head Start completely—the damage would be magnitudes greater.
“Let’s face it, billionaires like Elon Musk and Trump already had a “head start” in life, so of course they don’t care if anyone else needs a little help.
“But this is make or break for everyone else—and I mean everyone, not just for families, not just for parents, but for businesses as well, and for our economy which is powered by our working families.
“Trump and Musk may want to axe Head Start and they have already made clear they will do everything they can to break the program and cause chaos, but they are going to have to go through me—and they are going to have to go through all of you.
“I am going to keep doing what I have done since the very start, getting loud about why programs like Head Start matter for families, talking to other parents, lifting up their voices, and fighting, with all the power I have, for our kids.
“And I’m so glad to be fighting along such amazing advocates and organizations like the ACLU, and the Washington State Association of Head Start and E-CEAP—you don’t just serve our families, you are standing up for them, and we are all really thankful for that.
“So it’s great to be with you on this call—and let’s keep fighting, we’ve got to, thank you.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)
WASHINGTON: This week, the TICKET Act, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Congressman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL-12) and Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-09) passed the House. It will improve transparency in the entertainment industry by requiring all event ticket sellers to display the total ticket price—including all required fees—upfront, provide refunds for cancelled or postponed events, and protect consumers from deceptive ticketing websites. The TICKET Act mirrors current advertising guidelines for airline tickets, requiring that consumers can see the full price of the ticket before purchasing. This ensures that when American consumers are buying tickets (for concerts, theater, sporting events, etc.), they have full transparency throughout the process. Studies by the New York Attorney General’s office and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) show that fees can contribute anywhere from 21% to as much as 58% of the total cost of tickets.
“There is nothing more disappointing for an avid fan than being lured into the prospect of an affordable ticket to see his or her favorite sports team or band only to learn later in the check-out process that the final price tag is significantly higher. Our pro-consumer bill brings much needed transparency to the whole ticketing industry, and I’m committed to working towards reforms that protect consumers and provide certainty in the marketplace,” said Congressman Gus Bilirakis. “I appreciate my colleagues’ support of this bill in the House and urge the Senate to expedite its final passage.”
“Fans are incredibly frustrated by how hard it has become to buy event tickets. With every ticketing debacle, from Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, to more recently with Beyoncé’s Cowboy Carter tour, and so many more, their frustration grows,” said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. “By introducing the bipartisan TICKET Act, we are proud to be responding to the voices of so many fans to make this process easier and more transparent. Consumers deserve to be protected from fraudulent tickets, surprise costs, and excessive fees.”
Specifically, the TICKET Act requires all event ticket sellers, including primary and secondary market event ticket sellers to:
Show consumers the total price of an event ticket upfront, inclusive of all fees
Ban the sale of a ticket that a seller does not have (“speculative ticketing”)
Guarantee refunds for event cancellations
Guarantee replacement tickets or a refund, whichever the consumer chooses, for event postponements
Protect consumers from fraudulent ticketing websites with clear disclosures and no deceptive URLs
A bipartisan companion of the TICKET Act is being championed in the United States Senate by Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) and Ed Markey (D-MA). Clickhereto listen to Congressman Bilirakis speak in support of his bill on the House Floor.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Cheryl Thompson, Canada Research Chair, Professor in Performance, Toronto Metropolitan University
In her groundbreaking book, Canada and the Blackface Atlantic: Performing Slavery, Conflict and Freedom, 1812-1897, Cheryl Thompson, professor of performance at Toronto Metropolitan University, maps the transnational flow of minstrel culture and racial ideologies, revealing how blackface performance — and the racism it reflects — was not strictly an American phenomenon.
In this interview with The Conversation Canada, Thompson shares some of her ideas on performance, politics and race, including this year’s Met Gala.
Your book uses the term ‘Blackface Atlantic.’ Can you explain what that means, and how Canada fits into that history?
Traditionally, when we talk about Atlantic world studies, we’re usually focused on the United States, the Caribbean, maybe parts of Europe. Canada is not often considered to be part of conversation. But blackface performance/minstrelsy was actually one of the first forms of entertainment that travelled across the Atlantic. It started in the U.S., moved to Britain and then landed in Canada. That means many of the same cultural and political issues we associate with the United States — racism, segregation, white supremacy — have been part of Canada’s narrative too, from the beginning.
Book cover of ‘Canada and the Blackface Atlantic: Performing Slavery, Conflict and Freedom, 1812-1897’ Wilfrid Laurier University Press
The book draws on Paul Gilroy’s concept of the “Black Atlantic.” He defined this not just as a geographic space shaped by European colonization and Black servitude and resistance, but as an ideological space, too. Gilroy articulated how Black people disidentified with western ideas of nationhood, citizenship and freedom to forge new ways of imagining their identities and futures.
Canada and the Blackface Atlantic asks us to stop seeing Canada as a self-contained nation-state. It places Canada within an Atlantic world context where race was traded as a currency in terms of slavery but also on the theatrical stage where it was performed. On stage, “Blackness” became a way for white audiences to make sense of Black people as performing subjects without having to contend with Black people as real political agents.
Why do you think Canada’s role in the history of blackface performance has been so overlooked?
I think it’s partly because writing about blackface requires such a multidisciplinary understanding of different disciplines, multiple points of view, historically and geographically disparate people and places. While as an academic, I have sometimes been discouraged from positioning myself in “too many” disciplines, my training across disciplines helped me to see the throughline in the story.
And that throughline is about race, but also the building of cities and towns, migration and immigration, visual culture and print culture, theatre and performance.
I also believe it has been overlooked because many white Canadian academics simply do not talk about or examine issues related to race. It’s not something they are comfortable with in the context of Canada, and to research blackface requires that you confront race and white supremacy head-on.
And because discussions of race in Canada are still taboo in some circles, blackface remains a topic that is largely ignored or minimized.
I think my work is changing this pattern, and my book will help to open people’s minds to a topic that has long been avoided in Canadian cultural conversations. These conversations have already been happening for decades in the U.S. and the U.K. and elsewhere.
The Met’s big show and gala this year focuses on Black Style and dandyism as powerful forms of self expression and resistance. How do you think fashion can help challenge racist narratives?
I love that the Met is thinking about questions of race and style, because Black dandyism is so intertwined with the question of Black freedom. What shows like this do is remind the public of how Black communities have historically used expression as a means to exercise their own agency. In the absence of political agency, Black men, in particular, used style to assert their autonomy. Clothing, hair, etc., were the few sartorial elements that could not be sanctioned or denied to Black people even if other aspects of life were restricted or denied. I think at this moment these conversations are so timely given the renewed restrictions being placed on Black, racialized, LGBTQIA+ people under the Trump administration. The Black dandy says unequivocally that we’re here, and we’re showing up to be seen. It’s a powerful statement that contradicts the deficit model that is often placed onto Black bodies as being in states of lack, and disempowerment.
What are some of the most surprising or revealing sources you uncovered in your research?
I was truly surprised about how much of the book required me to understand American history as it intersected with Canadian history.
For example: the songs that came out of the War of 1812 became some of the first popular songs in America. Communities in Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick were conflicted in their allegiance to the North and South during the American Civil War. There were a lot of Confederate sympathizers in Montréal and New Brunswick. All that really surprised me because that’s not history that we learn about in school.
I was also surprised by the number of Canadians who became stars on the American minstrel stage. There was Toronto-born Colin “Cool” Burgess (1840–1905) who performed in blackface on stages across Canada, the U.S. and Britain. There was Québec-born Calixa Lavallée (1842–91), who would become best known as the composer of “Chant national” (“O Canada”), a song he wrote after performing across the U.S., and as a blackface minstrel musician for the Union Army during the Civil War. These two figures have been written about before, but authors often excused or tried to minimize their participation in minstrel shows. It’s likely because there are no pictures.
What I’ve been surprised about most is how so much of this history has been hidden in plain sight. The book reflects my ability to make connections, explain complex narratives across time and space, and to intertwine narratives that have, before now, been kept separate. It was quite a feat!
Cheryl Thompson receives funding from Social Science Humanities Research Council and the Canada Research Chair Program.
The Holy Buddha Relic of Sarnath for Exposition to Vietnam will arrive at National Museum Holy Relic will be transported to Ho Chi Minh City by a special aircraft on 1st May 2025
High level delegation will be led by Shri Kiren Rijiju, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs & Minister of Minority Affairs
Posted On: 29 APR 2025 6:39PM by PIB Delhi
The Ministry of Culture, Government of India in collaboration with the International Buddhist Confederation (IBC) New Delhi will be holding for the first time an exposition of the sacred Buddha Relic of Sarnath at Vietnam during the gala celebrations of the United Nations (UN) Day of Vesak 2025.
The Holy Relic will be ceremonially brought to Delhi on April 30, 2025, amidst prayers from Mulagandha Kuti Vihara, (monastery) in Sarnath to the Varanasi airport. The Vihara is enshrined with the sacred relics of Sakyamuni Buddha. It was built by Angarika Dharmapala, who was the founder of Mahabodhi society and is still maintained and run by the Mahabodhi Society.
Upon reaching Delhi the Holy Relic will be placed in a special protected enclosure at the National Museum for prayers, chanting and meditation by the followers of Dhamma, including eminent members of the community and the diplomatic representatives from the Buddhist countries at 5.30 pm on April 30, 2025.
The following day, May 1, 2025, the Holy Relic of the Buddha will be transported from the National Museum with great reverence escorted by senior monks with full religious sanctity and protocol to Ho Chi Minh City by a special Indian Air Force aircraft.
A high-level delegation from the International Buddhist Confederation (IBC) led by Secretary General Ven. Shartse Khensur Rinpoche Jangchup Choeden, including member of the Governing Council are attending the Holy Exposition ceremonies and the Vesak celebrations in Vietnam. The delegation will be led by Shri Kiren Rijiju, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs & Minister of Minority Affairs.
The Holy Relics of the Buddha enshrined in Mulagandha Kuti Vihara were excavated in Nagarjuna Konda, a prominent site in Andhra Pradesh. It holds historical significance as a major centre of Mahayana Buddhism and is associated with the monk, philosopher Nagarjuna of second century CE. These were worshiped and venerated for ages since the Mahaparinirvana of the Buddha. A.H. Longhurst, the then superintendent of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted full scale excavation from 1927-31; most of the monuments at the site were constructed in third-fourth century CE; remains of more than thirty Buddhist establishments were found here. Inscription date the oldest great Stupa around 246 CE but archaeologist say the Stupa could be older.
After the excavations they were presented to the Mahabodhi Society of India on December 27, 1932, by Rai Bahadur Dayaram Sahni, Director General of ASI, on behalf of H.E. the Viceroy of India before a distinguished gathering of Buddhists. Every year on the foundation day of the Mulagandha Kuti Vihara which is celebrated in the month of November, when thousands of people from different parts of the world come to Sarnath.
The sacred Relic will be ceremoniously enshrined, venerated, and worshiped at the following important sites; At Hanh Tâm Monastery in Ho Chi Minh city from May 2–8, 2025 (coinciding with the United Nations Day of Vesak 2025); next at the Bà Đen Mountain, Tây Ninh Province from May 9–13, 2025 (Southern Vietnam’s national spiritual pilgrimage site); from here the sacred Relic will be placed for exposition at Quán Sứ Monastery, Hanoi from May 14–18, 2025 (Headquarters of the Vietnam Buddhist Sangha), and finally at Tam Chúc Monastery, Hà Nam Province from May 18–21, 2025 (the largest Buddhist centre in Southeast Asia).
The important exposition coincides with the United Nations (UN) Day of Vesak 2025 as it is being celebrated in Vietnam, an opportunity for not only the citizens of Vietnam to seek blessings of the Holy Relic but also the international delegates from over 100 countries and regions who would be participating in the Vesak Day celebrations.
Every year, since the passing of the resolution by the United Nations General Assembly on 15th December 1999, the thrice-sacred day of Vesak (celebrating the birth, enlightenment, and passing away of the Buddha Gautama) has been celebrated internationally. The International Day of Vesak was celebrated at the United Nations Headquarters in New York for the first time in 2000. This had inspired annual celebrations of the United Nations Day of Vesak (UNDV) by international Buddhist communities.
The International Council for the Day of Vesak (ICDV) has held a Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council since 2013. The main theme for the UNDV 2025 Celebrations and Academic Conference will be “Buddhist Approach to Unity and Inclusivity for Human Dignity: Buddhist Insights for World Peace and Sustainable Development,” at Vietnam Buddhist University, Ho Chi Minh City, Sunworld Buddhist Cultural Centre, Tay Ninh Province.
Exhibitions on the Buddha Dhamma
On the occasion International Buddhist Confederation (IBC) will also be hosting three exhibitions on the dissemination of Buddha Dhamma and its cultural practices from India to Vietnam. These are and electronic display of Jataka tales; the sculptures depicting different forms of the Buddha; and a comparative study of Buddhist artefacts from India and Vietnam.
The analysis draws on a variety of resources to deepen understanding of this rich cultural exchange, including epigraphic inscriptions, historical texts, and visual artifacts. This multifaceted approach aims to provide a comprehensive narrative of the evolution of Buddha Dhamma in Vietnam, reflecting its profound impact on art, spirituality, and cultural identity throughout history.
The highlight is a display of the digital restoration of the Ajanta Cave murals, illuminating the ancient Jataka Kathas. The IBC, in collaboration with the Prasad Pawar Foundation of Pune will unveil 8 panels and exhibit on separate TV screens showcasing the digital restoration process of the famous Bodhisattva Padmapani, a mural painting dating from the late 5th century. The mural is in Cave 1 of the Ajanta Caves, Maharashtra, and it reflects the beauty and classical sophistication of the arts of India’s Gupta dynasty.
The exhibition invites visitors to walk among visions of Bodhisattvas and celestial beings, as ancient narratives gently unfold. These tales remind us that compassion knows no borders, wisdom belongs to all, and peace is born from the shared dignity of every living being.
Complicating the economic picture for the government are Donald Trump’s tariffs and his trade war with China. In early April, financial services company J.P. Morgan Research said there was a 60% probability of the United States experiencing a recession in 2025 — with a 40% chance of a global recession.
Despite this uncertain economic future, the idea that New Zealand’s debt-to-GDP ratio requires immediate and drastic austerity-like measures is not supported by the evidence.
The ratio measures the government’s debt compared to its gross domestic product (GDP). Currently, New Zealand’s ratio is about 47%. This is substantially higher than before the pandemic (32% in 2019) and higher than Australia (35%).
But it is at the lower end compared with other advanced economies. The 2023 debt-to-GDP ratio in the US was 112%, 101% in the United Kingdom, and about 50% in Canada, Ireland and South Korea.
Rather than tightening the belt to reduce debt and increase fiscal balance, New Zealand needs to focus on boosting productivity, investing in education, building strong and resilient infrastructure and supporting health and wellbeing.
Lowering debt and creating fiscal space are legitimate goals. But they should be viewed as a means to an end, not an end in itself.
A necessary medicine
Austerity is often presented as necessary medicine during an economic crisis. The logic is seemingly straightforward: reduce government spending and debt to not overstimulate the economy, create fiscal resilience for future shocks, support low and stable inflation, and signal fiscal responsibility to international markets.
Several countries adopted austerity measures in response to high deficits following the global financial crisis.
Greece implemented deep spending cuts, tax hikes and pension reforms under the terms of a bailout from the European Union and International Monetary Fund (IMF). This reduced its deficit but caused a severe economic contraction and social unrest.
Italy’s austerity measures involved pension reforms and tax hikes, achieving modest fiscal improvement but sparking political instability.
The UK focused on reducing public spending and welfare support, significantly lowering its deficit while putting pressure on public services and increasing inequality. Research found UK’s austerity measures led to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths.
While in many cases austerity helped restore fiscal balance, it often came with heavy economic and social costs, particularly in terms of unemployment, growth and public welfare.
In March, people in the United Kingdom took to the streets to protest ongoing austerity measures. Mike Kemp/Getty Images
Productivity is the key
Research indicates that debt-to-GDP ratios above about 80% tend to be associated with lower growth. But below this threshold, the ratio tends to be associated with increases in growth.
It is clear that deficits are neither always bad for economic growth, nor that they always lead to inflation, when combined with a credible fiscal strategy to return to surpluses in the future.
To raise the future wellbeing of all New Zealanders we need to avoid the heavy costs of austerity and rather focus on stimulating economic growth. And this comes with a price tag.
Using debt to finance investments into capital, which in turn increases our productivity, is key to fostering economic growth. This goes hand-in-hand with targeted industrial policies, reduction in regulation, increases in government efficiency and trade liberalisation
Importantly, public investment boosts economic growth mainly through two channels: efficiency (how much infrastructure is actually delivered for the money spent) and productivity (how well that infrastructure supports economic activity).
Research from the IMF suggests an increase in public investment of one percentage point of GDP is associated with an increase in output of about 0.2% in the same year and 1.2% four years later.
All-of-government focus
What New Zealand needs is a long-term growth strategy and an all-of-government focus on lifting productivity. This must be grounded in fiscal responsibility – one that boosts government efficiency. But not at the cost of delaying high-impact investments or leaving growth opportunities on the table.
Maintaining discipline while strategically investing in the drivers of long-term prosperity is essential for securing New Zealand’s economic future.
The path ahead requires careful navigation, not a rush towards austerity.
By thoughtfully balancing the need for fiscal prudence with the importance of investing in our productivity, human capital and infrastructure, we can ensure a more resilient and prosperous future for all New Zealanders.
Dennis Wesselbaum 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.
National Ayush Mission Conclave 2025: States and UTs Collaborate to Strengthen Traditional Healthcare Delivery Across India Lonavala to Host the Second Edition of the National Ayush Mission Conclave: A Roadmap to Holistic, Accessible, and Inclusive Healthcare
We aim to take forward the vision of our Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji of holistic health for all through a robust and integrative Ayush framework: Shri Prataprao Jadhav, Union Minister of State for Ayush
Posted On: 29 APR 2025 6:02PM by PIB Delhi
The Ministry of Ayush, Government of India, is set to organize the National Ayush Mission (NAM) Conclave 2025 on 1-2 May 2025 at Kaivalyadham, Lonavala, Maharashtra. This transformative 2-day event will serve as a national forum for shaping the future of Ayush-based healthcare in India. Bringing together Ayush experts, policymakers, health professionals, researchers, and innovators, the conclave aims to strengthen integration of traditional Indian medicine systems into mainstream healthcare—making wellness more accessible, affordable, and evidence-driven for the common citizen.
The conclave is scheduled to be inaugurated by Shri Prataprao Jadhav, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge), Ministry of Ayush whereas the Deputy Chief Minister, Government of Rajasthan and Health Minister of nine States/UTs of India are also expected to attend the conclave. Vaidya Rajesh Kotecha, Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, and other dignitaries will also be present during the event. Officials from State/UT Ayush departments including Mission Directors, senior government officials, and renowned academicians are also set to participate in the conclave. The event is planned to include plenary sessions, policy roundtables, technical deep-dives, besides showcasing best practices, state success stories, and tech-led innovations in the Ayush sector.
Speaking about the upcoming event, the Ayush Minister mentioned, “The National Ayush Mission Conclave is a significant step towards fostering a collaborative ecosystem to strengthen the wellness and healthcare infrastructure across the country. We aim to take forward the vision of our Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji of holistic health for all through a robust and integrative Ayush framework.”
The National Ayush Mission conclave is set to serve as a vibrant platform to discuss the latest developments, research innovations, and sectoral collaborations across Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homeopathy in various states and UTs of India. It will also focus on strengthening the implementation of flagship initiatives, promoting evidence-based practices, and enhancing international outreach. The Conclave aims for Minister level discussions to chalk out future expansion of the NAM Scheme.
Vaidya Rajesh Kotecha, Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, stated, “The Ministry of Ayush is organising the NAM Conclave-2025 to reflect on the achievements of the National Ayush Mission, address emerging challenges, and chart a path toward a self-reliant and robust Ayush healthcare system.”
While talking about the themes of the Conclave, Ms. Kavita Garg, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, informed, “the conclave will cover diverse themes, including financial management, monitoring and evaluation, HR strengthening, integration with modern medicine, and quality assurance. It will also showcase the best practices, IT innovations, regulatory mechanisms and investment and export opportunities with rich experience sharing from States and UTs.”
Key Highlights of the Conclave:
Document Release: Launch of Blueprint for Ayush Policy 2025 and Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG) on Metabolic Disorders in Ayush System of Medicines.
Ministerial Round Table: Featuring Union Minister of State (IC), Ministry for Ayush, Shri Prataprao Jadhav, along with Health and Ayush Ministers from various States/UTs, deliberating on strengthening the National Ayush Mission.
Expert Sessions: Presentations by DGHS, NABH, Invest India, Ayush Export Promotion Council and leading institutions on quality standards, accreditation, and investment facilitation.
Successful Case Studies: Best practices from the majority of States/UTs.
Yoga Session: Guided Yoga and Meditation Session are also planned for delegates participating in the event.
About National Ayush Mission:
The flagship program National Ayush Mission launched in 2014 and it has played a crucial role in preserving and promoting India’s traditional systems of medicine and their integration into the mainstream healthcare system. It aims to enhance the availability, accessibility, and quality of Ayush healthcare services across the country through Ayushman Arogya Mandir (Ayush) as part of Government of India’s Ayushman Bharat scheme.
In the last edition of NAM Conclave held in 2023, several key resolutions were adopted, including expansion of Ayush Health and Wellness Centres (now AAM-Ayush), integration of Ayush services with National Health Programs, and capacity building of Ayush practitioners. The 2025 edition aims to build upon these achievements, with renewed focus on innovation, standardisation, and international outreach.
Unique Success of the Namami Gange Mission: The Return of the Red-Crowned Roofed Turtle to the Ganga After Three Decades This initiative marks a historic step in the Ganga’s ecosystem
The return of the endangered Turtle species becomes a beacon of hope for biodiversity conservation in Ganga
Posted On: 29 APR 2025 7:53PM by PIB Delhi
The Ganga River, which has been an integral part of Indian civilization for centuries, is now igniting the possibility of new life along its banks. Once home to endangered turtle species, the Ganga’s shores have now become a symbol of positive change in the direction of biodiversity conservation. This transformation is particularly evident in the return of the endangered Red-Crowned Roofed Turtle to the waters of the Ganga, a species that had previously seen a continuous decline in its population. This new hope in the Ganga’s waters is not only a significant step for these ancient creatures but also for the restoration of the entire ecosystem.
Impact of the Namami Gange Mission
Supported from Namami Gange, TSAFI project team conducted detailed assessment of turtle diversity and abundance of Haiderpur Wetland Complex (HWC) in 2020 followed by Habitat Evaluation study on newly formed turtle sanctuary near Prayagraj along Ganges in Uttar Pradesh in 2022. Study along HWC suggested the presence of 9 turtle species whereas indirect evidence of 5 turtle species was gathered in Prayagraj. One of the most astounding findings of above and prior studies was that none of the viable population or individuals of Red-crowned Roofed turtle (RRT) Batagur kachuga were sighted or reported from the entire Ganga. The findings suggested that this was the most endangered species of entire North India, particularly Uttar Pradesh. Rao (1993) has seen a couple of specimens of this species above and below Bijnore barrage. In the last 30 years there was no confirmed report of any adult from the main channel of Ganga.
Historic Efforts in Turtle Reintroduction
On April 26, 2025, 20 turtles were carefully transferred from the Garhaita Turtle Conservation Center located within and under supervision of National Chambal Sanctuary, UP and released into the Haiderpur Wetland. These turtles were tagged with sonic devices to monitor their safety and migration. For the reintroduction process, the turtles were divided into two groups – one group was released above the barrage of the Haiderpur Wetland, while the other was released downstream in the main channel of the Ganga. This approach aims to determine which method is more effective for the turtles’ reintroduction.
Way Forward: Restoration of Biodiversity
This initiative marks a historic step in the Ganga’s ecosystem. During the monsoon season, the Haiderpur Wetland will completely connect with the main channel of the Ganga, allowing the turtles to disperse at their own pace. Over the next two years, the tracking and monitoring of these turtles will be conducted. This is the first attempt at reintroducing this species into the Ganga, following a ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ release strategy. The goal is to establish the species’ population in the Ganga in a stable manner with active assistance from the UP Forest Department.
Message of the Success of the Namami Gange Mission
This important initiative will not only conserve turtle species but will also inspire the improvement of the ecosystem in Uttar Pradesh. The conservation effort for the Ganga has shown that if all stakeholders work together, even significant challenges can be overcome. The Namami Gange Mission’s initiative has become an inspiration not only in making the Ganga cleaner but also in restoring biodiversity and the ecosystem.
Reinforcing the enduring bond between India and Mauritius, IOS SAGAR made a significant and engaging port call at Port Louis, Mauritius, from 26 to 28 Apr 25, as part of its operational deployment in the Indian Ocean.
During her harbour visit, the ship’s Commanding Officer called on the Commandant of the Mauritius Coast Guard, reaffirming the commitment to strengthen cooperation between the two maritime forces. Select personnel of the multinational crew visited several key training facilities of the Mauritius Police Force (MPF) , namely the Special Mobile Force Squadron, Maritime Air Squadron, Coast Guard Training School and the Police Helicopter Squadron and interacted with their counterparts. The visit provided a unique opportunity to exchange knowledge and experience and discuss areas of mutual interest in maritime security.
As part of social activities, an invigorating joint yoga session was organised onboard IOS SAGAR, with participation from the multinational crew and MPF personnel. The Commandant of the National Coast Guard also attended the event. The crew of IOS SAGAR and the MPF also played a friendly volleyball match. IOS SAGAR opened its decks to visitors, welcoming members of the MPF, the Indian diaspora, and other enthusiastic groups. Visitors were given a tour of the ship and briefed on her operational capabilities, navigation systems, and life onboard. In addition, a trek to the iconic Signal Mountain was conducted for the ship’s crew, including the multinational crew.
On departure from Port Louis, IOS SAGAR is scheduled to undertake a joint Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) surveillance with the Mauritius Coast Guard. Upon completion, the ship will proceed towards its next port of call, Port Victoria, Seychelles, continuing its mission of enhancing maritime security, regional cooperation , and goodwill in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).
An international team of solar physicists have traced giant tides of plasma beneath the Sun’s surface at a region called near-surface shear layer (NSSL). The plasma currents shift with the Sun’s magnetic heartbeat and could have far-reaching influence on space weather and Earth.
The near-surface shear layer (NSSL) extending to about 35,000 km in depth is a critical region beneath the Sun’s surface. It is marked by distinct rotational behaviours that vary with depth and by changes, over space and time, that relate to active region magnetic fields and the solar cycle.
A study led by astronomers from the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (IIA), an autonomous institute of the Department of Science and Technology (DST) have probed the dynamic “inner weather” of the Sun – plasma currents just beneath its surface at the NSSL, that pulse in step with its 11-year sunspot cycle.
In the research published last week, in ‘The Astrophysical Journal Letters’, researchers from the IIA, Stanford University (USA), and the National Solar Observatory (NSO, USA) have traced how these hidden flows shift over time, potentially reshaping our understanding of solar dynamics in general and how the Sun’s interior connects to its outer magnetic behaviour in particular.
Employing helioseismology—an advanced technique that tracks sound waves as they travel through the Sun—the team observed changes in the movement of solar material using more than a decade of data from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory/ Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (SDO/HMI) and the ground-based Global Oscillations Network Group (GONG) of National Solar Observatory (NSO), USA.
Peering Beneath the Surface
The analysis led by Professor S.P. Rajaguru and PhD student Anisha Sen from IIA revealed fascinating patterns — surface plasma flows converge toward active sunspot latitudes, but reverse direction midway through the NSSL, flowing outward to form circulation cells. These flows are strongly influenced by the Sun’s rotation and the Coriolis force—the same force responsible for the spin of hurricanes on Earth.
The Coriolis effect swirls and shifts those inflows and outflows into a subtle but powerful sculptor of how the Sun spins at different depths, modifying the rotational shear (the gradient of rotation with depth). Yet intriguingly, these local currents do not power the Sun’s larger-scale zonal flows—known as torsional oscillations—suggesting that these global flows, which ripple through the Sun’s vast interior, must be powered by something deeper and more mysterious.
Fig 1: Depictions of how flow structures near the surface (0.99 solar radii) and at a deeper layer near (0.95 solar radii) develop as sunspots appear and evolve over time (over the 11-year solar cycle). The directions of swirly motions in the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun are determined by the Coriolis force, just the same way it shapes the storm systems on the Earth.
Fig 2. Sketch showing the Coriolis force mediated average flow structures around active regions in the northern hemisphere of the Sun. The labels depict the signs of residuals in meridional flows, δUθ , and that in resulting residual rotational shear, δ(∂Ω/∂r), for the two depths, 0.99 and 0.95 Rsun which mark the radial boundaries of the NSSL. Figure Artwork Credit: Amrita Rajaguru}
Zooming In and Looking Ahead
“To validate our findings, we zoomed in on a massive sunspot region using 3D velocity maps. The localized flow patterns we observed matched the global trends—confirming both surface inflows and deeper outflows,” said lead author Anisha Sen.
“This is a stunning look into how the Sun’s inner weather patterns form and evolve,” says Professor S.P. Rajaguru one of the authors of the paper. “Understanding these hidden patterns is not just academic—solar activity influences space weather that can disrupt satellites, power grids, and communications on Earth. This work brings us closer to understanding and building realistic models to predict the Sun’s behaviour.” The study group also included Abhinav Govindan Iyer and other international collaborators.
These findings give us a better understanding of how the Sun’s magnetic activity is linked to its internal flows and hint that we might still be missing something lurking in deeper layers that truly drives its global dynamics.
First-of-its-kind collaboration between a government-backed apex research institution and a philanthropic private foundation “Anusandhan National Research Foundation”, “Wadhwani Foundation” Forge Landmark Pact to Translate Research into Real-World Solutions
The collaboration also marks a turning point in how research will be funded and delivered in India in the times to come
In the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and top ministers, a pivotal public-private research partnership is unveiled at Innovation Conclave
Posted On: 29 APR 2025 5:02PM by PIB Delhi
In a significant move to accelerate the transformation of India’s research ecosystem, the “Anusandhan National Research Foundation” (ANRF) and the “Wadhwani Foundation” exchanged a landmark “Letter of Intent” at the “Innovation Conclave” “YUGM” held at Bharat Mandapam here in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Science and Technology Minister, Dr. Jitendra Singh and Union Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan.
The partnership signals a first-of-its-kind collaboration between a government-backed apex research institution and a philanthropic private foundation, aimed at co-funding and scaling up research that can drive tangible societal impact. The agreement is also the inaugural step in ANRF’s strategy to foster expansive public-private partnerships across critical sectors of national relevance.
Dr. Jitendra Singh, who has been at the forefront of India’s science and innovation transformation, said the initiative reflects the government’s resolve to create an enabling environment where research transcends academic silos and reaches the ground. “This is a step towards institutionalizing synergy between government, industry, and philanthropy,” he said, underlining the need for collaborative models that amplify both funding and outcomes.
The ANRF, established under the National Education Policy 2020, was envisioned as a transformative body to democratize research, catalyze innovation, and bridge the long-standing gaps between academia, policy, and industry. With this new partnership, ANRF aims not only to fund cutting-edge science, but also to translate research into scalable, impactful solutions by aligning with national priorities and global challenges alike.
Wadhwani Foundation’s involvement adds a crucial layer of experience in fostering entrepreneurship and innovation-driven development, especially among youth and start-ups. Together, the two entities will work to raise the scale and impact of late-stage translational research—projects that are often closest to delivering real-world outcomes but remain underfunded.
The collaboration also marks a turning point in how research will be funded and delivered in India in the times to come—emphasizing inclusivity, interdisciplinary, and grassroots reach. In line with ANRF’s broader vision, this partnership aims to promote equitable access to resources and opportunities across the country, including tier-2 and tier-3 institutions, thereby fostering a more distributed and resilient research culture.
The announcement at Conclave, a platform designed to bring together thought leaders across government, academia, and industry, set the tone for a new era in Indian innovation policy. As India strives to become a global research hub, this partnership is expected to play a pivotal role in shifting the focus from fragmented efforts to outcome-oriented, collaborative science.
The move reinforces India’s march toward becoming a knowledge-based economy, with Prime Minister Modi’s vision of “Atmanirbhar Bharat” rooted not only in self-reliance but also in scientific excellence and societal good.
Under the Swachh Bharat Mission-Urban, Ghaziabad has taken a landmark step in promoting sustainable infrastructure and urban resilience by successfully issuing India’s first Certified Green Municipal Bond, raising ₹150 crore for the development of a cutting-edge Tertiary Sewage Treatment Plant (TSTP).
This isn’t just another infrastructure project—it is a game-changer that reflects Ghaziabad’s commitment to creating a sustainable future for its citizens. The funds have been directed towards the development of an advanced TSTP, a state-of-the-art facility designed to treat and reuse wastewater on an unprecedented scale.
The Green Municipal Bond marked a new chapter in India’s financial landscape, providing a sustainable model for funding urban infrastructure. With support from the Govt. of India and the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh*, this project is more than just a water treatment facility; it is a blueprint for future cities across India to combine financial discipline with environmental responsibility.
At the heart of the initiative lies the Tertiary Sewage Treatment Plant (TSTP), a technological marvel that utilizes advanced Membrane Filtration Technologies including microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis (RO). These cutting-edge technologies work together to ensure that treated water meets the highest standards, making it suitable for reuse in industrial processes.
With a treatment capacity of 40 MLD, the TSTP is connected to a sprawling 95 km pipeline network, delivering treated water to over 1,400 industrial units across Ghaziabad. The plant ensures that wastewater no longer goes to waste but is instead transformed into a valuable resource that supports the city’s industrial sector, reducing dependency on freshwater sources.
The project’s success lies not only in its technological and environmental achievements but also in its innovative financial structure. The TSTP was developed under the Public-Private Hybrid Annuity Model (PPP-HAM), with 40% municipal funding. This public-private partnership approach helped streamline the project’s implementation while ensuring financial discipline. GNN’s success in raising ₹150 crore through the Green Bond issuance demonstrated investor confidence in the city’s sustainable approach and has brought a new level of financial transparency and discipline to the Urban Local Body (ULB).
GNN also contracted with over 800 firms, to supply 9.5 MLD of tertiary treated water, further establishing the city’s leadership in urban water management. Ghaziabad’s innovative approach didn’t go unnoticed on the global stage. The city was honoured with the Best Municipal Treated Water Reuse Award at the Water Digest World Water Awards 2024-25, a recognition that acknowledges the city’s excellence in water conservation, recycling, and sustainable water management.
A team of 22 students and 4 faculty members from West Suffolk College, England, visited the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation as part of an exposure visit. The team explored the TSTP plant and other municipal projects, gaining insights into Ghaziabad’s commitment to smart cities and sustainable development.
With its pioneering efforts in advanced water treatment technologies, innovative financial models, and a commitment to environmental sustainability, Ghaziabad is leading the charge in India’s quest for cleaner, smarter, and more resilient cities.
Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)
100 Days In, President Trump’s Approval Rating At A Historic Low
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s first 100 days in office:
“In just 100 days, President Trump has driven up costs for New Mexicans, attacked essential programs like Social Security, and put our nation’s public health at risk. The American people are rejecting the increased costs, chaos, and corruption caused by this administration. I’ve heard from New Mexicans in every corner of our state who are deeply concerned about their livelihoods due to these reckless policies and hateful politics.
“Since day one, I’ve made it clear that I will stand up to protect New Mexicans from this administration’s harmful attacks. Over the past 100 days, I’ve fought for everyday New Mexicans — our teachers, farmers, postal workers, restaurant workers, parents, and veterans.
“I opposed the Republican budget that slashes essential programs like Medicaid and SNAP to fund another Tax Scam, defended Social Security, and pushed for urgent action to protect public health. With Elon Musk’s unprecedented control over the federal government — and his firing of hardworking New Mexicans — I have stood with my Democratic colleagues to hold him accountable and expose wrongdoing.
“My commitment is to all New Mexicans. I will continue working to lower costs for families, protect essential programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and SNAP, and defend the rule of law.”
More information on how Senator Luján is standing up for New Mexicans can be found here.
Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed
WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier this month, the Trump Administration abruptly and arbitrarily removed thousands of international students from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information Systems (SEVIS) database, which schools and the federal government use to monitor visa compliance. Students at Brown University and the Rhode Island School of Design were among those reported to be impacted.
Multi-state litigation was launched on behalf of students and communities nationwide affected by the revocations, and those fearful they could be next, and the courts sided with the international students, forcing the Trump Administration to halt and reverse its wave of visa revocations. But with uncertainty and concern still high among families and schools, Rhode Island’s two U.S. Senators are taking action to help impacted foreign students and local schools and universities. The senators also warn President Trump is driving top talent away and harming U.S. interests.
Today, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Sheldon Whitehouse joined Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and 32 of their Senate colleagues in pressing the Trump Administration to reconsider recent decisions to revoke student visas in a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons.
The 35 U.S. Senators began by urging the Administration to undo unlawful student visa revocations, writing: “We recently learned that your agencies have been revoking student visas and terminating Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records across the country. These actions to end student status reflected an unannounced change in policy and were inconsistent with existing laws, regulations, policies, and agency guidance governing the maintenance and termination of student status—that is why we welcomed the news late last week that in response to litigation around the country, ICE has reversed these SEVIS terminations. We now urge you to undo other actions to end student status that are inconsistent with such laws, regulations, and agency guidance and ensure that all future actions to end student status fully comply with the law.”
The Senators continued by highlighting the lack of reasoning provided in many of these visa revocations, writing: “[S]tudents across the country—who by all accounts appear to have followed all of the applicable laws and agency guidance—have reported visa revocations with no clear explanation as to the basis to terminate status. SEVP has completed at least 4,736 total terminations of student visa holders’ SEVIS records. By DHS’s own admission, the statute and regulations do not provide SEVP the authority to terminate nonimmigrant status by terminating a SEVIS record. Your decision to reverse such terminations is therefore prudent and required by law.”
The Senators then outlined the Trump Administration’s apparent violation of federal law in revoking these visas, writing: “Current laws, regulations, and agency guidance also require notice to be provided when a student’s status is being terminated or revoked. Here, it is not clear that students were provided the notice required by law. Many students were notified by universities that they have lost their student status when their SEVIS records have been terminated, without being provided any information about potential reinstatement. Some students received emails that their visas were revoked and were directed to self-deport, with no clear information as to the basis for their revocation or means by which they can appeal the revocation. Some students only learned about losing status when arrested by masked federal agents. These reports suggest that students were not given notice of the termination of their status in a manner consistent with existing laws, regulations, and agency guidance.”
The Senators conclude with an appeal to the Administration to reconsider these visa revocations and warning to adhere to federal law, before making a series of immigration requests, writing: “Students who have entered through our legal immigration system and followed the law remain unsure of what, if any, steps they may take to maintain their status and safeguard themselves from immigration enforcement. While we are relieved that ICE has reversed these SEVIS terminations, we now urge you to undo other actions to end student status that are inconsistent with such laws, regulations, and agency guidance. Finally, we understand that you are contemplating additional actions to end student status. Any such changes must be consistent with applicable statutes, including requirements for notice with respect to changes that would deprive a student of their status and ability to live and study in the United States and place them at risk of detention.”
In addition to Reed, Whitehouse, and Durbin, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennett (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Full text of the letter follows:
Dear Secretary Noem, Secretary Rubio, and Acting Director Lyons:
We recently learned that your agencies have been revoking student visas and terminating Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records across the country. These actions to end student status reflected an unannounced change in policy and were inconsistent with existing laws, regulations, policies, and agency guidance governing the maintenance and termination of student status—that is why we welcomed the news late last week that in response to litigation around the country, ICE has reversed these SEVIS terminations. We now urge you to undo other actions to end student status that are inconsistent with such laws, regulations, and agency guidance and ensure that all future actions to end student status fully comply with the law.
Foreign students must navigate a complicated mix of agencies to maintain their status. Under current regulations and policy, students who enter into the United States on an F-1 student visa or J-1 exchange visitor visa are admitted to the United States for “duration of status.” This essentially means that F-1 and J-1 visa holders may be in good standing as long as they comply with the terms and conditions of their status, even if their visa has expired. Students who enter on an M-1 visa for vocational education are admitted for a fixed time period to complete their course of study. The Office of Student Exchange and Visitor Programs (SEVP), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), works with universities and program administrators to determine whether F-1 and M-1 students are meeting requirements for their visas and terminate SEVIS records as appropriate under SEVP regulations. The Department of State (DOS) Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs administers the J-1 exchange visitor visa, but their records are maintained by SEVIS. Existing regulations and agency guidance inform students and other visa holders of how they might lose their student status, including that they cannot be convicted of serious crimes, cannot work unless authorized by DHS, and must be completing the education or program related to their visa. However, students across the country—who by all accounts appear to have followed all of the applicable laws and agency guidance—have reported visa revocations with no clear explanation as to the basis to terminate status. SEVP has completed at least 4,736 total terminations of student visa holders’ SEVIS records. By DHS’s own admission, the statute and regulations do not provide SEVP the authority to terminate nonimmigrant status by terminating a SEVIS record. Your decision to reverse such terminations is therefore prudent and required by law.
Current laws, regulations, and agency guidance also require notice to be provided when a student’s status is being terminated or revoked. Here, it is not clear that students were provided the notice required by law. Many students were notified by universities that they have lost their student status when their SEVIS records have been terminated, without being provided any information about potential reinstatement. Some students received emails that their visas were revoked and were directed to self-deport, with no clear information as to the basis for their revocation or means by which they can appeal the revocation. Some students only learned about losing status when arrested by masked federal agents. These reports suggest that students were not given notice of the termination of their status in a manner consistent with existing laws, regulations, and agency guidance.
Once a student’s visa is revoked, although their status is not automatically terminated, removal proceedings may be initiated against them, allowing them to be detained at the discretion of DHS. Similarly, when a student’s SEVIS record is terminated, the student is no longer in an authorized period of stay in the United States, and students and their universities cannot regularly maintain student records in SEVIS, as is required to maintain student status. In addition, upon SEVIS record termination, the student must depart the United States or take other action to restore legal status, and DHS “may investigate to confirm the departure of the student.”
Students who have entered through our legal immigration system and followed the law remain unsure of what, if any, steps they may take to maintain their status and safeguard themselves from immigration enforcement. While we are relieved that ICE has reversed these SEVIS terminations, we now urge you to undo other actions to end student status that are inconsistent with such laws, regulations, and agency guidance. Finally, we understand that you are contemplating additional actions to end student status. Any such changes must be consistent with applicable statutes, including requirements for notice with respect to changes that would deprive a student of their status and ability to live and study in the United States and place them at risk of detention.
We also request information to better understand how your departments are implementing any new, unannounced policies with respect to identifying students for status revocation. Please provide the following information by May 12, 2025:
1. Any guidance issued by DOS and/or DHS governing the revocations of nonimmigrant visas, issued from January 20, 2025 to date.
2. Any guidance issued by DOS and/or DHS governing how nonimmigrants are to be notified of visa revocations, issued from January 20, 2025 to date.
3. Any guidance issued by DOS and/or DHS governing the terminations of SEVIS records, issued from January 20, 2025 to April 25, 2025.
4. Any guidance issued by DOS and/or DHS governing how student visa holders are to be notified of SEVIS terminations, issued from January 20, 2025 to April 25, 2025.
5. Any guidance issued by DOS, DHS, and/or the Department of Justice governing the initiation of removal proceedings or immigration enforcement against student visa holders and other nonimmigrants, issued from January 20, 2025 to date.
6. Any guidance issued by DOS and/or DHS regarding the use of artificial intelligence to search national databases, criminal records, and social media to identify nonimmigrants for visa revocation or to otherwise end status, issued from January 20, 2025 to date.
7. The total number of student visas (F-1, M-1, or J-1 visas) that have been revoked since January 20, 2025 to date, disaggregated by:
a. Student’s country of origin;
b. Consulate or embassy that issued the visa;
c. Visa category/Optional Practical Training (OPT);
d. Date of revocation;
e. University of study;
f. Type of degree or field of study;
g. Notice provided;
h. Legal basis for revocation;
i. Any grace period to allow students to make travel or other arrangements; and
j. Whether the student’s SEVIS record was also terminated.
8. The total number of SEVIS record terminations that have been issued since January 20, 2025 to April 25, 2025, disaggregated by—
a. Student’s country of origin;
b. Visa category/Optional Practical Training (OPT);
c. Date of revocation;
d. University of study;
e. Type of degree or field of study;
f. Whether the termination was initiated by the university or by DHS;
g. Basis for termination;
h. Notice provided;
i. Any grace period to allow students to make travel or other arrangements; and
j. Whether the student’s visa was revoked.
9. The number of student visa holders on F-1, M-1, J-1 nonimmigrant status issued Form I862, Notice to Appear, initiating removal proceedings.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely,
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
April 29, 2025
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) today met with the CEO of the Greater Washington Educational Telecommunications Association (WETA), Sharon Percy Rockefeller, to discuss the need to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). During the meeting, they also discussed the Trump Administration’s threats to defund National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
“The ruthless cuts and attacks on our federal government was not enough for the Trump Administration—now they want to go after public broadcasting, which has been providing unbiased, informative, and breaking news for years, especially for our nation’s rural communities,” said Durbin. “During today’s meeting, we discussed the vital need for public broadcasting. Congress must act to stop these cuts on public broadcasting—our democracy depends on it.”
A photo of the meeting is available here.
Through the government funding bill passed earlier this year, CPB will receive $535 million for Fiscal Year 2027. However, the Trump Administration plans to formally request that Congress rescind all of the funds for FY26 and FY27—which amounts to $1.1 billion in previously approved funding for public broadcasting. If the recission is passed, this would eliminate all federal funding for CPB, PBS, and NPR.
-30-
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
April 29, 2025
42 lawmakers write to RFK Jr. demanding answers on Trump admin’s actions undermining Head Start as Trump reportedly plans to eliminate the program
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) joined U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) in sending a letter to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling out the Trump administration’s direct attacks on Head Start, reminding him of his legal obligation to administer the program, and demanding the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) immediately release Head Start funding and reverse the mass firing of Head Start staff and gutting of the offices that help ensure high-quality services are available for thousands of children and families across the country.
“We write to express our strong opposition to the actions you have taken to directly attack and undermine the federal Head Start program. Since day one, this Administration has taken unacceptable actions to withhold and delay funding, fire Head Start staff, and gut high-quality services for children. Already this year, this Administration has withheld almost $1 billion in federal grant funding from Head Start programs, a 37 percent decrease compared to the amount of funding awarded during the same period last year,” write the lawmakers. “It is abundantly clear that these actions are part of a broader effort to ultimately eliminate the program altogether, as the Administration reportedly plans to do in its fiscal year 2026 budget proposal.”
The lawmakers detail how the program plays an instrumental role in supporting kids and families across the country, writing: “Head Start provides early childhood education and comprehensive health and social services to nearly 800,000 young children every year in communities across this country, and employs about 250,000 dedicated staff. Head Start is a critical source of child care forworking families, particularly in rural and Tribal communities, where Head Start programs are often the only option for high-quality child care services. Head Start programs ensure children receive appropriate health and dental care, nutrition support, and referrals to other critical services for parents, such as job training, adult education, nutrition services, and housing support.”
“You even acknowledged the value of Head Start following a recent visit to a Virginia Head Start center,” the lawmakers write, contrasting that statement of support with the Trump Administration’s actions. “However, as a result of your actions to withhold and delay funding and undermine the administration of this vital program, Head Start centers are in serious jeopardy and have already had their day to day operations impacted. Programs are increasingly worried that they will not be able to make payroll, pay rent, and remain open to serve the hundreds of thousands of children and families who depend on their services in communities across the nation.”
“Since the very start of this Administration, Head Start programs have been under attack,” the lawmakers write, detailing office closures and funds that were frozen for Head Start grants across the country. “At one point, the National Head Start Association reported 37 programs serving nearly 15,000 children across the country could not access their federal funding. Head Start programs operate with thin margins and on short-term budgets from HHS, and without any communication from the Administration about the status of funding, programs were forced to temporarily close or to lay off staff.”
The lawmakers underscore how the gutting of Head Start offices and the firing of staff who keep the federal program running puts the entire program in jeopardy: “On April 1st, you abruptly closed five of the ten regional offices that help local grantees administer Head Start programs in 22 states. This left hundreds of programs without dedicated points of contact to address mission critical issues like approving grant renewals and modifications, investigating child health and safety incidents, and providing training and technical assistance to ensure high-quality services for children. While some grantees were assigned a new program specialist, we understand many have not been receiving responses to their inquiries. This is on top of the estimated 97 Office of Head Start central office staff that were terminated due to their probationary status and the recent reduction in force. You promised ‘radical transparency’ as Secretary, yet it is unclear how these actions will improve Head Start programs, and you and your staff refuse to respond to basic inquiries and requests for information.”
Importantly, the lawmakers note that without funding that has so far not gone out the door, many more programs could be forced to close.
“Head Start grantees are still waiting on payments and grant renewals from the Office of Head Start, including programs whose grants end on April 30th, 2025. These notices should have gone out by now, yet we are concerned to hear programs report they have received little to no correspondence regarding their grant renewals,” the lawmakers continue to detail how local Head Start programs are receiving no notice for the path forward for grant funding. “Additionally, because we started fiscal year 2025 under a short-term continuing resolution, as is usual, some grantees have only received partial funding for the first few months of the year. But with a full year funding bill in place, these grantees should have received full funding by now, yet some are reporting that they have not received the full amount of their grants and will run out of funds this month or next. On Wednesday, April 16th, the delays in Head Start funding led to the closure of Head Start centers serving more than 400 children in Sunnyside, Washington.”
“The Administration has a legal and moral obligation to disburse Head Start funds to programs and to uphold the program’s promise to provide high-quality early education services to low income children and families across this country,” the lawmakers write. “There is no justifiable reason for the delay in funding we have seen over the last two months, and you have refused to offer any kind of explanation.”
The lawmakers conclude by warning that eliminating the program would be devastating, demanding answers on the administration’s actions, and demanding the reversal of them: “[W]e urge you to immediately reinstate fired staff across all Offices of Head Start, and cease all actions to delay the awarding and disbursement of funding to Head Start programs across this country.”
This letter follows up Durbin and Duckworth’s letter to Secretary Kennedy demanding answers about the closure of five regional Head Start offices across the country, including the Region 5 office in Chicago. Despite a deadline to respond by April 22, HHS has yet to reply to the Senators’ questions.
In addition to Durbin, Duckworth, Murray, Sanders, and Baldwin, the letter was signed by 37 colleagues, including U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Peter Welch (D-VT), Gary Peters (D-MI), Michael F. Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Tina Smith (D-MN), John Fetterman (D-PA), Christopher A. Coons (D-DE), Christopher S. Murphy (D-CT), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-OR), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tim Kaine (D-MN), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Edward Markey (D-MA), Angus King (I-ME), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), and Mark R. Warner (D-VA).
Full text of the letter is available HERE and below:
April 24, 2025
Dear Secretary Kennedy:
We write to express our strong opposition to the actions you have taken to directly attack and undermine the federal Head Start program. Since day one, this Administration has taken unacceptable actions to withhold and delay funding, fire Head Start staff, and gut high-quality services for children. Already this year, this Administration has withheld almost $1 billion in federal grant funding from Head Start programs, a 37 percent decrease compared to the amount of funding awarded during the same period last year. It is abundantly clear that these actions are part of a broader effort to ultimately eliminate the program altogether, as the Administration reportedly plans to do in its fiscal year 2026 budget proposal.
Head Start provides early childhood education and comprehensive health and social services to nearly 800,000 young children every year in communities across this country, and employs about 250,000 dedicated staff. Head Start is a critical source of child care for working families, particularly in rural and Tribal communities, where Head Start programs are often the only option for high-quality child care services. Head Start programs ensure children receive appropriate health and dental care, nutrition support, and referrals to other critical services for parents, such as job training, adult education, nutrition services, and housing support.
You even acknowledged the value of Head Start following a recent visit to a Virginia Head Start center, where you said, “I had a very inspiring tour. I saw a devoted staff and a lot of happy children. They are getting the kind of education and socialization they need, and they are also getting a couple of meals a day.”
However, as a result of your actions to withhold and delay funding and undermine the administration of this vital program, Head Start centers are in serious jeopardy and have already had their day to day operations impacted. Programs are increasingly worried that they will not be able to make payroll, pay rent, and remain open to serve the hundreds of thousands of children and families who depend on their services in communities across the nation.
Since the very start of this Administration, Head Start programs have been under attack. On January 27th, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo (M-25-13) that suddenly froze the disbursement of grant funding for federal programs and services government-wide, including Head Start. Despite the Administration’s clarification that Head Start programs would not be the target of the funding freeze, many Head Start programs across the country were unable to draw down their grant funds through the Payment Management System (PMS) for weeks. At one point, the National Head Start Association reported 37 programs serving nearly 15,000 children across the country could not access their federal funding. Head Start programs operate with thin margins and on short-term budgets from HHS, and without any communication from the Administration about the status of funding, programs were forced to temporarily close or to lay off staff. In Wisconsin, the National Centers for Learning Excellence, which serves more than 200 children and their families, shut down for a week and laid off staff due to the funding freeze.
On April 1st, you abruptly closed five of the ten regional offices that help local grantees administer Head Start programs in 22 states. This left hundreds of programs without dedicated points of contact to address mission critical issues like approving grant renewals and modifications, investigating child health and safety incidents, and providing training and technical assistance to ensure high-quality services for children. While some grantees were assigned a new program specialist, we understand many have not been receiving responses to their inquiries. This is on top of the estimated 97 Office of Head Start central office staff that were terminated due to their probationary status and the recent reduction in force. You promised “radical transparency” as Secretary, yet it is unclear how these actions will improve Head Start programs, and you and your staff refuse to respond to basic inquiries and requests for information.
On March 14th, 2025, the Office of Head Start (OHS) notified all Head Start programs that “the use of federal funding for any training and technical assistance or other program expenditures that promote or take part in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives” will not be approved and that any questions should be directed to regional offices. Programs have not received any guidance for what would be considered “DEI” but this policy is potentially in direct conflict with statutory and regulatory program requirements, such as providing culturally and linguistically appropriate instructional services forEnglish learners. Many programs cannot direct questions to regional staff, as half of regional offices were abruptly closed, and as unprecedented actions are being taken to delay and withhold funding, Head Start programs have been intentionally left with little to no guidance.
Head Start programs are now arbitrarily required to provide justifications for each draw down of funds that is necessary to operate their programs, despite already receiving a federal grant award for these purposes. As of April 14th, Head Start programs have reportedly received correspondence from an email address “defendthespend@hhs.gov” requiring programs to submit a “specific description of why the funds are necessary and why they are aligned to the award” before programs can have funding disbursed. It has been reported that political appointees must sign off on every draw down of funds. This creates an illusion of improving oversight but only serves to add unnecessary red tape by requiring the manual sign off on hundreds of thousands of individual actions annually across the Department based on two to three sentence justifications. Already some grantees have reported delays in receiving funds, and have reported that furloughs or closures are imminent if funds are not released. For an administration that purports to value local autonomy and efficiency in federally funded programs, your actions have achieved the exact opposite.
Finally, Head Start grantees are still waiting on payments and grant renewals from the Office of Head Start, including programs whose grants end on April 30th, 2025. These notices should have gone out by now, yet we are concerned to hear programs report they have received little to no correspondence regarding their grant renewals. Additionally, because we started fiscal year 2025 under a short-term continuing resolution, as is usual, some grantees have only received partial funding for the first few months of the year. But with a full year funding bill in place, these grantees should have received full funding by now, yet some are reporting that they have not received the full amount of their grants and will run out of funds this month or next. On Wednesday, April 16th, the delays in Head Start funding led to the closure of Head Start centers serving more than 400 children in Sunnyside, Washington.
The Administration has a legal and moral obligation to disburse Head Start funds to programs and to uphold the program’s promise to provide high-quality early education services to low income children and families across this country. The fiscal year 2025 appropriations act provided $12.3 billion for Head Start, the same as the fiscal year 2024 level. The Head Start Act includes an explicit formula for how appropriated funds should be allocated. There is no justifiable reason for the delay in funding we have seen over the last two months, and you have refused to offer any kind of explanation. However, this week leaked fiscal year 2026 budget documents indicated the Office of Management and Budget was directing the Department, consistent with the Administration’s proposal to eliminate Head Start in fiscal year 2026, to “ensure to the extent allowable FY2025 funds are available to close out the program.” If this explains any of the delay in awarding fiscal year 2025 funding, we want to be clear, no funds were provided in fiscal year 2025 to “close out the program,” and it would be wholly unacceptable and likely illegal if the Department tries to carry out this directive.
Finally, the leaked budget documents provided a justification, albeit brief, for eliminating Head Start in fiscal year 2026 that makes this Administration’s priorities clear and puts the Department’s actions over the last several months in context. The Administration argues that eliminating Head Start, “is consistent with the Administration’s goals of returning education to the States and increasing parental choice.” It is shocking to see an argument that eliminating a program that provides comprehensive early childhood care and education to 800,000 children and their families would increase parental choice. It is particularly concerning to see that argument in the context of the significant delay in awarding fiscal year 2025 appropriated funds and what that indicates about the intent behind the Department’s actions. We believe it is obvious that eliminating Head Start would be detrimental to hundreds of thousands of children and families. Similarly, we believe it is obvious that delaying funding like we have seen over the last two months, forcing Head Start programs to close, and leaving families to scramble to find quality, affordable alternatives puts the education and well-being of some of the most vulnerable young children in America at risk. In our view, that is unacceptable.
Therefore, we urge you to immediately reinstate fired staff across all Offices of Head Start, and cease all actions to delay the awarding and disbursement of funding to Head Start programs across this country.
Please provide us with a written response to the questions below no later than 10 days from receipt:
1. Will you reinstate the staff who administer Head Start programs and reopen the closed regional offices responsible for overseeing Head Start programs in 22 states?
a) When is HHS going to share information on the reorganization plan for the consolidation of the regional offices?
b) Please provide the contact information for each program specialist designated to the 22 states who lost their regional office.
c) Who is responsible for ensuring there are no delays or lapses in funding, nor any disruptions to Head Start program operations now that these states do not have a regional office?
2. How many employees at the Offices of Head Start have been terminated, including the five regional offices and the central office?
a) Which officials at HHS were involved in the staffing reduction decisions for OHS and what planning, if any, was undertaken prior to these reductions? Please describe the events that unfolded and name each office that was involved in the decision. Further, please name the official(s) who approved the staffing reductions.
3. Can you confirm that the Administration will distribute all Head Start funds appropriated by Congress to Head Start programs in FY 25, as required by the Head Start Act?
4. Please provide a list of all grantees with 5-year Head Start grant renewals that start between now and the end of the fiscal year: May 1st, June 1st, July 1st, August 1st, and September 1st.
a) Will any funding be delayed for grantees that are due to receive their annual funding on May 1st or beyond?
5. Why are funding awards delayed for grantees that received partial awards during the first continuing resolution for FY25?
a) When can HHS guarantee that all funds will be awarded for partially funded Head Start programs?
6. What is the “Tier 2” department for review that is delaying drawn down for Head Start programs in the Payment Management System?
a) When should programs expect to receive their funds?
b) Please provide all communication that went to Head Start grantees on the new review process.
7. What guidance and clarifications have been provided to Head Start grantees on DEI expenditures?
a) How is HHS evaluating Head Start programs’ expenditures and grant awards for DEI?
b) What justifications are being used to prohibit DEI?
Sincerely,
-30-
ATLANTA (April 28, 2025) — Today, Senator Jason Anavitarte (R–Dallas) applauded Governor Brian P. Kemp’s signing of House Bill 268, a critical measure to enhance emergency response systems and strengthen school safety protections across Georgia.
In addition to the mobile panic alert systems and mapping requirements, HB 268 contains a portion of legislation, known as “Ricky and Alyssa’s Law,” which tasks the Georgia Emergency Management and Homeland Security Agency (GEMA/HS) with creating uniform guidelines for implementing panic alert technology and coordinating verified threat responses statewide.
The legislation honors Richard “Ricky” William Aspinwall, the defense coordinator at Apalachee High School who was tragically killed during a shooting there in September 2024, and Alyssa Alhadeff, a 14-year-old student who lost her life during the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Similar legislation bearing Alyssa’s name, known as “Alyssa’s Law,” has already been enacted in New Jersey, Florida, New York, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, and Oklahoma.
“Today, Georgia sends a clear message that we will not wait for another tragedy to act,” said Sen. Anavitarte. “By signing HB 268, we are taking meaningful steps to ensure every school has the tools needed to respond in an emergency and protect the lives of students, teachers, and staff. Moments matter, and this law gives our schools the ability to summon help without delay. I am incredibly grateful to Governor Kemp, my colleagues in the General Assembly, and the families who courageously advocated for this critical reform.”
HB 268, sponsored in the House by Rep. Holt Persinger (R–Winder), passed with overwhelming bipartisan support during the 2025 legislative session. The new law requires every public school in Georgia to implement a mobile panic alert system capable of immediately connecting with local and state emergency services. Schools must also provide digital mapping data to first responders, ensuring faster, more coordinated responses during emergencies. HB 268 also supports mental health programs, suicide prevention and youth violence reduction.
“Protecting Georgia’s children is a sacred responsibility,” Sen. Anavitarte continued. “Ricky and Alyssa’s Law honors two lives lost far too soon and turns heartbreak into action. It is a promise to every family in Georgia that when it comes to the safety of our schools, we will lead with urgency, compassion and resolve.”
HB 268 will officially take effect on July 1, 2025. You can find more information about it here.
# # # #
Sen. Jason Anavitarte serves as Chairman of the Senate Majority Caucus. He represents the 31st Senate District, which includes Polk County and a portion of Paulding County. He may be reached via email at Jason.Anavitarte@senate.ga.gov.
For all media inquiries, please reach out to SenatePressInquiries@senate.ga.gov.
