SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Seymour, Mo., woman was sentenced in federal court today for a more than $850,000 fraud scheme in which she used the personal identity information of her fellow inmates in state prison to obtain student loans and tax refunds.
Renee Delann Clouse, 56, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Roseann Ketchmark to 10 years in federal prison without parole. The court also ordered Clouse to pay $857,618 in restitution and to forfeit to the government $857,618. Clouse was taken into custody at the end of the hearing to immediately begin serving her sentence.
On April 23, 2024, Clouse pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud. Clouse admitted that she harvested the personal information of fellow inmates while she was incarcerated on a state drug conviction, then after being released from prison used that information to fraudulently obtain a total of $338,610 in student loan funds and tax refunds to which she was not entitled.
Clouse fraudulently obtained federal education loans of 18 other individuals totaling $285,435, in addition to more than $500,000 that was sent to the educational institutions, for a fraud scheme that totaled $804,434. Clouse also fraudulently obtained IRS refunds of 10 other individuals totaling $53,174.
According to court documents, Clouse continued her fraud scheme even after she knew she was being investigated by federal agents, and after agreeing to plead guilty.
This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Carney. It was investigated by the Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, Kansas City, Mo.
The visit of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House has not gone to plan – at least not to his plan. There were extraordinary scenes as a press conference between Zelensky and Trump descended into acrimony, with the US president loudly berating his opposite number, who he accused of “gambling with world war three”.
“You either make a deal or we’re out,” Trump told Zelensky. His vice-president, J.D. Vance, also got in on the act, accusing the Ukrainian president of “litigating in front of the American media”, and saying his approach was “disrespectful”. At one point he asked Zelensky: “Have you said thank you even once?”
Reporters present described the atmosphere as heated with voices raised by both Trump and Vance. The New York Times said the scene was “one of the most dramatic moments ever to play out in public in the Oval Office and underscored the radical break between the United States and Ukraine since Mr Trump took office”.
Underlying the angry exchanges were differences between the Trump administration and the Ukrainian government over the so-called “minerals deal” that Zelensky was scheduled to sign. But any lack of Ukrainian enthusiasm for the deal is understandable.
In its present form, it looks more like a memorandum of understanding that leaves several vital issues to be resolved later. The deal on offer is the creation of what will be called a “reconstruction investment fund”, to be jointly owned and managed by the US and Ukraine.
Into the proposed fund will go 50% of the revenue from the exploitation of “all relevant Ukrainian government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian government)” and “other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure)”.
This means that private infrastructure – much of it owned by Ukraine’s wealthy oligarchs – is likely to become part of the deal. This has the potential of further increasing friction between Zelensky and some very powerful Ukrainians.
Meanwhile, US contributions are less clearly defined. The preamble to the agreement makes it clear that Ukraine already owes the US. The very first paragraph notes that “the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022”.
Western and Ukrainian analysts have also pointed out that there may be fewer and less accessible mineral and rare earth deposits in Ukraine than are currently assumed. The working estimates have been based mostly on Soviet-era data.
Since the current draft leaves details on ownership, governance and operations to be determined in a future fund agreement, Trump’s very big deal is at best the first step. Future rounds of negotiations are to be expected.
Statement of intent
From a Ukrainian perspective, this is more of a strength than a weakness. It leaves Kyiv with an opportunity to achieve more satisfactory terms in future rounds of negotiation. Even if any improvements will only be marginal, it keeps the US locked into a process that is, overall, beneficial for Ukraine.
Take the example of security guarantees. The draft agreement offers Ukraine nothing anywhere near Nato membership. But it notes that the US “supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace”, adding that: “Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments.”
The significance of this should not be overstated. At its bare minimum, it is an expression of intent by the US that falls short of security guarantees but still gives the US a stake in the survival of Ukraine as an independent state.
But it is an important signal both in terms of what it does and does not do – a signal to Russia, Europe and Ukraine.
Trump does not envisage that the US will give Ukraine security guarantees “beyond very much”. He seems to think that these guarantees can be provided by European troops (the Kremlin has already cast doubts on this idea).
But this does not mean the idea is completely off the table. On the contrary, because the US commitment is so vague, it gives Trump leverage in every direction.
He can use it as a carrot and a stick against Ukraine to get more favourable terms for US returns from the reconstruction investment fund. He can use it to push Europe towards more decisive action to ramp up defence spending by making any US protection for European peacekeepers contingent on more equitable burden-sharing in Nato.
And he can signal to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, that the US is serious about making a deal stick – and that higher American economic stakes in Ukraine and corporate presence on the ground would mean US-backed consequences if the Kremlin reneges on a future peace agreement and restarts hostilities.
That these calculations will ultimately lead to the “free, sovereign and secure Ukraine” that the agreement envisages is not a given.
For now, however, despite all the shortcomings and vagueness of the deal on key issues –– and the very public argument between the parties – it still looks like it serves all sides’ interests in moving forward in this direction.
This article has been updated with details of the meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
Tetyana Malyarenko 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.
Conservatives now claim we are in the middle of a “movement” of workers away from the New Democratic Party, which has historically been seen as the party of labour, toward both federal and provincial conservative parties.
Former Conservative Party of Canada leader Erin O’Toole reached out to workers in the last federal election and current Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, continues to do so.
However, the actual extent of union support for Ford must be put into context. There is no evidence to suggest a major political re-alignment of unions with conservative parties. At the same time, the ability of Ford’s brand of populism to engage with a strategic transactionalism in some unions is a serious challenge to labour movement solidarity.
Local autonomy is part of a democratic labour movement, and many of the endorsements for Ford came from union locals, not the entirety of a union’s membership.
Some unions have policies of not endorsing any party, while others allow endorsements by union locals of individual candidates. More importantly, even if unions decide to endorse a candidate or party, individual members vote for whoever they want. Union members continue to vote in complex and contradictory ways, and they can be swayed by populist politicians as much as any other voter.
Right-wing populism presents a challenge to unions whose members are not isolated from populist politics. Ford’s brand of populism has proven effective in attracting and dividing organized labour, especially public versus private sector union members. He uses populist rhetoric to challenge public sector unions while making more moderate overatures to non-union and private sector workers.
This pivoting populism has proven effective. Promises of a “buck-a-beer” and allowing liquor into corner stores appeals to workers while potentially reducing unionized jobs at LCBO outlets and government revenue for health care and education.
Ford has also demonstrated the ability to shift his populist message when needed. He quickly positioned himself as a leading voice against tariffs proposed by United States President Donald Trump. He successfully engaged a nationalist economic populism defending workers, specifically in Ontario’s manufacturing sector.
Despite being caught saying he was “100 per cent” happy with Trump’s victory, he pivoted to a message that muzzled, at least temporarily, the racist, anti-immigrant, anti-transgender and anti-climate change sentiments of Trumpian populism.
Ford’s folksy rhetoric was flexible enough to maintain his appeal. Union leaders representing workers supportive of Ford, especially in the private sector, either felt pressure to reflect their members politics or were supportive themselves. As a result, some unions were more open to being transactional with the Ontario PCs than in the past.
Transactional approach to politics
In their recent book Shifting Gears, labour experts Stephanie Ross and Larry Savage document Unifor’s shift toward a more transactional approach when dealing with political parties. They argue the union abandoned its traditional party-union alliance with the NDP for more pragmatic relationships with those in power.
Transactional politics are increasingly practised by many unions, and Ford has used it to his advantage. Private sector unions in the building trades and hospitality industries that endorsed Ford have secured millions in training funds from the government.
Ford’s transactional relationships with unions are not without growing pains. Several unions that supported the Ontario PCs in the 2022 election condemned Bill 28, which would have removed the right to strike for 55,000 educational workers. After thousands walked off the job in response, the government withdrew the bill.
Here, we see a broader form of transactional politics in play. If Ford wanted to maintain even minimal union support, he had to recognize basic rights for unionized workers.
The current levels of union support for the Ontario PCs may have an exaggerated significance. After all, the Conservatives only slightly increased their popular vote and lost three seats, dropping to 80 from 83. Similarly, the NDP remains the official opposition, but had their seat count and popular vote diminished, while the Liberals increased both.
The future of labour
Shifting union support for political parties can have an impact, as unions have people and resources that can be allocated to campaigns. But there are limits to the union support conservative parties can build.
First, much of this support is driven by right-wing populism, which can fade over time. The traditional conservative business community can reinstate neoliberal policies that restricts unions and their power.
Second, transactional politics that use taxpayer money are expensive for governments. After all, not every union can be awarded a new training centre.
Perhaps the most significant implications are for the future of the labour movement itself. The politics between unions that collaborate with right-wing populists and those who are attacked by them remain divisive as labour leaders have publicly debated the issue. At what point will the fissures erupt and threaten overall solidarity?
It may be time for the labour movement to go on the offensive against support for right-wing populists among their own memberships — the unions giving endorsements in exchange for resources and the bare minimum, in terms of union recognition.
At this juncture, this will be a struggle. Union political education has always been a challenge, and it’s more difficult in the era of right-wing legacy and social media. Any attempt by central labour bodies, such as the Ontario Federation of Labour, to sanction or expel affiliates who support right-wing parties would have high political costs.
But accommodating, rather than confronting, right-wing populist sentiments among workers and maintaining inter-union solidarity may eventually lead to the movement and political realignment conservatives are hoping for.
Steven Tufts receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. He also sits on the board of an organisation that has recevied past funding from the Ontario Skills Development Fund mentioned in the article.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Ahead of World Teen Mental Wellness Day, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), co-founder of the bipartisan Senate Mental Health Caucus, Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), along with Representatives August Pfluger (R-Texas-11), Kim Schrier (D-Wash.-8), John Joyce (R-Pa.-13), and Kathy Castor (D-Fla.-14), introduced bipartisan legislation to combat the growing youth mental health crisis in America. The Early Action and Responsiveness Lifts Youth (EARLY) Minds Act would provide early intervention and prevention services to children struggling with mental health challenges.
The data is clear: more work needs to be done to protect children’s mental health. Over the past few decades, mental health disorders have steadily risen among children and adolescents, with nearly half of adolescents in the United States facing a mental health disorder at some point in their lives. Nearly 20 percent of children ages 3-17 in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral disorder. More than 40 percent of teens — including 57 percent of teenage girls — reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness. Research shows that intervening early with people who are experiencing mental health challenges can help prevent those challenges from turning more serious and becoming more costly to treat, while leading to improvements in symptoms, relationships, quality of life, and engagement with schoolwork.
The EARLY Minds Act seeks to empower states by allowing them to allocate up to five percent of their Mental Health Block Grant funding for prevention and early intervention activities. This strategic allocation of resources is critical to identify and support Americans before their mental health challenges escalate. The Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, is currently limited to funding services for those with severe, diagnosed mental illnesses. With this adjustment, states will have the opportunity to take full advantage of Mental Health Block Grants to intervene early and save lives.
“Young people deserve access to mental health services as soon as they need them. But our children are often forced to wait years for an official diagnosis, leaving them without vital mental health support,” said Senator Padilla. “Our bipartisan legislation would address the growing youth mental health crisis by equipping states to provide young people preventative treatment and early intervention services — because no child should have to suffer in silence.”
“Prevention and early intervention are key to addressing the mental health crisis,” said Senator Tillis. “The bipartisan EARLY Minds Act gives states the flexibility to invest in these critically-important services to ensure children and families get the support they need when it matters most – not years too late.”
“In recent years, we’ve seen an uptick in depression, anxiety, and other behavioral health conditions among young people, and we need to do more to support them,” said Senator Kaine. “That’s why I’m joining my colleagues in introducing this bipartisan legislation that will help states expand prevention and early intervention mental health resources for young people.”
“As reports of severe mental health issues continue to rise across the country, it is imperative that we address this issue and help people in crisis receive the treatment they need,” said Representative Pfluger. “Research has consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of early intervention in mitigating the severity of mental health challenges among children and adults. By allowing states the flexibility to utilize MHBG funds for prevention and early intervention, the EARLY Minds Act presents a commonsense solution to address the worsening youth mental health crisis.”
“As a pediatrician, I understand the value of preventative care, including for mental health,” said Representative Schrier. “That is why Mental Health Block Grants should fund prevention and early intervention services. At a time when behavioral health challenges are on the rise, it is important to build support systems, resiliency, and coping mechanisms early. This bill will complement existing federal programs like Medicaid and CHIP, that provide critical behavioral health care to children and families across the country.”
“Prevention and early intervention are vital for reducing the severity of mental health challenges, particularly in children,” said Representative Castor. “As Co-Chair of the Children’s Health Care Caucus, I am committed to ensuring families have the support they need to keep their kids healthy at a time with so much uncertainty. Allowing Mental Health Block Grants to fund prevention and early intervention services is a sensible, bipartisan solution to an urgent need. This bill will connect more children with proven, effective care before their health escalates into crisis level. This bill will work best in tandem with strong, robust Medicaid and CHIP programs that provide lifesaving mental health services to children and their families. I look forward to working with Representatives Pfluger, Schrier, and Joyce to advance this critical legislation and protect health coverage for our nation’s kids.”
“Assisting children in crisis so that they can receive the care and support that they need is vital to fixing the youth mental health epidemic in our country,” said Representative Joyce. “As a physician, I know the importance of prevention and early intervention, and I’m proud to cosponsor this legislation to ensure SAMHSA’s Community Mental Health Services Block Grant can be used to effectively reach and assist our nation’s youth in need.”
“Proactive early intervention and prevention can dramatically change the trajectory of a child’s life by addressing mental health issues before they escalate,” said Matthew Cook, President and CEO of the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA). “The EARLY Minds Act gives states greater flexibility to make resources available for early detection and prevention services like mental health screenings, educational support for parents, and evidence-based interventions for children facing behavioral health challenges. CHA applauds this bipartisan legislation that will help combat the escalating youth mental health crisis.”
On average, there is an 11-year delay between when someone starts experiencing a mental health condition and when they receive treatment. For a young person, that means suffering without help throughout the majority of their childhood before receiving treatment.
The EARLY Minds Act also requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide reports to Congress detailing states’ efforts to promote early intervention. HHS would report to Congress every two years regarding states’ efforts to promote early intervention, including comprehensive information on their activities and outcomes.
The EARLY Minds Act has garnered widespread support from leading mental health advocacy organizations, including American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, American Mental Health Counselors Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Association of Children’s Residential & Community Services (ACRC), Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Children’s Hospital Association, Committee for Children, Crisis Text Line, Family Voices, First Focus Campaign for Children, Global Alliance for Behavioral Health & Social Justice, International Society of Psychiatric Mental Health Nurses (ISPN), Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute, Mental Health America, Mental Health Counselors Association, MomsRising, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National Association of School Psychologists, National Board for Certified Counselors, National Children’s Alliance, National Federation of Families, National League for Nursing, Nemours Children’s Health, Sandy Hook Promise, School Social Work Association of America, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, The Jed Foundation, The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, Trust for America’s Health, Western Youth Services, and Youth Villages.
“Suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people ages 10-19. Preventing youth suicide begins with early intervention,” said Laurel Stine, J.D., M.A., Executive Vice President and Chief Policy and Advocacy Officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. “By allowing states to use a portion of their Mental Health Block Grant funding to identify and treat behavioral health conditions among children and youth, the EARLY Minds Act takes an upstream approach to mental health that will help support youth at risk for suicide. We commend Representative Pfluger, Representative Schrier, Representative Joyce, Representative Castor, Senator Padilla, Senator Murkowski, Senator Tillis, Senator Kaine, and Senator Murkowski for their leadership on this important issue.”
“Pediatricians know prevention and early intervention is critical to keeping our patients healthy – including their mental health. The EARLY Minds Act would provide states with more options for funding key services that help young people get the care they need before a mental health condition is diagnosed or gets worse. The American Academy of Pediatrics applauds the EARLY Minds Act sponsors for their leadership on this bipartisan bill and calls on lawmakers to swiftly advance it,” said Susan Kressly, MD, FAAP, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“The American Psychological Association applauds Senators Padilla, Tillis, Murkowski, and Kaine for introducing the bipartisan EARLY Minds Act, which will help expand quality, evidence-based mental health prevention and early intervention services to all communities,” said APA CEO Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD. “Intervening before the onset of mental illness is a cornerstone of a population health approach to treatment. Allowing the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant to be used for prevention and early intervention is critical for ensuring that more people, including the very youngest, do not develop mental health conditions and can lead healthy, productive and fulfilled lives.”
“The Early Minds Act adds critical intervention and preventive programs for children and can greatly benefit families in the under-resourced communicates served by Children’s Hospital Los Angeles,” said Paul Viviano, President and Chief Executive Officer of CHLA. “Allowing states the flexibility of supporting these services can help identify troubled children in the early stages of a mental health crisis before conditions worsen, creating hope and building healthier futures for children.”
“Federal data shows us that our nation’s youth are facing an unprecedented mental health crisis that demands immediate action from us all. As many as 4 out of 10 high school students experience persistent feelings of hopelessness, and 1 in 5 have seriously considered suicide. The sooner we, as Trusted Adults, can intervene and connect young people with help, the more opportunities we have to avert tragedies, self-harm, or suicide. This legislation provides a pathway to act sooner, and lives will not only be saved but will also be transformed, as a result,” said Mark Barden, co-founder and co-CEO of the Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund and father of Daniel, who was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.
“There’s no question that youth are struggling right now. At Crisis Text Line, young people reaching out for help have told us that they need more in-person programs to support their mental health. That is why we are thrilled to support the EARLY Minds Act, which would allow states the flexibility to invest in critical prevention and early intervention programming,” said Courtney Gallo Hunter, VP, Public Policy, Crisis Text Line.
Senator Padilla is a leading advocate for expanding mental health care access, especially for underserved communities. In 2023, Padilla, Tillis, and Senators Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) launched the bipartisan Senate Mental Health Caucus to serve as a forum for Senators to collaborate on and promote bipartisan legislation and solutions, hold events to raise awareness of critical mental health issues, and destigmatize mental health. Last year, Padilla and Tillis passed a Senate resolution to raise the alarm about the mental health care crisis American children face and highlight the urgent need to increase our investment in mental health care for children and adolescents. Padilla and Tillis applauded the Federal Communications Commission for making critical improvements to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline to help callers access localized, lifesaving behavioral health resources and mirrored the main provision of the Senators’ Local 9-8-8 Response Act of 2023. Padilla previously introduced a trio of bills to address the unique mental health needs of military children, Latinos, and farm workers.
A one-pager on the bill is available here.
Full text of the bill is available here.
The cost of living crisis, which saw inflation in the US peak at a four-decade high of 9.1% in 2022, played a significant role in determining the outcome of last November’s presidential election.
Exit polls across ten of the key battleground states showed 32% of voters considered the economy to be the most important election issue. Among that group of voters, a staggering 81% voted for Donald Trump.
Trump had spent most of his election campaign saying his administration would tackle high prices – even vowing to bring them down on day one. However, the latest figures suggest inflation in the US has increased since he took office, rising unexpectedly to a six-month high of 3% in January.
This rise is largely because of the economy Trump inherited. But some experts have expressed concerns that his stated economic strategy, including trade tariffs, major tax cuts and lower interest rates, will only add to inflation.
While tax cuts and interest rate changes are familiar policies, the use of tariffs has been less common in recent decades. These are used by governments to balance trade relationships or in retaliation to tariffs imposed by other countries. They generally make foreign imported goods more expensive while also raising tax revenues for governments.
The Trump administration has set tariffs of 25% on all steel and aluminium imports, and imposed 10% trade tariffs on a wide range of consumer imports from China. While proposed tariffs of 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada have been temporarily paused, the US has signalled its intention to introduce tariffs on imports from the European Union.
A General Motors car assembly facility in Ontario, Canada, where economists predict the proposed tariffs would have a catastrophic effect. JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock
Will tariffs lead to inflation?
Trump’s aides insist the tariffs won’t have a negative impact on American consumers and businesses. On February 18, Peter Navarro, senior counsel for trade and manufacturing at the White House, told the New York Times: “It’s not going to be painful for America. It’s going to be a beautiful thing.”
Navarro argues that foreign exporters, concerned about losing market share, will reduce the pre-tariff price they charge US importers.
But economic theory suggests that tariffs generally do lead to higher prices. Peter Lavelle, a trade expert at the UK’s Institute for Fiscal Studies, says that evidence from Trump’s first term – when tariffs were imposed on solar panels, washing machines, steel and aluminium – shows these costs were “almost entirely passed on to domestic consumers”, thus adding to inflation.
A key reason for the tariffs is to make US domestic manufacturing more competitive on the international stage. This could bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. Manufacturing employment declined by 35% in the US from its peak of 19.6 million in 1979 to 12.8 million in 2020.
However, there was no evidence of tariffs bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US during Trump’s first term. In fact, manufacturing employment remained static between 2017 and 2021.
There are fears that tariffs could instead trigger a trade war, where countries retaliate with tariffs of their own. Canadian officials, for instance, have made it clear they will introduce retaliatory tariffs on the US – “selected in order to hit particularly red and purple [Trump-supporting] states”.
Economists analyse such scenarios using game theory. A trade war takes the form of what economics-speak calls a “non-cooperating Nash equilibrium”, where the economic outcome is negative for all countries involved.
Some recent modelling on the impact of Trump’s proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico supports this view. Tariff retaliation is likely to raise inflation rates even further than otherwise in all three economies.
A trade war could also squeeze profit margins for exporting producers in the US, by making some US-produced goods relatively more expensive. This would show up in lower real income through reduced employment and wages. This outcome, like higher prices, is unlikely to be popular with US voters.
Given the evidence from Trump’s first term, it is difficult to see how tariffs will be anything but inflationary. Trump’s proposed tax cuts valued at US$5-11 trillion would also add to inflationary pressures, as would the lower interest rates he has called for.
Ana Swanson, a trade and international economist at the New York Times, believes the threat of tariffs is being used merely as a negotiating strategy. However, like many other economists, Swanson sees uncertainty as the biggest impact of Trump’s tariff policy.
In a podcast on February 4, she said: “If you, as the business, are watching out for the threat of tariffs, are you going to make an investment in a new factory or hire new workers?” Uncertainty leads to reduced investment and lower growth.
Realistically, Trump was never going to bring down prices for US consumers. To do that would be deflationary, and economists generally fear deflation even more than inflation. Falling prices lead to deferred spending and can be devastating for economic growth.
The best outcome for US consumers is that prices increase at a slower rate, close to the US Federal Reserve’s inflation target of 2%. However, given the recent uptick in inflation, as well as Trump’s strategy of tariffs, tax cuts and lower interest rates, the direction of travel all points towards higher price rises.
Recent evidence from elections in many advanced economies shows that voters do not like inflation, and will punish administrations who are in power during inflationary periods.
Since inflation peaked in many advanced economies in 2022, more than 70% of incumbent administrations have been voted out of government. Trump should keep this in mind as he embarks on his quest to make America’s economy great again.
Conor O’Kane 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.
Elon Musk is wielding a chainsaw against US government departments, potentially culling tens of thousands of jobs, as part of a huge plan to shrink the government and slash federal spending.
This large-scale purge of public servants, coordinated through Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), may end up creating one of the biggest employment cuts in US history. Tech company IBM laid off 60,000 people in 1993, and about 25,000 workers (some outside the US) lost their jobs when Lehman Brothers bank went bust in 2008, but this swathe of job losses could outstrip them both, with numbers predicted to hit around 300,000.
On Friday February 21, Musk sent a “productivity email” to all federal employees demanding that they summarise the work they’d done in the past week. President Donald Trump hailed Musk’s ultimatum as “ingenious” and echoed that failure to comply would mean that employees would be “semi-fired or fired”.
By the Monday, chaos reigned in Washington. The bedlam left career civil servants unsure of how, or even whether, to reply, marking the latest flashpoint in a tumultuous last month created by Doge and aimed at trimming the federal workforce. Adding insult to injury, Musk later admitted the email was a ruse to test whether federal workers “had a pulse”. A follow-up email is rumoured to be coming this weekend.
On X, Musk doubled down, posting an image of the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants looking at a “Got Done Last Week” list that included: “Cried about Trump, Cried about Elon, Cried about Trump and Elon some more.” Days earlier, at the annual gathering of the US right wing, the Conservative Political Action Conference, Musk brandished a chainsaw and screamed “Chainsaw!” to show the uproarious Maga crowd how he intended to eviscerate the federal bureaucracy.
Political payback?
Doge’s proposed job cuts are vast and deep. So far, much of Musk’s ire has been directed at the US Agency for International Development (USAid), where 4,700 employees have already been put on leave – with 1,600 of those positions terminated.
It’s perhaps no surprise that Doge started with this soft target. Although the US spends only about 1% of federal money on development aid, polls consistently show that Americans, especially Republicans, think Washington overspends on foreign assistance.
The cuts also come amid rising speculation that these firings could be part of a political retaliation by the White House. Influential adviser Stephen Miller claimed, without showing evidence, that 98% of workers at USAid “either donated to Kamala Harris or another leftwing candidate”.
The Trump administration has also forced out dozens of officials across the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency charged with investigating attempts at foreign interference in US elections.
Even the Pentagon, traditionally a “third rail” for Republican presidents when it comes to spending reductions, is feeling the squeeze. The US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, has promised to slash military spending by 8% over the next five years from its US$850 billion (£674 billion) annual budget. While US service members in uniform are currently exempt from job losses, many expect civilian workers, especially those in their probationary period, to be shown the door soon.
There are many thousands of federal jobs across the US.
Washington DC, which voted for former vice-president Harris over Trump by a margin of 92.5% to 6.6%, is home to the largest number of government jobs: about 2.2 million civilians. However, federal workers are spread across the US. That includes red states where Trump won in 2024. For example, there are more than 129,000 federal jobs in Texas, more than 94,000 in Florida, and more than 79,000 in Georgia.
For Trump, this complicates the Doge agenda to make a dent in America’s US$36 trillion (£28.6 trillion) debt through mass job terminations. While many Maga supporters cheered campaign pledges to eliminate government “waste, fraud and abuse”, many now confront the stark reality of job losses in their communities (or even their own jobs).
Trump has promised to get spending by the national government under control, but without addressing reform of essential services – such as Medicare and social security – it’s unclear how he can achieve this goal.
Backlash and legal battles
Public opinion towards Musk breaks sharply along partisan lines. According to recent polling by YouGov, 42% of Americans have a positive view of Musk (52% unfavourable), including 79% of Republicans but just 10% of Democrats. The same percentage, 42%, think favourably of Doge, with similar partisan divides. But the number of Americans who rate Musk positively has been dropping in the past few weeks, although he is seen as increasingly influential.
Contributing to negativity, Musk’s rollout of Doge to oversee cuts to the federal labour force hasn’t come without major flubs. For example, he recently fired (before un-firing) workers at the National Nuclear Security Administration, tasked with overseeing the country’s nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Even some Trump loyalists are pushing back. After Musk’s “document work or resign” email was blasted to the FBI, newly minted director Kash Patel sent his own message telling employees not to respond, declaring: “The FBI, through the Office of the Director, is in charge of all of our review processes.”
On X, Harvard political scientist Maya Sen called the reaction “probably a good development for the rule of law”, adding: “Musk got a head start but separate & distinct interests of new political appointees over their own workforces will clash more and more w/Musk.”
The Trump administration now faces mounting legal challenges to Doge’s agenda. An amended lawsuit filed by a cadre of unions, including the nation’s largest federation of unions, AFL-CIO, alleged that mass firings of probationary workers is illegal, and that only federal agencies have control over human resources decisions.
Beyond legal chokepoints, Musk confronts increasing scepticism – even within Doge itself. On Tuesday February 25, 21 employees from Doge resigned, saying they would not use their professional skills to “dismantle critical public services”.
Even among some Republican lawmakers, there’s worry about the breakneck speed of firings. Republican representative Jeff Van Drew, for example, said that “we have to be really careful that we’re cutting things that don’t hurt everyday people”. Some have criticised Musk’s flippant attitude toward longstanding public servants. Others think Musk is taking a hatchet to a problem that requires a scalpel.
Whether a hatchet, a scalpel or a chainsaw, Musk’s slash-and-burn approach carries risks. By the 2026 midterms (when 35 of the 100 Senate seats will be up for election), the picture of Musk gleefully slicing government jobs could be less a symbol of efficiency, more a symbol of Trump-era hubris.
Thomas Gift does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Donald Trump’s grab for Ukraine’s minerals, which the US president is demanding as compensation for his country’s wartime assistance to Kyiv, might seem like a new low in a week of US-Ukraine relations lows.
The latest draft of Trump’s “minerals deal” would grant the US substantial control of a new fund that would invest in Ukrainian reconstruction. The fund would receive 50% of the profits from the future monetisation of government-owned Ukrainian natural resources such as lithium and titanium, as well as coal, gas, oil and uranium.
This deal, despite offering no guarantee of continued US military support, is a slight improvement on Trump’s first offering. That bid would have imposed financial conditions on Ukraine harsher than those forced on Germany after the first world war.
However, the deal will still require future generations of Ukrainians to shoulder the cost of a war for which they bear no responsibility. Commentators, including British foreign minister David Lammy, have noted that it would be more just to seize frozen Russian assets and use them to cover the cost of repairing the damage Russia has wreaked across the country.
But, while many in the west have balked at Trump’s barefaced extractivism, his actions are entirely in line with the way western capitalists have approached Ukraine and its resources since the 19th century.
The Donbas region of Ukraine is a major coal mining and industrial area. deniks315 / Shutterstock
Ukraine’s east, referred to as Donbas, is often thought to have been industrialised in the 1930s, when Joseph Stalin was leading the Soviet Union. At this time, Donbas was marketed to the world as a symbol of proletarian superabundance. It was a place where miners and steelworkers exceeded their production quotas by 30 or 40 times.
But the development of industrial extraction in eastern Ukraine dates back much earlier and was powered, in part, by European capital and technology.
In the mid-19th century, when this part of Ukraine was controlled by the Russian empire, the Russian tsars opened the country’s borders to foreign capital investment in the hopes of accelerating its industrialisation drive. A series of fiscal measures were introduced that made it more attractive to foreigners to invest in the empire’s emerging industrial markets.
This encouraged a wave of economic migration from western Europe to all regions of the multinational state. Foreign capitalists often partnered with Russian business elites based in Saint Petersburg and other major cities and set about generating huge amounts of profit from the extraction of the empire’s valuable resources.
Donbas, with its wealth of minerals, was a region of particular interest for foreign capitalists. French, Belgian, German, Dutch and British industrialists all relocated to the region in the second half of the 19th century hoping to make their fortunes by excavating the region’s salt, chalk, gypsum, and coal. In fact, there was so much Belgian capital circulating at one point that Donbas became known as “the tenth Belgian province”.
Despite the paternalism of some foreign managers, the extraction of Ukraine’s minerals did little to improve the life of local communities. Rather, it contributed to the displacement of indigenous people and caused massive environmental and ecological damage.
Urban planning often replicated the segregated conditions of European colonies in Africa and India. Foreign settlers lived apart from local workers, in privileged housing located in better provisioned parts of town downwind of the toxic fumes of the blast furnaces and the chimney stacks.
In the settlement of Hughesovka (now known as Donetsk), which was named after the Welsh industrialist John Hughes, Welsh settlers attempted to reconstruct the trappings of British life on the Ukrainian steppe.
They built tennis courts and an Anglican church, arranged tea parties, and even had an amateur dramatics society. Meanwhile, the local workforce lived in abject poverty, often accommodated in barracks or mud dugouts.
In these dismal conditions, infectious disease and dissatisfaction were widespread. There are several reports of riots following large-scale outbreaks of cholera and local hospitals were reportedly overflowing.
Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, this period of European capitalist exploitation was drawing considerable interest from researchers.
The “European” industrial heritage of Donbas was being used to tell different stories about the region and to highlight its complex, multicultural history. This heritage was seen to hold potential as a counter-narrative to the toxic “Russian world” propaganda emanating from the occupied territories, which maintains that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia’s historic sphere of cultural influence.
But there is a danger in being too romantic about this chapter in history. Foreign capitalist investment in the extraction of Ukrainian minerals was not a classic example of settler colonialism. However, it bore many similarities to western European colonial practices in other parts of the world at this time.
What this history reminds us is that Ukraine has long been located at the intersection of empires. And these empires have often collaborated to plunder the country’s resources, offering little or nothing in return.
We can see this kind of predatory collaboration of imperial and neo-imperial regimes once again taking shape. Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, is trying to tempt Trump away from a deal with Ukraine with promises of access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in the occupied territories.
We must continue to gather and protest, as many of us did on the three-year anniversary of the full-scale invasion this week, to resist such politics of resourcification.
Victoria Donovan’s research has received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, 2019-2023.
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova presented the national project “Family” at an extended meeting of the State Duma Committee on Family Protection, Fatherhood, Motherhood and Childhood.
Tatyana Golikova presented the national project “Family”
February 28, 2025
Previous news Next news
Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova, Minister of Labor and Social Protection Anton Kotyakov, Minister of Health Mikhail Murashko, Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova, Deputy Minister of Science and Higher Education Olga Petrova and Deputy Minister of Education Andrei Nikolaev spoke about the prerequisites for the formation, main goals and directions of the new national project.
As Tatyana Golikova noted, the national project “Family” is comprehensive and was formed taking into account the instructions of the President of Russia and his decree No. 309. It is aimed at achieving three national development goals:
• preserving the population, strengthening health and improving well-being of people, supporting families;
• realizing the potential of each person, developing his talents, raising a patriotic and socially responsible individual;
• comfortable and safe living environment.
“When developing the national project, we focused on the family in the broadest sense of the word. Therefore, the national project included measures aimed at both stimulating new births and supporting various types of families, including young, large families, and older generations of families,” the Deputy Prime Minister emphasized.
She noted that the national project “Family” replaces the national projects “Demography”, “Culture” and some activities of the national project “Healthcare” and takes into account all the experience of positive decisions accumulated in recent years.
The national project consists of five federal projects. The Ministry of Labor has been appointed as the head of three projects: FP “Family Support”, “Large Families”, “Older Generation”. FP “Maternity and Childhood Protection” is assigned to the Ministry of Health, FP “Family Values and Cultural Infrastructure” to the Ministry of Culture.
17.9 trillion rubles have been allocated for the implementation of the national project over six years, including 7.8 trillion rubles over the next three years.
“The President of the country has set the task of ensuring sustainable growth in the birth rate, increasing the total fertility rate to 1.6 by 2030 and to 1.8 by 2036. The target value can be achieved provided that not only the social sphere, but also all areas of our life – the economy, development of housing and rural infrastructure, improvement of cities and towns – will work towards this goal,” said Tatyana Golikova.
According to her, preliminary results for 2024 show that, compared to 2023, the total fertility rate, according to Rosstat’s operational data, has remained almost unchanged, decreasing by 0.7% to 1.4.
At the same time, 18 regions have seen an increase in the birth rate. It is important that among them are regions of Central Russia, the North-West from the cluster “Demographic Winter” – these are Smolensk, Oryol, Ryazan, Leningrad and Kaliningrad regions.
“The growth dynamics of births of third and subsequent children has been maintained – by 1.1% compared to the previous year. At the same time, Russia, like many developed countries, is characterized by demographic challenges and new trends in the development of the institution of the family. Based on these challenges, we have formed seven key areas,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.
The first direction is the implementation of the “plus one child in every family” approach. The target is large families.
The second direction is to level out the high regional differentiation in birth rates.
According to preliminary results for 2024, in 38 regions, excluding new regions, the birth rate is higher than the Russian average, and in two – the Chechen Republic and Tuva – it exceeds the level of simple reproduction – 2.1. In general, the differentiation between regions has not changed – the indicator differs by three times).
In such conditions, federal umbrella measures with uniform conditions for the entire country must be supplemented in all subjects with regional support measures linked to local specifics and targeted work with individual groups of regions, supporting them from the federal level. It is important that the growth of the total fertility rate in the territory, support for large families, and the reduction of their poverty become a personal project of each governor.
The third direction is the creation of conditions for the harmonious combination of professional development with the birth and upbringing of children.
“To do this, we are fine-tuning both state and corporate policies. Together with the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia, we have developed recommendations for the implementation of corporate social policy. Informally, we call them the “corporate demographic standard”. At the end of the year, it was adopted by the Russian Tripartite Commission,” noted Tatyana Golikova. “As you remember, at the final meeting of the State Council, the President supported certain additional measures, including tax incentives for employers, so that there would be an opportunity to support working women and working families. And of course, an important topic here is support for the older generation.”
The fourth direction is increasing the birth rate in rural areas.
The village has traditionally been the basis for population growth in the country, large families. Despite the decrease in the total fertility rate in the village by a third in the last 10 years, the fertility rate in the village as a whole is currently maintained at the level that must be achieved throughout the country by 2030. It is important to maintain it at this level and, if possible, increase it.
“Last year, a pilot project was launched in three regions – Novgorod, Tambov and Penza regions, which is aimed at developing infrastructure. And although not much time has passed, we are already seeing the first positive results. Over the three quarters of 2024, compared to the same period in 2023, the number of women registered for pregnancy at antenatal clinics in the pilot regions increased by 15% on average, and the number of women who continued their pregnancy increased by 22% on average,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.
“Another area is improving the well-being of families so that they can make decisions about having another child. These are, of course, new targeted support measures. And here, both within the framework of the national project and within the framework of individual state programs and general policy, we will continue measures aimed at increasing the minimum wage, increasing citizens’ labor incomes, and, of course, keeping inflation low,” Tatyana Golikova emphasized.
The sixth direction is strengthening reproductive health and developing children’s medicine. It is planned to further increase additional investments in infrastructure and technologies in healthcare.
The seventh direction is strengthening the values of the family institution. All events related to the national project “Culture” implemented in previous years are concentrated here. These include cultural centers, cinemas in rural areas, modernized theaters and museums, model libraries, renovated and equipped children’s art schools, and new cinemas.
“There are no trifles in issues such as birth rate. This really should become the business of every governor, so that there are more of us, Russians,” concluded Tatyana Golikova.
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.
WASHINGTON—On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Education launched a new anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion portal to chill and stop education and instruction that ensure every child has access to the resources and opportunities needed to learn. This measure to stamp out equity threatens the real programs in the public schools where 90% of all students, and 95% of students with disabilities, learn. This gimmick is the latestattack by the Trump administration on long-standing federal civil rights laws.
The following statement can be attributed to NEA President Becky Pringle:
“As I talk to educators and parents around the country, what I hear from most everyone—regardless of political affiliation or whether they live in rural, urban or suburban America—is that we all want all students to have the opportunities and resources they need to succeed.
“Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs create a sense of belonging where we all feel comfortable sharing our ideas and lived experiences. It gives people who look and sound like me and who come from communities like mine, or who speak a different language, or first-generation college students, a foot in the door and the opportunity to reach their full potential.
“The politicians and their followers attacking these long-standing and successful programs are looking to create a problem where one doesn’t exist. They want to divide us so we’re not paying attention to their real agenda, which is gutting our community public schools to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. More to the point, it’s astonishing that Trump and his loyalists currently in charge of the Department of Education are creating political stunts like this instead of using precious taxpayer dollars to do the very real work of ensuring opportunity and access. The administration shut down more than 10,000 civil rights investigations as one of their first actions, more than half of which were for students with disabilities.
“Let’s not let politicians distract us from the real issues facing public schools. We know what’s at stake. That’s why we are coming together—parents, students, and educators—to make sure every child, regardless of race, ZIP code, or family income, has the opportunities and resources they need to live into their brilliance.”
# # #
Follow us on Bluesky at https://bsky.app/profile/neapresident.bsky.socialand https://bsky.app/profile/neatoday.bsky.social
The National Education Association is the nation’s largest professional employee organization, representing more than 3 million elementary and secondary teachers, higher education faculty, education support professionals, school administrators, retired educators, students preparing to become teachers, healthcare workers, and public employees. Learn more at www.nea.org
A fierce work ethic, great research, and many hours of practice helped the Husky Case Competition Club win the top prize at the 32nd Kogod Case Competition at American University earlier this month.
This is the second consecutive year that the UConn team took home the top prize. A new team competed this year, and all five participants are second-year business students who had never entered a case competition before.
“Our ideas were super niche and I think that took the judges by surprise,’’ said Sophia Viar, a finance major and the president of the club. “They were intrigued by the complexity of what we had done.’’
The team prepared for months, sometimes putting in five hours a day to fine-tune their case and improve their presentation.
“We practiced over and over in the School of Business Board Room,’’ Viar said. “We basically asked each other questions over and over. We drilled. We were ready for every question that the judges threw at us.’’
Other team members included: Maria Cayward (analytics and information management), David Lu (finance), Kabir Ramnani (finance) and Daniel Barberi (finance and economics). None of the team members knew each other well before they started the competition.
The Challenge: Using AI to Help a Fortune 500 Company
The case competition involved integrating artificial intelligence into Xylem Inc., an American water technology provider and Fortune 500 company, that does business in more than 150 countries.
In their final presentation, the Husky team proposed using Novable software, which sources startups that match a company’s needs. They also recommended exploring the offerings of Oxyle, a company with a new filter that can destroy PFAS contaminants.
“One of the judges, who works for Xylem, said, ‘You hit the nail on the head. You guys are amazing!’ ’’ Viar said. The UConn team defeated four teams from American University, as well as teams from the University of Pennsylvania and Boston University. They also took the prize for Best Q&A when the competition concluded on Feb. 15 in Washington, DC.
The victory reflects the enormous effort that the team put into the project.
“We started working on the case in November and there was a lot of back and forth with the team,’’ Viar said. “We had four months to develop our idea, and we changed direction often. It was pretty rocky in the first months until we nailed it down.’’
Ramnani said the team had incredible spirit and dedication, despite some mumbling about having to work over the holiday break.
“All of us had a hunger for it. We wanted to put our best foot forward,’’ Ramnani said. “I think one of the key lessons I learned is how to articulate ideas in a concise way. If you over-speak, you overcompensate. What matters is the quality of what you say. I learned to make my answers concise and deliberate.’’
Competition Will Enhance Careers Down the Road
Viar is planning a career in management consulting and said the competition is well aligned with her career aspirations. She looks forward to discussing her case-competition achievement in job interviews.
Ramnani agreed, saying the competition highlighted the problem-solving skills of every team member.
“I really didn’t know anything about the water industry until I started working on the case competition. I had to learn so much,’’ he said. “I also learned that sometimes you have to cut your losses. If we worked on an idea for a week and it wasn’t working out, I learned not to be emotionally attached to the idea, to move on and try something new.’’
New York, N.Y., Feb. 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: NNE) (“NANO Nuclear” or “the Company”), a leading advanced nuclear energy and technology company focused on developing clean energy solutions, today announced that Darlene T. DeRemer, previously Chairwoman of NANO Nuclear’s Executive Advisory Board for Institutional Finance, has now transitioned to a new, active corporate role with NANO Nuclear as its Executive Director of Corporate Finance.
In her new role, Ms. DeRemer will assist NANO Nuclear’s executive management as a consultant in the continuing development and execution of the Company’s financing strategies and its corporate processes and procedures, all with a view towards supporting NANO Nuclear’s long-term growth.
This appointment follows a similar, previously announced, leadership transition for the Hon. John G. Vonglis, who now serves as NANO Nuclear’s Executive Director of Global Government Affairs after having served on the Company Executive Advisory Board. These appointments highlight the confidence of leading professionals in NANO Nuclear’s mission and potential. Since its inception, NANO Nuclear has attracted highly qualified and proven leaders in finance, regulation, and science. Ms. DeRemer’s appointment adds to a growing roster of exemplary professionals dedicated to NANO Nuclear’s emerging status at the forefront of the advanced nuclear energy technology industry.
“Working alongside Jay and James on NANO Nuclear’s Executive Advisory Board confirmed my confidence in NANO Nuclear’s mission and leadership, and I’m thrilled to step into a more active role where I can contribute to NANO Nuclear’s continued success,” said Darlene T. DeRemer, Executive Director of Corporate Finance of NANO Nuclear Energy. “I believe that the future of the nuclear energy industry and NANO Nuclear’s mission are closely aligned, given the innovative potential of our technologies to provide reliable, robust, and secure power to data centers, remote communities, mining projects, military installations, and beyond.”
Figure 1 – NANO Nuclear Energy Executive Advisory Board Member Darlene T. DeRemer Transitions to Active Role within the Company as its Executive Director of Corporate Finance.
Darlene DeRemer is the Chair of the ARK Invest ETF Trust Board and co-founder of Grail Partners LLC, a merchant banking firm where she leads the firm’s Boston office. As a senior banker, she focuses on the global asset management industry, advising clients on a wide range of strategic transactions. With over 25 years of experience as a leading adviser in the financial services industry, Ms. DeRemer specialized in strategic marketing, product design, and the implementation of innovative service strategies.
Before transitioning into investment banking, Ms. DeRemer led or participated in numerous advisory transactions. Her current clients include institutional and mutual fund managers in the U.S., as well as alternative investment firms seeking to access public markets both domestically and internationally. Previously, Ms. DeRemer ran NewRiver’s eBusiness Advisory unit for four years and operated her own strategy firm, DeRemer + Associates, for 18 years. Founded in 1987, DeRemer + Associates was the first consultancy focused on the U.S. mutual fund industry. Darlene holds a B.S. in finance and marketing (summa cum laude, 1977) and an MBA with distinction (1979) from Syracuse University.
“I’m pleased to welcome Darlene to her new role at NANO Nuclear and thank her for her contributions as Chairwoman of our Executive Advisory Board for Institutional Finance,” said Jay Yu, Founder and Chairman of NANO Nuclear Energy. “Her extensive background in guiding growing companies will be hugely beneficial as we expand and strengthen our operations in both the near and long term. I look forward to working with Darlene to ensure that NANO Nuclear has the financial capabilities to achieve our ambitious goals and as we seek to establish ourself as leader in the advanced nuclear energy industry.”
“Darlene’s decision to move into a more active role with our company underscores both the great promise of our ambitions and our track record of achievements to date,” said James Walker, Chief Executive Officer and Head of Reactor Development of NANO Nuclear Energy. “Her leadership abilities and finely honed expertise will be tremendous assets as we continue to expand. In particular, her extensive network and talent for navigating complex financial landscapes will be vital as NANO Nuclear looks to capitalize on the growing momentum in the nuclear energy industry.”
About NANO Nuclear Energy, Inc.
NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: NNE) is an advanced technology-driven nuclear energy company seeking to become a commercially focused, diversified, and vertically integrated company across five business lines: (i) cutting edge portable and other microreactor technologies, (ii) nuclear fuel fabrication, (iii) nuclear fuel transportation, (iv) nuclear applications for space and (v) nuclear industry consulting services. NANO Nuclear believes it is the first portable nuclear microreactor company to be listed publicly in the U.S.
Led by a world-class nuclear engineering team, NANO Nuclear’s reactor products in development include “ZEUS”, a solid core battery reactor, and “ODIN”, a low-pressure coolant reactor, each representing advanced developments in clean energy solutions that are portable, on-demand capable, advanced nuclear microreactors. NANO Nuclear is also developing patented stationary KRONOS MMR™ Energy System and space focused, portable LOKI MMR™.
Advanced Fuel Transportation Inc. (AFT), a NANO Nuclear subsidiary, is led by former executives from the largest transportation company in the world aiming to build a North American transportation company that will provide commercial quantities of HALEU fuel to small modular reactors, microreactor companies, national laboratories, military, and DOE programs. Through NANO Nuclear, AFT is the exclusive licensee of a patented high-capacity HALEU fuel transportation basket developed by three major U.S. national nuclear laboratories and funded by the Department of Energy. Assuming development and commercialization, AFT is expected to form part of the only vertically integrated nuclear fuel business of its kind in North America.
HALEU Energy Fuel Inc. (HEF), a NANO Nuclear subsidiary, is focusing on the future development of a domestic source for a High-Assay, Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) fuel fabrication pipeline for NANO Nuclear’s own microreactors as well as the broader advanced nuclear reactor industry.
NANO Nuclear Space Inc. (NNS), a NANO Nuclear subsidiary, is exploring the potential commercial applications of NANO Nuclear’s developing micronuclear reactor technology in space. NNS is focusing on applications such as the LOKI MMR™ system and other power systems for extraterrestrial projects and human sustaining environments, and potentially propulsion technology for long haul space missions. NNS’ initial focus will be on cis-lunar applications, referring to uses in the space region extending from Earth to the area surrounding the Moon’s surface.
This news release and statements of NANO Nuclear’s management in connection with this news release contain or may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In this context, forward-looking statements mean statements related to future events, which may impact our expected future business and financial performance, and often contain words such as “expects”, “anticipates”, “intends”, “plans”, “believes”, “potential”, “will”, “should”, “could”, “would” or “may” and other words of similar meaning. In this press release, forward-looking statements include those regarding the anticipated benefits of Ms. DeRemer’s association with the Company as described herein. These and other forward-looking statements are based on information available to us as of the date of this news release and represent management’s current views and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, events or results and involve significant known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may be beyond our control. For NANO Nuclear, particular risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual future results to differ materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements include but are not limited to the following: (i) risks related to our U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) or related state or non-U.S. nuclear fuel licensing submissions, (ii) risks related the development of new or advanced technology and the acquisition of complimentary technology or businesses, including difficulties with design and testing, cost overruns, regulatory delays, integration issues and the development of competitive technology, (iii) our ability to obtain contracts and funding to be able to continue operations, (iv) risks related to uncertainty regarding our ability to technologically develop and commercially deploy a competitive advanced nuclear reactor or other technology in the timelines we anticipate, if ever, (v) risks related to the impact of U.S. and non-U.S. government regulation, policies and licensing requirements, including by the DOE and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including those associated with the recently enacted ADVANCE Act, and (vi) similar risks and uncertainties associated with the operating an early stage business a highly regulated and rapidly evolving industry. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which apply only as of the date of this news release. These factors may not constitute all factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in any forward-looking statement, and NANO Nuclear therefore encourages investors to review other factors that may affect future results in its filings with the SEC, which are available for review at www.sec.gov and at https://ir.nanonuclearenergy.com/financial-information/sec-filings. Accordingly, forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as a predictor of actual results. We do not undertake to update our forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date of this news release, except as required by law.
A homeless man asleep in Edinburgh, where the author carried out research into the link between drug use and exploitation.Serge Bertasius Photography/Shutterstock
All names have been changed to protect the identities of interviewees.
Patrick is 32 years old and has been homeless on and off in Edinburgh since growing up in care. He speaks with a rasping quality due to the ravages of sleeping outdoors in cruel Scottish winters. Until recently, he was one of thousands of people in the UK trapped in exploitation, often referred to as modern slavery.
In the UK over the past five years, more than 59,000 people have been identified as possible victims of exploitation – sometimes having been trafficked into the country for this express purpose. Some are forced into criminal forms of labour, like growing marijuana, or put to work in agriculture, hospitality, care or construction in illegal conditions. Still more are trapped in private homes in what is termed “domestic servitude”.
And there is Patrick’s category, which is sexual exploitation.
Patrick began taking drugs at 14 years old while in care. Two years later, he was kicked out of the children’s home and met an older man who introduced him to gammahydroxybutrate, or “G” as Patrick calls it. This is known as a “chemsex” drug due to its ability to induce arousal and reduce inhibitions.
The dealer began having sex with him and taking him to sex parties with other men. Soon, Patrick was addicted to G and, over time – the precise length is unclear as, like many people who’ve experienced trauma and addiction, his memories are highly fragmented – the man began to control him. If Patrick wanted more G, he had to have sex with the older man or with other people he selected. Specific sex acts were demanded, regardless of Patrick’s consent.
This controlling behaviour escalated: if Patrick wanted heating in the room in which he slept, if he wanted access to electricity to charge his phone, if he wanted clean clothes or food, if he wanted to avoid being hit, sex was required.
“I never had a choice,” Patrick tells me about his time living in that house. “If I hadn’t got the drugs, I’d die.”
The man kept him on a chemical leash for years. He was not physically restrained in the house, and he had access to his own bank account and benefits payments. Sometimes he slept rough to escape the abuse – but he always returned, because he lived in fear of “rattling”, as he calls withdrawal.
It wasn’t just fear of the physical suffering involved in going without the drug. Patrick’s father murdered his mother when he was a small child. He describes his addiction as a chance to feel free of that trauma – to feel “like superman, like flying”.
Addiction was a driving force in Patrick’s exploitation. And he isn’t alone: several court cases involving the exploitation of homeless people have acknowledged the role of addiction in their victimisation.
In 2013, R v Connors found that the Connors family, which ran a casual construction business in Bedfordshire, had recruited homeless men into their service. The men were promised accommodation, food and reasonable wages, only to receive “something like £10 per day” – if they were paid at all. They worked long hours in poor conditions without necessary equipment or clothing, and “on occasion they were subjected to violence or the threat of violence”.
As a result, three members of the Connors family received custodial sentences of between four and 14 years. The court judgement noted that their victims “were chosen deliberately. Usually they were homeless, addicted to alcohol, friendless and isolated.”
Three years later, the case of R v Rooney found that 11 members of the Rooney family had victimised at least 18 people in Lincolnshire, forcing them to work without pay and to live in squalid conditions for up to 26 years. In one instance, they made a victim dig his own grave to force him to sign a contract of lifelong servitude. Nine members of the family were sentenced to jail, with most receiving sentences of five years or more.
After a subsequent unsuccessful appeal, the judge drew a direct link between victimisation, addiction and homelessness, stating: “The appellants were said to have manipulated and controlled these men by withholding pay [and] feeding their vulnerabilities and addictions, such as to alcohol or cannabis.”
It didn’t end there. In 2020, the office of the UK’s Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner examined Operation Fort, “the UK’s largest anti-slavery prosecution”, which took four years to conclude. It found that some of the victims had been recruited from homeless shelters and were addicted to drugs or alcohol.
Illicit drug use is damaging large parts of the world socially, politically and environmentally. Patterns of supply and demand are changing rapidly. In our longform series Addicted, leading experts bring you the latest insights on drug use and production as we ask: is it time to declare a planetary emergency?
The role of addiction in all these cases is important to acknowledge – as is recognising that homelessness isn’t a singular thing. Some people experience homelessness only once; others are homeless repeatedly and for years. There are people for whom lacking shelter is the main measure by which they are disadvantaged, which differs to those who are “multiply excluded” or who have “severe and multiple disadvantages” – including histories of institutional care, substance dependency, and criminal records. And that’s without layering on additional factors such as race, ethnicity, sexuality and gender.
As part of my PhD research, I spent several months investigating Edinburgh’s street community, delving into homeless people’s experiences of exploitation, and finding out how and why these experiences occurred.
I chose to work exclusively with people who, like Patrick, were either British or had migration statuses that afforded them the same rights as British people (such as access to benefits). Other statuses – like being an asylum seeker, being on highly restrictive work visas or being undocumented – are widely recognised to make people more vulnerable to being exploited. Removing this factor enabled me to focus on victimisation that could not be explained by immigration policy, and which might point to new or under-explored territories.
I uncovered many cases like Patrick’s: homeless British people who had been exploited. But I also met people who were homeless and had not been exploited. And one of the main differences was addiction. Everyone who had been exploited while homeless had a substance dependency. And it seemed to be this, more than homelessness, which had put them in harm’s way.
Debt bondage on the streets of Edinburgh
Like Patrick, Paul is a white Scottish man in his 30s. He began sofa-surfing at the age of 11 after leaving his abusive family home. Since then, his life has been chronically chaotic: rough sleeping, prison, time in hostels, social housing and back again. Addiction has been the sole stable feature – in his case, a heroin habit which started “when I was 22, in prison”.
Paul has done various things for money over the years: begging (but only once because “I couldn’t deal with the shame of sitting down with people I knew walking past”); house-breaking (“shit stuff I wish I could take back”); shoplifting and reselling (“bacon, cheese, booze, anything that was more expensive”); and also drug running. It was this last method where he got into trouble.
A homeless man sleeping outside a branch of Barclays bank in Princes Street, central Edinburgh. Serge Cornu/Shutterstock
Paul was shoplifting and wasn’t making much money when he “got an offer” to become a drug runner instead. Although movies would have us believe that most modern slavery is the result of kidnapping or abduction, it’s usually the result of a subtler process. The potential victim is offered something they need, such as money or passage to a different country, and it goes wrong.
For Patrick and Paul, what they needed was drugs. Paul accepted the offer and began working as a runner, taking drugs from the dealer’s house to the customers and risking arrest on the way. He was paid in small amounts of heroin for his personal use. Looking back, he sees the dealer as “basically getting me deeper and deeper into trouble”, by escalating his addiction and using it as a control mechanism to keep him working – like the chemical leash experienced by Patrick.
For Jack, a third Scottish homeless man, it was worse. Initially, he bought drugs (both heroin and crack cocaine) using cash, but then a dealer began giving him more than he could afford. “I’d say I only want a half-ounce … and he’d say nah, he’s gonna give me the full one.”
Over time, Jack’s debt grew. He tried to repay it by working as a drug runner for the man, but the money could never be paid off. This was partly because he always needed his next hit, but also because the dealer was inflating the debt each time. There was no way out.
The dealer was also, according to Jack, “quite a fuckin’ scary bloke” – which turned out to be Jack’s way of disclosing that he had been threatened when he tried to leave for a different dealer. At least once, he had been hit.
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority describes debt bondage as when “an employer or controller will use different tactics to trap the victim in an endless cycle of debt which can never be repaid”. In Jack’s case, as with others in my investigation, it was a particular instrumentalisation of that chemical leash.
“We call it ‘in your pocket’,” Jack explains. “That’s what they say: ‘I’ve got him in my pocket now.’”
Paul and Jack had experienced localised permutations of what government and police call county lines – the transporting of drugs by children or vulnerable adults under coercion.
It may have a special label, but this is a normal part of the drug dealing business model. When I recount Paul’s and Jack’s experiences to Ryan, another homeless Scottish man who is familiar with the drug economy thanks to his dealer dad, he snorts: “Well aye, obviously.”
Into the arms of would-be exploiters
Patrick, Paul and Jack had all been exploited within the drug economy in one way or another, and this is where government-approved county lines strategies are focused. But addiction drives exploitation more broadly than the drug sector itself; as in the Rooney and Connors cases, legal employment sectors including construction and farmwork are subject to addiction-fuelled exploitation too.
When Jack was approached to paint scaffolding poles for £80 a day, he jumped at the chance – it looked like good money for an easy task. But the job wasn’t what it seemed. The recruiter knew Jack was an addict and dropped him off alone at a warehouse with a bag of speed, so he would work through the night with no sleep. This happened for four weekends in a row, with the man alternating between treating Jack well (“made me feel like I was ‘the man’”) and frightening him (“he pure intimidated me”). The £80 per day never materialised.
In Paul’s case, he was offered farmwork by a man outside a soup kitchen he frequented. Paul says he didn’t trust the guy “just from looking at him … and the way he went about it, like strolling up to a homeless place. That’s where most serial killers go to get victims.”
Paul was warned off by street acquaintances who’d heard of people being treated badly at the farm. “They were living in, basically, homeless situations – in a barn or something with no heating and stuff like that, being worked when the guy says … You’ve no money to get home, you don’t know where you are.”
Yet even with this information, when it happened a second time, Paul decided to go. He needed money for his heroin habit. Thankfully, he was too slow to say yes and he lost out to two other men. He doesn’t know what happened to them.
When Paul and I met, he was staying off heroin, thanks to methadone and various other prescription drugs. I asked what he’d do if someone approached him with the same kind of job offer now. He said he’d decline; he no longer needs the money for heroin.
Video: BBC Scotland.
Lorraine, in her 40s and also Scottish, spent years doing sex work. She’d been in various situations during that time, including being deceived into brothel work based on potential earnings which turned out to be untrue, and being pimped by someone who “was supposed to be a friend”.
When we met, Lorraine was no longer doing sex work for anyone but herself. I asked what had changed. Along with getting a place in an emergency shelter, she said it was “because I’m not using [drugs], you know; I’m not using any more. I used to be a prolific crack and heroin addict.”
Paul and Lorraine aren’t alone. Nearly everyone I’ve interviewed draws a direct line between the high cost of illegal drugs and the likelihood of being exploited. In contrast, those who’ve got clean are free from coercion and able to get by on their benefits – benefits they receive, in general, for severe mental health conditions and learning disabilities.
Can criminals be victims too?
Ryan was right when he snorted “aye, obviously” to me: the link between addiction and exploitation should be plain to see. There are passing mentions of addiction issues among homeless survivors peppered in the Rooney, Connors, Operation Fort and other case documents. So why had all bar one of the people whom I met, and who shared their stories of exploitation with me, not been flagged as possible victims by services?
The one exception to this rule offers some answers.
Piotr came to the UK after seeing an advert for a job in a car garage. He liked that first job. Even though it paid lower than the minimum wage, it was enough to meet his needs and the boss was reasonable. But when that garage closed and his long-distance marriage broke down, Piotr relapsed into alcoholism. He needed to find a new job so he could fund his daily intake.
Another garage owner who was aware of Piotr’s dependency offered him work. They didn’t make an agreement about money, but Piotr told me he’d hoped to get around £20 a day plus some food or cigarettes. That may sound bad to people accustomed to legal minimum wages, but the reality turned out much worse.
Piotr wasn’t paid at all. He slept in a caravan on the garage site, and if he wanted to use gas or electricity, he had to pay for it … with no wages. He told me how the boss would shout at him, and sometimes hit him too.
Thankfully, after around a year, Piotr was able to leave and, during the period we met, he was working somewhere that treated him better and paid him consistently – though still below the legal minimum.
It was while Piotr was working at this new and better place that homelessness support workers encountered him and began to wonder whether he’d been exploited. The fact they were correct isn’t the point here; rather, why had they flagged his victimisation but not Patrick’s, Paul’s, Lorraine’s or Jack’s? And what might this tell us about homelessness and exploitation more broadly?
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
The answer may lie in a concept introduced nearly 40 years ago by criminologist Nils Christie. The “ideal victim” is the notion that we’re more willing to view some people as victims than others. Christie suggested various criteria that make people more likely to receive the social label of “victim”: including that they’re weaker than the perpetrator; that they’re carrying out a respectable project at the time of the harm occurring; and that their general behaviour is blameless – namely, they were doing nothing illegal nor putting themselves at risk.
In this analysis, it should be obvious that Patrick, Paul, Lorraine and Jack are all non-ideal victims. Most have been in prison, some multiple times, and all regularly commit crimes by taking drugs or earning money in illegal (drug running, stealing) or semi-legal (sex work) ways. In contrast, Piotr does none of these things.
But while social bias goes against viewing Patrick, Paul, Lorraine and Jack as victims, empirical data tells us otherwise. Studies show that “engagement in offending behaviour is one of the strongest correlates of victimisation”. Substance abuse in particular is recognised to put people at greater risk of becoming victims of crime.
Yet the support workers I interviewed make it clear that, in general, their homeless clients are not asked about their various criminal activities. Their rationale varied: some felt that asking probing questions about these activities might harm their relationship, making clients suspicious of their motives and damaging their ability to support them. Others felt it was simply none of their business how or whether clients earned money illegally, either because of their perceived remit of their work, or because they viewed the activities as distasteful or shameful.
Drinking alcohol was safe to ask about, as was working in legal sectors like car garages – but not heroin, not crack cocaine, not G, not sex work, not drug running, and so on.
Paradoxically, then, the very aspects of someone’s life which may instinctively put off support workers, police, medical professionals and others from viewing them as possible victims are the same aspects which make them more at risk of victimisation.
Compounding this, Piotr is not British while all the others are. There is very limited data on exploitation in the homelessness community but, according to information published by the charities Unseen and The Passage, most people who are identified as victims of exploitation have been migrants. Two-thirds of those highlighted by the latter have “no recourse to public funds”, a particularly precarious form of migration status which bans people from accessing benefits and other forms of social assistance.
In theory, this should have meant that my investigation – which excluded anyone in that precarious category, solely interviewing British people or migrants who have the same protections as UK citizens – wouldn’t have easily found victims. But when I spent lots of time getting to know people living on the streets of Edinburgh, I found this wasn’t the case.
That doesn’t mean Unseen or The Passage are wrong in their activities or data, far from it. Victimisation is not a zero-sum game: multiple categories of homeless people can be at especially high risk. Rather, it brings an additional population into view for deeper consideration.
A tent pitched in New Calton burial ground in Calton Hill, Edinburgh. Fotokon/Shutterstock
Following Christie’s concept, academics have considered how migration and victimhood intersect, noting that migrants’ perceived “weakness, frailty and passivity” aligns with the ideal victim idea. On exploitation specifically, a great deal of research and action has taken place to highlight the ways in which the UK’s “hostile environment” migration policy renders migrants vulnerable to exploitation.
This combination of perception and policy makes it plausible that homeless people of foreign origin are more easily recognised as victims than people who have remained in the area in which they grew up, like the Scottish people encountered in my investigation – and especially those exhibiting some of the other “unideal” factors I’ve described.
What does this mean?
The finding that addiction is an important driver of exploitation among the homeless community offers guidance for targeted intervention. People who are homeless and have substance dependencies should be considered higher risk for exploitation than people who are homeless without addictions.
While there are many factors which contribute to victimisation, and this article is the product of a broader body of research, it does offer a strong indication of one place we should look for harm.
Second, police and other frontline services should consider biases that may be blinding them to some victims, specifically British people with offending records.
Third, my investigation points to a broader question: if addiction is driving vulnerability to exploitation, what does this mean for drug and alcohol policy? In England, funding of local council addiction services has halved over the past ten years; while in Scotland as well as England and Wales, the high rate of drug-related deaths demonstrates a desperate need for more intervention.
Meanwhile, the National Police Chiefs’ county lines policing strategy for 2024-2027 doesn’t mention addiction even once. There is a glaring need for a better-funded, more joined-up approach to understanding and addressing addiction, thereby reducing exploitation crimes.
Going further, one useful response could be the UK-wide introduction of “safe consumption rooms”, whose main purpose is to reduce drug-related harms including contamination and overdose. After much political debate, the first such facility in Scotland, called the Thistle and located in Glasgow, opened on January 13 2025.
Video: Channel 4 News.
In the context of exploitation, these safe consumption rooms could remove the obstacle of illegality from identification. In a space in which drug-taking is explicit, people may feel safer to disclose harm, and support workers may feel safer to probe into people’s lifestyles.
This builds on my forthcoming study, to be published in a collection from Amsterdam University Press. It shows how health clinics and social spaces that are explicitly run by and for sex workers, and which have no links to policing, are able to identify victims of exploitation who have otherwise gone unnoticed or avoided sharing their victimisation out of fear of being criminalised, because of their involvement with the sex industry or their migration statuses. By creating safe spaces free from judgement or criminalisation, we open new opportunities for support.
Being able to regulate drugs by decriminalising them may also be beneficial. It would not remove the problem – alcohol is legal and Piotr was still exploited – but it could blunt the instrumentalisation of addiction by would-be exploiters, making it harder to construct “drug debt bondage” like that experienced by Jack, and more difficult to hold the threat of imposed withdrawal over victims, as experienced by Patrick.
So far, the Labour government appears to be continuing this disappointing track record. In its election manifesto, it pledged to introduce “a new offence of criminal exploitation of children, to go after the gangs who are luring young people into violence and crime”. But this reinforces the “ideal victim” problem: children are innocents, but what of their adult, addicted counterparts? And what about the drug policies underlying this illicit economy?
Since taking office, and as we approach the ten-year anniversary of the UK’s “world-leading” Modern Slavery Act, the government has committed to a “holistic victim-centred approach”, but there is no indication that this will include people like Patrick, Paul and Jack.
We have known the factors driving modern slavery for years. This investigation provides more evidence that we must address drug policy and addiction support as part of any effective strategy to reduce the deeply damaging effects of exploitation.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Emily Kenway receives funding from the University of Edinburgh and is on the boards of National Ugly Mugs (trustee) and the New Economy Organisers Network (chair). She is the author of Who Cares: The Hidden Crisis of Caregiving, and How We Solve It (Headline, 2023), which was a finalist for the Orwell Prize for Political Writing.
At the heart of the BBC’s new series Miss Austen is a fictional Cassandra Austen (played by Keeley Hawes). Reviews have stressed that the real life Cassandra’s destruction of her sister Jane Austen’s letters has been considered one of the greatest acts of literary vandalism in history. These letters would have provided an invaluable insight into the author who died so young.
Why Cassandra destroyed her sister’s correspondence – and what she destroyed – cannot be known. But Miss Austen gives us intriguing speculation. It deals with family relationships, and with what gets passed down to subsequent generations.
In Miss Austen, Mary Austen is considering encouraging her son James Edward to write a biography of his literary father and aunt. Cassandra must find her sister’s letters before they get into the wrong hands. What happens next is a clever blend of fact and fiction.
James Edward Austen-Leigh did publish the first full biography of his aunt with the help of his sisters, although not until 1869.
However, the series also deviates from fact in its depiction of an incident in Jane’s life in the early 1800s. She may have met a young gentleman at a seaside resort in Devon. This young man may have admired Jane and she may have admired him in turn.
This story was recounted to James Edward Austen-Leigh by his sister when he was preparing a second edition of his Jane Austen memoir. She had been told the story by Cassandra and, though she could not remember the young man’s name, she knew he died shortly after Jane’s encounter with him.
Miss Austen picks up on the suggestion of Jane’s shadowy seaside encounter, locates the events firmly in Sidmouth, names the gentleman Mr Hobday and gives the encounter an intriguing twist by making it Cassandra’s, not Jane’s, romance.
Jane Austen might have enjoyed this fictionalisation.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
A love of fiction and an aversion to history
In the concluding paragraphs of Mansfield Park (1814), Austen’s narrator purposely abstains from dates, “that every one may be at liberty to fix their own”. In Northanger Abbey, the heroine Catherine Morland has no taste for “real, solemn History.” Instead, the novels of Maria Edgeworth and Frances Burney are championed as “works in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed”.
Miss Austen’s Jane is played by Patsy Ferran as witty, acerbic and, crucially, devoted to fiction. She is utterly determined to become a published author and her family support her in this pursuit. This Austen is true to the version of the author that scholars and biographers have presented in recent years.
Jane Austen’s novels are not about the union of one couple. They explore communities and dependence, particularly that of women. Foremost in these explorations are sisterly bonds.
In Austen’s fiction, these bonds may indeed be mutually supportive and fulfilling. But they are always complex too. It is the truth of these complexities that the series Miss Austen captures so beautifully, via Isabella Fowle and her relationship with her sisters, and of course via Cassandra’s relationship with hers.
This adaptation should send viewers to read Gill Hornby’s novel, and to read and reread Jane Austen. Miss Austen embraces the possibilities of fiction in rethinking the lives of the past.
I hope viewers of Miss Austen will think more favourably about the real Cassandra too.
She kept letters and Jane’s manuscripts, leaving them to her nieces on her death. Jane and Cassandra had six brothers.
She was not the only one who had letters that gave insight into Jane Austen’s mind. She must have also written countless more to her other brothers and their wives, her nieces and nephews and her friends.
Many of these are now lost to us. But Cassandra’s curation of her sister’s correspondence can be seen in a positive light when we reflect on what she preserved in relation to what was lost.
Gillian Dow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The goal of brushing one’s teeth is to have fresh breath and prevent cavities. But the effect of toothpaste on the complex ecosystem of bacteria in our mouths — the oral microbiome — is often overlooked.
Recent research has highlighted just how crucial the oral microbiome is for our overall health. A well-balanced microbiome helps regulate harmful bacteria, aids digestion and protects the gums. But does toothpaste support this balance, or could it be disrupting it? And could the toothpaste of the future be designed to work with the oral microbiome rather than against it?
The mouth is one of the most densely populated microbial habitats in the body, home to more than 700 species of bacteria. These bacteria inhabit not only the surfaces of the teeth and gums in biofilm – a sticky, structured community that can be both beneficial and harmful – but also thrive in our saliva, contributing to the dynamic oral microbiome.
A healthy microbiome includes bacteria that help regulate pH levels (a measure of how acidic or alkaline a substance is), break down food and even produce natural antimicrobial compounds. But when the balance is disrupted — often due to diet, poor oral hygiene or certain medical conditions — harmful bacteria can take over. This imbalance, known as dysbiosis, is linked to tooth decay and gum disease.
What does toothpaste actually do?
The main function of toothpaste isn’t to kill bacteria outright but to disrupt the biofilm that allows harmful bacteria to thrive. Brushing mechanically removes this biofilm from teeth and gums, while abrasives in toothpaste help break it up further.
Many toothpastes also contain fluoride, which strengthens tooth enamel and helps prevent cavities. Interestingly, fluoride itself doesn’t kill bacteria, but it makes it harder for acid-producing bacteria like Streptococcus mutans, a key player in tooth decay, to cause damage.
Some toothpastes include antibacterial agents, such as triclosan (now banned in some countries due to safety concerns) or newer alternatives like stannous fluoride and zinc compounds. These ingredients target harmful bacteria, but there’s still debate about whether they also disrupt beneficial microbes in the process.
Despite toothpaste being a daily staple, research into its effects on the oral microbiome is still evolving. Some studies suggest that certain antibacterial agents reduce both harmful and beneficial bacteria, potentially changing the microbiome in ways we don’t yet fully understand. Others indicate that the microbiome recovers quite quickly after brushing, making any disruption temporary.
Scientists are now exploring whether future toothpaste formulations could take a more targeted approach, reducing harmful bacteria while preserving beneficial species. Some emerging research looks at probiotics and prebiotics — ingredients that could actively support a healthier oral microbiome rather than simply disrupting it.
Keeping the oral microbiome in balance isn’t just about avoiding cavities. There’s growing evidence linking gum disease to heart disease, diabetes and harms during pregnancy. Inflammation triggered by harmful oral bacteria can spread beyond the mouth, potentially contributing to long-term health problems.
Brushing with fluoride toothpaste twice a day and cleaning between the teeth helps reduce the bacterial load in the mouth, lowering the risk of both oral and systemic diseases.
As our understanding of the oral microbiome grows, toothpaste may evolve to become more selective in its action. Instead of broad-spectrum antibacterial agents, future formulations might include ingredients that support beneficial bacteria while keeping harmful species in check.
Some promising candidates include arginine, a naturally occurring amino acid that promotes the growth of beneficial bacteria, and plant-derived antimicrobials that disrupt harmful biofilms without killing good bacteria. However, research in this area is still in its early stages, and more evidence is needed to determine the long-term effects of these ingredients.
Toothpaste plays a key role in oral health by breaking up bacterial biofilm, reducing the risk of tooth decay and gum disease. While some ingredients may affect the oral microbiome, research suggests that brushing and flossing remain the most effective ways to maintain a healthy mouth.
Future toothpaste innovations may shift towards microbiome-friendly formulations but, for now, the best advice remains the same: brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste, spit out the excess and clean between your teeth daily.
Nothing to disclose.
Albert Leung and Niamh Coffey 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 Ankit Bhandekar, Research Student — Atmosphere, Oceans and Climate, University of Reading
Delhi is perhaps the most polluted of the world’s megacities. Every winter, the city’s 30 million residents breathe air so toxic that visibility drops to mere metres. If you stand on top of one of Delhi’s monuments you can barely make out buildings across the street as the thick, acrid smog burns your eyes and scratches your throat.
But conditions can and do change rapidly. January 2025 offered a dramatic demonstration of how weather patterns can rapidly transform the city’s air quality.
On January 5, favourable winds improved air quality enough to lift some restrictions. Yet by January 15, as winds calmed and temperatures dropped, pollution levels soared dramatically, forcing the city to implement its maximum “severe +” interventions. These include banning trucks from entering the city, restricting private vehicles and moving schools to online classes.
Delhi didn’t suddenly have more cars, factories, power plants or construction sites from one week to the next. Those things are consistent sources of pollution. There are some events that add to air pollution in the shorter term, such as fireworks during Diwali, or the mass burning of unwanted crop debris (known as stubble), both of which take place in October or November.
But that wasn’t what happened in January. Instead, the sudden reversal revealed how weather, not just emissions, dictates Delhi’s ability to breathe. Understanding this will be crucial if the city is to clean up its air.
A meteorological prison
Delhi is one of many large cities found in a flat and hugely fertile region spanning the Indian subcontinent to the south of the Himalayas. It’s known as the Indo-Gangetic plains, as it contains the floodplains of the Indus and Ganges-Brahmaputra rivers and their tributaries. More than a billion people live in this part of the world.
Delhi specifically is also bordered by another mountain range to its south, the Aravallis. While modest compared to the Himalayas, these mountains contribute to the city sitting in a natural bowl-like area, which makes it harder for pollution to disperse.
This geographical positioning means its location naturally collects airborne pollutants from surrounding agricultural areas. Even if Delhi somehow produced zero emissions, the region would still be likely to experience air quality problems during winter.
In winter, Delhi experiences “temperature inversions” where warmer air sits above colder air like a lid on a pot. This phenomenon occurs naturally in the region but is intensified by the city’s heat-trapping urban landscape. Normally, temperature decreases with height, allowing air to mix vertically, since warm air rises. Under inversion conditions, this pattern reverses and pollutants are trapped near the ground.
The height up to which pollutants can disperse, known as the “mixing height”, also dramatically reduces in winter. While summer allows mixing up to an altitude of about one kilometre, winter can compress this to just a few hundred meters, concentrating pollutants in a much smaller volume of air.
Meanwhile the Himalayas block air from flowing northward, forcing pollution to travel the entire stretch of northern India before finding an exit over the Bay of Bengal. In cities, urban structures further complicate this by creating “surface roughness”, a frictional effect that slows pollution dispersion.
Seasonal factors
There are also seasonal factors that make pollution accumulate or disperse more at certain times of year.
Satellite map showing smoky skies over northern India in November 2022 (Delhi is the small unlabelled region between Haryana and Uttar Pradesh). The red images show fires started by farmers to clear away unwanted crop residue. This ‘stubble burning’ is a big source of pollution downwind in Delhi. Nasa
Delhi’s summer monsoon season runs from July to September, providing natural cleansing through rainfall. During post-monsoon months (October-November), rainfall is minimal. At the same time, wind speeds decrease, limiting ventilation. These conditions compress the atmospheric boundary layer — the lowest part of atmosphere influenced by Earth’s surface — trapping pollutants near ground level.
Throughout winter (December-February), cooler surface temperatures intensify temperature inversions. This creates lots of fog, which combines with pollutants in the atmosphere to form Delhi’s characteristic smog. The reduced mixing height during this period severely restricts vertical dispersal of pollutants.
In pre-monsoon months (March-May), strong westerly winds can blow additional dust from the Thar Desert and agricultural regions toward Delhi. However, higher temperatures increase vertical mixing, improving overall dispersion despite this additional dust.
Season-specific approach
India’s technological interventions, including smog towers and anti-smog guns,have shown limited effectiveness in addressing the causes of pollution. Even more ambitious proposals such as using cloud seeding to induce precipitation aren’t very practical. Cloud seeding is expensive, can only cover a limited area, and needs very specific meteorological conditions.
An anti-smog gun in Delhi sprays water to suppress dust and reduce air pollution. PradeepGaurs / shutterstock
To manage its air quality, Delhi needs a season-specific approach that anticipates weather patterns and pulses in emissions. Getting ahead of the smog could involve a few different things.
Preventive planning would mean implementing stricter emission controls before the cold, still winter days when fog is likely, rather than reacting after pollution has already accumulated.
It would involve solutions that span the whole of the Indo-Gangetic plains, rather than focusing just on Delhi (or indeed any other individual urban centre). After all, many of India’s most polluted cities share the same weather conditions, and the long-range transport of pollution can play a huge role.
A season-specific approach would mean some fixed seasonal policies would instead adapt to forecast meteorological conditions. For instance, construction restrictions (building dust is a big source of air pollution) might be tightened when inversions are predicted, even on seemingly clear days.
Finally, by combining meteorological and air quality monitoring, authorities could provide targeted warnings and interventions days before visible pollution accumulates.
Understanding these natural constraints isn’t just an academic exercise – it’s essential for developing effective policies that can protect millions of residents year-round. As climate change potentially alters these meteorological patterns, the need for scientifically informed policy becomes even more critical.
Ankit Bhandekar receives funding from Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).
Laura Wilcox receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Norwegian Research Council, and Horizon Europe.
Hon’ble Minister of Communications and North Eastern Region, Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia inaugurated5G Lab developed by Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT) at Dept. of ECE, at a function held in Gauhati University.
India has made significant progress in the telecommunications sector, especially with the successful adoption and nationwide deployment of 5G technology. ’Atmanirbhar Bharat’vision of Governmentof India has led to the development of indigenous 4G/5G stack that is being rolled out in BSNL network. This achievement sets a strong foundation to venture into new use cases of 5G and development of 6G technology.
There are thousands of engineering colleges in the country that aspire to be current with new technologies like 5G and 6G. In order to develop desired competencies and innovative use cases for 5G and to enable acceleration of 6G R&D and IPR generation, a cost effective 5G test lab set up is required at universities and engineering colleges. A need was felt to develop a cost effective 5G test bed solution that is affordable for wider adoption by engineering colleges. C-DOT has realized low cost 5G solution which is suitable for deployment in universities & engineering colleges to serve as 5G Testbed set up.
5G test lab inaugurated by Minister of Communications, and Development of North Eastern Regionwill benefit the students, researchers and faculty in the following ways.
• Gaining practical insights into an end-to-end 5G system
• Developing a deeper understanding of 3GPP specifications for 5G RAN (Radio Access Network) and 5G Core networks.
• Enhancing system capabilities while exploring new 5G use cases and applications.
• Providing a foundation for advanced research and specification development for 6G technologies, enabling IPR generation.
C-DOT 5G University solution consists of gNodeB (radio), Core Network and IMS. gNodeB consists of CU (Centralized Unit), DU (Distributed Unit) and RU (Radio Unit) functionalities. An EMS (Element Management System) has also been provided for managing and configuring various 5G units of Radio subsystems. A technical manual is also supplied that will allow students to configure the system in various ways so that a deeper understanding of 5G network can be achieved.
The Minister stated ”the 5G use case lab will proliferate the capability of our country to spread education, to take telemedicine and healthcareto the last village in the country. He said he has great belief in the young cohort which will spearhead the change and such test labs will prove extremely beneficial for them to transcend across multiple dimensions and bring in innovations within our country.”
The Vice Chancellor of Gauhati University, Prof. Nani Gopal Mahanta, thanked Hon’ble Minister of Communicationsand C-DOT team while highlighting the University’s contribution to higher education, research, and technological advancements, emphasising its vision towards enhancing innovation and excellence in the region.
Professor Dr.Kandarpa Kumar Sarma, Head of Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) at Guwahati University said “C-DOT 5G Lab is very beneficial for the students & the teaching faculty. This 5G test bed solution and the short-term training programme provided by C-DOT engineers would be very helpful for the students to become familiar with 5G technology. The physical device in the lab would facilitate the students to work on the domain of 5G and beyond and would further help them to contribute towards the development of 6G technology”. He thanked the C-DOT members for all the support & guidance. “
Dr Rajkumar Upadhyay, CEO, C-DOT, expressed his sincere thanks and gratitude to Hon’ble Minister of Communications,and Development of North Eastern Region, Government of India, for motivating and inspiring C-DOT engineersthat led to the development of low cost 5G lab. Dr Upadhyay also assured that C-DOT will work with various engineering colleges in establishing 5G test labs and providing support for development and scalability of Indigenous telecom technologies.
To avail more information, C-DOT can be reached by mail at 5Gtestlab@cdot.in
Inauguration of 5G lab by Minister of Communications and Development of North Eastern Region, Government of India
Training Programme by C-DOT Engineer to Guahati University Students & Faculties.
Atal Innovation Mission (AIM), NITI Aayog hosted a special visit by Mike Massimino, former NASA astronaut and Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Columbia University, to the Atal Tinkering Lab (ATL) today in Delhi.
The visit aimed to inspire young minds and promote scientific curiosity among students by providing them with an opportunity to interact with a veteran astronaut who has been part of two space shuttle missions and played a crucial role in servicing the Hubble Space Telescope.
The dignitary was received by Ms. Alka Kapur, Principal, Modern Public School, along with students, followed by a presentation on Atal Tinkering Labs by Mr. Shubham Gupta, Innovation Lead, AIM, NITI Aayog.
During the visit, the students showcased various innovative projects developed within the lab, highlighting the impact of AIM in fostering a culture of problem-solving and critical thinking among young learners. Mr. Mike also interacted with the students who are part of famous AzaadiSat satellite launch, a joint initiative of ISRO & Spacekidz. The satellite is built by 750 girl students of 75 schools across India. The eight-kg satellite has 75 Femto experiments, selfie cameras to click pictures of its own solar panels and long-range communication transponders. Ms. Srimathy Kesan, Founder, Spacekidz also briefed Mr. Mike about this unique initiative promoting Girl students in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).
Mike Massimino, addressing the students, shared insights from his experiences as a NASA astronaut, the challenges of space missions, and the future of space exploration. His motivational speech encouraged students to dream big and explore STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields with passion.
About Atal Tinkering Labs
Atal Tinkering Labs (ATLs) are an initiative under Atal Innovation Mission (AIM), NITI Aayog, designed to cultivate an innovative mindset among school students. ATL is a workspace where young minds can give shape to their ideas through hands on do-it-yourself mode; and learn innovation skills. Young children get a chance to work with tools and equipment to understand the concepts of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). ATL contains educational and learning ‘do it yourself’ kits and equipment on – science, electronics, robotics, open-source microcontroller boards, sensors and 3D printers and computers.
About Mike Massimino
Mr. Mike Massimino, a former NASA astronaut, is a professor of mechanical engineering at Columbia University and the senior advisor for space programs at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum. He received a BS from Columbia University, and MS degrees in mechanical engineering and in technology and policy, as well as a PhD in mechanical engineering, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
After working as an engineer at IBM, NASA, and McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, along with academic appointments at Rice University and at the Georgia Institute of Technology, he was selected as an astronaut by NASA in 1996, and is the veteran of two space flights, the fourth and fifth Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions in 2002 and 2009. Mike has a team record for the number of hours spacewalking in a single space shuttle mission, and he was also the first person to tweet from space. During his NASA career he received two NASA Space Flight Medals, the NASA Distinguished Service Medal, the American Astronautical Society’s Flight Achievement Award, and the Star of Italian Solidarity.
He is the Senior Adviser for Space Programs at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York City. He is also a professor in Columbia University’s engineering school, The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science.
National Awards for e-Governance, 2025 aims to recognize and promote excellence in implementation of e-Governance initiatives 589 nominations received under 28th National Awards for e-Governance, 2025 on the closing day of nomination. i.e., 28.02.2025
Posted On: 28 FEB 2025 7:27PM by PIB Delhi
National Awards for e-Governance, 2025 aims to recognize and promote excellence in implementation of e-Governance initiatives. In 2025, the National Awards for e-Governance scheme includes six categories:
Category (I) – Government Process Re-engineering by Use of Technology for Digital Transformation. In this category, 4 awards would be conferred.
Category (II) – Innovation by Use of AI and Other New Age Technologies for Providing Citizen Centric Services. In this category, 3 awards would be conferred.
Category (III) – Best e-Gov Practices in Cyber Security. In this category, 3 awards would be conferred.
Category (IV) – Grassroot Level Initiatives for Deepening/ Widening of Service Delivery with Focus on Initiatives. In this category, 4 awards would be conferred.
Category (V) – Replication and Scaling up on Successful National Awarded Projects like NAeG, Prime Minister Awards in Excellence, & Awards Conferred by Central Ministries by State/UT/District. In this category, 1 award would be conferred.
Category (VI) – Digital transformation by Use of Data Analytics in Digital Platforms by Central Ministries/States/UTs. In this category, 1 award would be conferred.
The National Awards for e-Governance portal was launched on 01stJanuary, 2025. The portal was made operational for registration and submission of nomination from 07thJanuary, 2025 to 28th February, 2025.
589 nominations have been received on the National Awards for e-Governance portal on the closing day of nomination i.e., 28.02.2025. The category wise break up of nominations received were –
Government Process Re-engineering by Use of Technology for Digital Transformation- 256
Innovation by Use of AI and Other New Age Technologies for Providing Citizen Centric Services- 71
Best e-Gov Practices in Cyber Security- 23
Grassroot Level Initiatives for Deepening/ Widening of Service Delivery with Focus on Initiatives- 163
Replication and Scaling up on Successful National Awarded Projects like NAeG, Prime Minister Awards in Excellence, & Awards Conferred by Central Ministries by State/UT/District- 19
Digital transformation by Use of Data Analytics in Digital Platforms by Central Ministries/States/UTs- 57
The scheme has evoked a tremendous response from the participants. For the first time participation of Gram Panchayats/ Traditional Local Bodies with focus on deepening and widening of service delivery at grassroots level. 1,43,648 Gram Panchayats have participated across 26 States/UTs.
The evaluation of the applications for the purposes of awards would include (i) Short-listing of applications by Screening Committee, to be chaired by Joint Secretary, DARPG (ii) Spot Study of the shortlisted applications by Under Secretary level officers of Government of India. (iii) Further Evaluation by Screening Committee- II to be chaired by Joint Secretary, DARPG (iv) Final recommendation for the awards by the Jury Committee, chaired by the Secretary, DARPG.
The National Awards for e-Governance 2025 will consist of (i) Trophy (ii) Certificate (iii) Incentive of Rs. 10 Lakh for the Gold Awardee/ Incentive of Rs. 5 Lakh for the Silver Awardee to be awarded to the Department/Organization which has to be utilized for implementation of a project/programme or bridging gaps in any area of Public Welfare.
“India’s Science Budget witnessed quantum leap under visionary leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi: Testimony of his patronage to innovation and Science” says Dr. Jitendra Singh Union Minister Dr. Jitendra Singh recalls Prime Minister Modi’s clarion call in Man Ki Baat to celebrate this year’s National Science Day with festive fervour
S&T Minister Dr. Jitendra Singh, launches Electric Vehicle Solutions led by Startups Under the DST’s new initiative
India embarked on a bold and transformative journey to establish itself as a global hub for research, innovation, and scientific excellence to become Viksit Bharat@2047
India’s 5352 Scientists feature in Top 2 percent of Scientific Minds according to a survey shares Dr. Singh
Posted On: 28 FEB 2025 7:09PM by PIB Delhi
NEW DELHI, February 28:Union Minister Dr. Jitendra Singh states the quantum budgetary increase to science departments highlighting the Government’s commitment to the progress of Science Technology and innovation. He calls it the patronage of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to innovation and Science during his speech at the National Science Day 2025 celebrations at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi.
Dr. Jitendra Singh stated that the budget allocations for various departments have seen significant growth over the years. The Department of Science and Technology (DST) received an allocation of ₹2777 crore in 2013-14, which has surged to ₹28,509 crore in 2024-25, marking a 926% increase. Similarly, the Department of Science and Industrial Research (DSIR) saw its budget rise from ₹2013 crore in 2013-14 to ₹6658 crore in 2024-25, reflecting a 230% increase. The Department of Space (DOS) experienced a budget growth from ₹5615 crore in 2013-14 to ₹13,416 crore in 2024-25, resulting in a 139% increase.
Addressing the celebration, Dr. Jitendra Singh recalls Prime Minister Modi’s clarion call in Man Ki Baat to celebrate this year’s National Science Day with festive fervor.
The National Science Day is celebrated on February 28th each year in India to honor the discovery of the Raman Effect by Indian physicist C.V. Raman in 1928. This discovery was a groundbreaking achievement in the field of light scattering, for which C.V. Raman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1930.
During the programme, The Science and Technology Minister, Dr. Jitendra Singh, launched the DST’s new initiative for Electric Vehicle Solutions, which is led by startups for component manufacturing in collaboration with the Ministry of Heavy Industries and ACMA.
Dr. Jitendra Singh, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Science & Technology, Earth Sciences, PMO, Personnel, Public Grievances, Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space said “India embarked on a bold and transformative journey to establish India as a global hub for research, innovation, and scientific excellence to become Viksitbharat@2047”.
Reflecting on the past decade of India’s scientific journey, the minster emphasized that India has transformed into the third-largest startup ecosystem globally, with a growing base of innovative, youth-led deep-tech startups. These startups are not only addressing domestic challenges but are also creating solutions for global issues such as communication, cybersecurity, data privacy, sustainable energy, healthcare advancements, and smart manufacturing.
Dr. Singh shared that according to the survey with a cutoff date of 31st December has found that 5352 Indian Scientific Minds feature in Top 2 percent. Referring to India’s progress in the Global Innovation Index, Dr. Singh said, “In just ten years, India has ascended from 80th to 39th position, cementing its place among the world’s most innovative nations.”
Dr. Singh touched upon India’s groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs that have been a source of national pride, most notably the successful landing of Chandrayaan-3 on the moon’s south pole—making India the first country to achieve this extraordinary feat. He also highlighted the successful launch of ISRO’s SPADEX mission on December 30, 2024, a pioneering project in spacecraft rendezvous, docking, and undocking.
Dr. Singh underscored that India is poised to make its mark in the global quantum technology landscape, with a focus on quantum computing, quantum communication, and quantum cryptography. Indian youth-led startups in deep-tech are at the forefront, developing solutions for global challenges.
Emphasizing on this year’s theme i.e. “Empowering Indian Youth for Global Leadership in Science & Innovation for Viksit Bharat,” was emphasized by Dr. Singh as a reflection of India’s growing investment in its young scientists. He also dedicated the National Science Day to the youth of the country and seeks to enable the youth to undergo capacity building and prepare them to be the architects of 2047.
In his presence, nine new institutes were included in NIDHI-iTBIs Inclusive Technology Business Incubators with 50 Institutes already present
National Engineering College, Kovilpatti, Tamil Nadu
GITAM, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
Indian Institute of Management, Jammu, J&K
Sri Sri University, Cuttack, Odisha
Sanskriti University, Mathura, UP
AIIMS, Patna, Bihar
Sona College of Technology, Salem, Tamil Nadu
Assam Down Town University, Assam
Sangam University, Bhilwara, Rajasthan
An MoU was exchanged between IIT Kanpur and HAB Biomass Pvt. Ltd. on a Green Corrosion Inhibitor from Manure developed by the SHRI Cell of DST. The celebration also witnessed a technology transfer between CSIR-NBRI and Ankur Seeds, Nagpur. Dr. Singh also released the Compendium of Selected Projects of the 31st NCSTC.
Today 9 more Universities under PURSE were supported on diverse scientific themes and different geographical regions with Rs 75 Cr
In another landmark initiative, Dr. Singh shared that ₹1,000 crore venture capital fund exclusively for the space sector. Approved by the Cabinet, this fund aims to foster India’s growing base of nearly 300 space startups, positioning India as a leader in the space industry.
The government has also allocated Rs 2,000 crore for Mission Mausam, a national program focused on enhancing weather forecasting capabilities. Additionally, the launch of the Anusandhan National Research Fund (NRF) with a corpus of ₹50,000 crore marks a giant leap toward ensuring that India’s scientific advancements are driven by research excellence and innovation.
Dr. Singh reiterated the government’s commitment to fulfilling the vision of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ by developing indigenous technologies tailored to India’s unique needs. The Ministry of Science and Technology is working relentlessly to ensure that innovations move from the lab to land, benefiting local communities while positioning India as a global leader in science and technology.
Dr. Jitendra Singh emphasized the importance of collaboration between various departments of science and the private sector. The government’s efforts are focused on creating an enabling environment for scientific innovation, ensuring that research and development align with the needs of both the public and private sectors.
The celebration was graced by Prof. A.K. Sood, Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India; Dr. N. Kalaiselvi, DG-CSIR and Secretary of DSIR; Prof. Ashutosh Sharma, President of INSA; Prof. Abhay Karandikar, Secretary of DST; Dr. Rajesh S. Gokhale, Secretary of DBT; Sh. V. Narayanan, Chairman, ISRO and Secretary, Department of Space; along with Dr. Rashmi Sharma, Head, NCSTC. Senior Officials of State S&T Councils, School & College students from 22 States across India joined the Science Day celebrations in Online mode.
“No profounder duty confronts a state than the necessity of constructing sane and serviceable citizens out of the material of childhood. No higher privilege awaits the individual in this land of opportunity than the privilege of contributing to such an end.”
Dr. Anna Julia Cooper wrote these words ca. 1930 in her essay, “Educational Programs”. (Cooper, Portable, 190.) Her life as a civil rights activist, essayist, an educator, an intellectual, and a philosopher on society and the law is an extraordinary catalog of outstanding achievements.
Born in 1858 into slavery to Hannah Stanley Haywood in Raleigh, North Carolina, Anna Julia Haywood was freed in 1863, following the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. She enrolled in Saint Augustine Normal School and Collegiate Institute as a student, a school established by the Freedman’s Bureau, and began tutoring there at age 10 to help with her tuition. She married fellow student George A.C. Cooper when she graduated from high school. He died two years later, and she enrolled in Oberlin College in 1881, which she attended on scholarship. While there, she asked to attend the “gentlemen’s courses” which included higher mathematics, Latin, and Greek. (Cooper, Portable, xxiii.) She graduated from Oberlin with a B.A. in mathematics in 1884, and an M.A. in mathematics in 1887.
Mrs. A.J. Cooper. Photo by C.M. Bell, Washington, D.C. [between 1901 and 1903] Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/bellcm.15413/
Cooper started teaching math and science at the M Street School, in Washington, D.C., after earning her M.A. from Oberlin. The school “provided a rigorous curriculum that surpassed the offerings of many white schools.” M Street offered a curriculum with academic, scientific, technical, and business tracks. Cooper published her book, A Voice from the South to a positive critical response. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes of the essay “Woman vs. the Indian”, “Cooper… calls for the natural inherent rights of all people, or ‘the rights of humanity’ but also specifying groups typically denied these rights such as Blacks, women, Indians (or Native Americans), and the poor.” This comment on her philosophy of inherent rights applies not only to the essay, but to much of the book. Her thoughts and essays on society’s influence on the law, racial prejudice, feminism and education were followed by her more famous peers such as W.E.B. Du Bois, whom she corresponded with often.
She traveled to conferences and cultural exchange programs, traveled to Nassau and throughout Europe, and spoke at the Pan-African Conference in London in 1900, where she was a member of the Executive Committee (Cooper, Portable, xl.) She was promoted to principal of the M Street School in 1901. While directing the school as the principal, she made academic and vocational tracks available to all students. However, she focused on strengthening the school’s curriculum on academics, “an approach often associated with Du Bois’s educational philosophy rather than Booker T. Washington’s emphasis on vocational training.” As principal, she made successful efforts to get students admitted to Brown, Mt. Holyoke, Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools when the students passed entrance examinations. She was removed from her position as principal by the head of the school board, who disapproved of her focus of the school curriculum on academics, despite community support for her to stay. She moved to teach at the Jefferson Institute in Missouri for a brief period while pursuing legal action for a return to her position at M Street and back pay. Her commitment to equal education predated Brown v. Board of Education.
Eventually, Cooper returned to M Street School in 1910 to teach Latin, and continued her own studies, while adopting the five grandchildren of her brother. She published her translation of Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne in 1917. At the age of 66, she completed and defended her doctoral thesis, L’Attitude de la France à l’Egard l’Esclavage Pendant la Révolution at the Sorbonne; she was the first African-American woman to graduate from the school.
Dr. Cooper returned to teaching at M Street School until 1930 when she retired. She became the president of Frelinghuysen University, the only other higher education facility for African Americans in D.C. at the time. When the school had insufficient funds to stay in operation, she ran it from her own home, while continuing to write and publish essays in The Crisis and the WashingtonTribune.
She worked and advocated throughout her career for equal rights in education and society for women and African Americans until her death at 105. Like some other civil rights activists we have featured in the blog in the past, she was not a lawyer, but her philosophical writing and educational work created changes in civil rights; the Library’s unique collections of her work allow readers to discover more. Her writing is printed in the U.S. passport, “The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or a sect, a party or a class – it is the cause of humankind, the very birthright of humanity.”
Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)
WASHINGTON – In January 2025, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) reintroduced the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, or S.9, to save women’s sports and preserve Title IX protections for female athletes. Over the past four years, the Biden administration took a sledgehammer to Title IX – resulting in more than 900 women losing trophies to men competing in women’s sports. These policies are wildly unpopular as 79% of Americans agree that men should not compete against women.
As a former coach and educator for 40 years, Senator Tuberville has been a champion in the fight to protect women’s sports during his entire time in Congress. Last year, he forced a vote on an amendment that would protect female athletes by keeping men out of women’s sports – all 51 Democrats voted against it. Thankfully, President Trump signed a historic Executive Order earlier in February banning men from competing in women’s sports and protecting Title IX. Unfortunately, Executive Orders can be reversed. Senator Tuberville’s bill would make President Trump’s Executive Order permanent.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation on a bipartisan basis in January. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) announced earlier this week that S.9 will get a vote on Monday, March 3. Ahead of the vote, a bipartisan coalition of former and current female athletes, coaches, parents, lawmakers, and advocates are voicing their support for Sen. Tuberville’s legislation.
What They Are Saying:
“Congress established Title IX to ensure that women and girls have equal and fair opportunities based on biological reality, and it has protected their safety for decades. After watching the Biden administration claw away at the integrity of Title IX for four years, I am proud to stand with my colleagues and President Trump in fighting to restore the protections that Title IX was always meant to provide to girls and women in sports,” said Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS).
“Since the start of his administration, President Trump has kept his promise to protect female athletes by preventing biological males from competing in their sports. With the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act vote approaching, it’s up to Congress to safeguard competitive opportunities for female athletes for generations to come. This is the women’s rights issue of our time, and I am proud to join my colleagues in ensuring young girls across America can compete on a level playing field,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY).
“Protecting our daughters’ and granddaughters’ right to safe and fair competition is non-negotiable. We cannot allow biological men to compete in women’s sports and undermine the hard-fought victories of generations of American women and girls. I’m proud to stand up for Title IX alongside Senator Tuberville, President Trump, and my Republican colleagues,” said Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).
“Men have no place competing in women’s athletics, this shouldn’t be controversial. Title IX was created to ensure fairness and equal opportunities for female athletes, yet the radical left is working to dismantle those protections. The House has already passed my legislation to restore common sense and protect the integrity of women’s sports. Now, the Senate must act. I urge my colleagues to stand with women and pass this critical bill without delay. Thank you to Senator Tuberville for his leadership in this fight,” said Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL-17).
“The American people spoke loud and clear in November that they do not want men in women’s sports or locker rooms. We cannot allow Democrats to erase Title IX, endangering our girls and undermining years of hard work. I applaud Coach Tuberville for his leadership, and I’m glad that the Senate is following through on the mandate given to us,” said Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL-15).
“The American people have made it clear: there is a national mandate to stand up for objective truth and to support women — safeguarding our privacy, safety, and equal opportunities. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Tuberville, advancing critical legislation to protect women’s rights has become a legislative priority. With the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act now being heard on the Senate floor, we’re one step closer to ensuring that women no longer lose trophies, roster spots, playing time, scholarships, or fair competition to men in their own sport. On Monday, the nation will see which members of the US Senate choose to stand for truth and fairness — answering the call of Americans nationwide,” said Riley Gaines, former 12x All-American swimmer at the University of Kentucky.
“I hope SB9 passes with bipartisan support. Eighty percent of Americans agree that men do not belong in women’s sports, and I urge all senators to vote in the best interests of their constituents. Having been forced to compete against and undress alongside a male athlete, I never want another girl to experience the same. This bill would help ensure that,” said Paula Scanlan, former teammate of Lia Thomas at the University of Pennsylvania.
“It’s time for the senate to do the right thing — stand up for women and girls and pass the Protect Women and Girls in Sports Act. This is not a political or partisan issue. It’s about basic biological truth and fairness for women and girls,” said Jennifer Sey, former 7x National Team Member for USA Gymnastics, 1986 Women’s National Gymnastics Champion, CEO XX-XY Athletics.
“Protecting women and girls in sports should not be a partisan issue. It’s about fairness, safety, and common sense. I know firsthand what it’s like to race against a male and be forced to change in a locker room with one. No woman should have to sacrifice her dignity or opportunities in the name of politics. This vote is a chance for leaders on both sides of the aisle to do what’s right, stand up for women, defend the integrity of sports, and uphold the very protections Title IX was meant to guarantee. I urge every senator to put politics aside and vote YES on SB9. Anything less is a betrayal of the women and girls who are counting on them,” said Kaitlynn Wheeler, former women’s swim team member at the University of Kentucky.
“I am urging every Senator to stand with women and vote YES on the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act! 80% of Americans agree—no males in girls’ or women’s sports! I’ve been a lacrosse coach for 29 years, inducted into three halls of fame for my contributions to the game. Yet, I was removed from my position as Head Women’s Lacrosse Coach at Oberlin College. Thanks to Senator Tuberville, the Senate has an opportunity to be heroes and codify the executive order into law! Vote YES—for the young girls already competing in sports, and for those who need your vote to have a chance to play tomorrow!” said Kim Russell, former women’s lacrosse coach at Oberlin College.
“As someone who spent decades as a broadcaster covering women’s sports, I am heartbroken by the misguided attempts to destroy Title IX. I have seen firsthand the doors that can be opened in a young woman’s life through scholarships and sports. This isn’t about excluding anyone, it is about protecting the rights of women and girls to fair, safe competition. You can’t call yourself a feminist and not support preserving Title IX for women and girls everywhere. I was so proud to be at the White House to witness President Trump signing a historic Executive Order protecting women’s sports and preserving Title IX. Unfortunately, Executive Orders can be reversed. Congress needs to act on this. I was glad to see the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act pass the House on a bipartisan basis and urge every Senator to think about their daughters, nieces, and granddaughters and vote yes on this critical legislation,” said Sage Steele, former SportsCenter host.
“The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act is a critical next step to meaningful, lasting Title IX protections for female student athletes. It provides the clarity schools and governing bodies need to affirm the dignity of women and girls. I’m proud to link arms with fellow female athletes to support S.9. Our support of this legislation championed by Senator Tuberville has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with our lived experiences. We’ve been betrayed by regressive policies compromising the assurances for equal protection on the basis of sex women won over 50 years ago. S.9 will reaffirm our rights and ensure future generations of female athletes will never have to face the injustice of men taking our places in women’s sports again,” said Macy Petty, former volleyball player at Lee University.
“Despite constant roadblocks and years of battling the system, women have fought hard, and continue to fight to be seen as equal in their athletic capabilities. Until the passage of title IX in 1972, there were fewer than 30,000 female collegiate athletes in the US. The number is in 100s of thousands today. But even to this day, females have never had equal opportunity in sports against their male counterparts. And now with males entering female sports, it feels like we have lost decades of advancement. Watching the females on my team suffer this injustice was just too much for me to ignore. Females have worked way too hard and far too long to be sidelined by males who are generally bigger, faster, and stronger. That’s why I support the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act led by Senator Tuberville. We are asking all members of Congress to support this bill and stand together for the protection and fairness of female sports now and into the future,” said Coach Melissa Batie-Smoose, former San Jose State University assistant volleyball coach.
“Senator Tuberville is taking a stand to protect women in sports, and it’s long overdue. As someone who has experienced the harm firsthand, I would never want another young woman to go through what I did at San Jose State or be left traumatized. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act will ensure that no one has to endure what Riley Gaines or Peyton McNabb experienced. This act safeguards young female athletes from the physical and mental trauma of competing against men in a sport that should be their safe space. I urge every senator to consider: if this were your daughter, how would you feel watching her lose opportunities, face unfair competition, and be put at risk all while knowing you had the power to stop it? Senator Tuberville is doing what any responsible leader should—fighting for our safety. He must be heard and taken seriously,” said Brooke Slusser, former volleyball team captain at San Jose State University.
“Women’s sports and spaces deserve the protection that has been stripped away from so many women including myself in recent years. SB9, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, would restore that protection. It is crucial that senators listen to their constituents instead of continuing to support an agenda that undermines female success. Nearly 80% of Americans believe gender ideology has no place in our locker rooms, on our podiums, or on our rosters. This Senate vote should reflect that statistic. We are on the brink of ending the suffering that women across the country have endured. Thank you, Senator Tuberville, for your leadership and for taking the initiative to truly preserve the rights of women,” said Lily Mullens, Roanoke College swim team captain.
“SB9, The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act is about ensuring female athletes have fair, safe, and equal opportunities. This is more than just about sports—it’s about protecting women’s rights and integrity. On Monday, the Senate can choose to stand up for truth, common sense, and women,” said Payton McNabb, former North Carolina high school volleyball player.
“The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 is of utmost importance because it ensures no female athlete is put in harms way on the court or field, forced into vulnerable spaces like our locker rooms where men are currently allowed, and gives us the power to champion our sports without the unfair biological advantages men have when competing. Female athletes throughout history have worked too hard for us to revert back to letting men invade our sports taking away opportunities, accolades, and ultimately our mark in the history of sports. As a female athlete that has been directly impacted by the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports, I ask you to end this now. Please protect the future generations of female athletes from the mental, emotional, and physical warfare my teammates and I went through. My question to those who vote against this bill is how many more female athletes are going to have to get hurt, forfeit matches, lose out on scholarships, undress in front of men in their locker rooms, and even see full male genitalia involuntarily before you do something? What about your daughters, nieces, and even future grandchildren, is this something you’re okay with happening to them?” said Sia Liilii, University of Nevada Reno volleyball co-captain.
“More than 50 years ago, Congress enacted Title IX to ensure women had fair and equal opportunities in athletics. But radical gender ideology has tried to erase that hard-fought victory by insisting that men can be women. Women have been forced to share their private locker rooms with men and female athletes have lost out on scholarships, roster spots, and titles simply because they are not as strong and fast as their male counterparts. This injustice needs to end. President Trump’s Executive Order is the blueprint for strong stance on this issue, and now we need Congress to permanently codify the obvious and historical intention of Title IX into law to guard against future attacks from radical activists. It is simple: women’s sports must be for women only. We thank Sen. Tuberville for his tireless leadership on this issue!” said Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.
Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP, and Aging Committees.
Minister for Regulation David Seymour says that one year in, the Ministry for Regulation is paving the way for better law-making, higher productivity, and higher wages. “One year ago, the Ministry for Regulation was set up. It was given the task of cutting red tape and lifting the quality of all regulatory systems in New Zealand. Those systems are stunting economic growth and costing people money and sanity,” Mr Seymour says. “After one year, the Ministry can point to a growing list of deregulation measures that are helping businesses, workers, and consumers. Some examples of the Ministry’s work include:
Delivering the first regulatory sector review into Early Childhood Education (ECE). These recommendations will reduce compliance costs, encourage more providers into the market, and give parents more choice. Cabinet will consider its fifteen recommendations later this month.
Delivering the second regulatory sector review into Agricultural and Horticultural Products. Cabinet accepted all of its sixteen recommendations this week. Now, implementing them will save up to $272 million by making approval processes easier and faster for farmers and growers.
Starting a third sector review into hairdressing and barbering industry by listening to those in the industry affected by out-of-date rules. The recommendations will be delivered shortly.
Driving regulators to change the rules for Buy Now, Pay Later customers, to keep the model viable and cost of services for consumers down.
Working with other agencies to make quick changes to regulations hindering Kiwis in areas such as Anti Money Laundering (AML), gift card regulation, emergency responders accessing medicines, bakers who were being regulated on the concentration of flour particles, and supporting people administering property on behalf of someone lacking decision-making capacity.
Working alongside MedSafe and the Ministry of Health to review the outdated and burdensome regulations which are holding back economic growth in the industrial hemp sector by 2030.
Triaging complaints from the ‘Red-Tape Tipline.’ Over 600 frustrated New Zealanders and businesses have reported cumbersome, costly and complex red tape that’s affecting their day-to-day lives and livelihoods. In each case that goes forward, the Ministry is doing further work, making recommendations to the relevant regulatory agency.
Alerting relevant agencies of 122 regulatory issues that came through the tipline so that they can be resolved. The Ministry is actively working to resolve a further 150 tips.
Putting in place best practice guides and training modules for the entire Government regulatory workforce that will improve New Zealanders interactions with regulators at the coal face.
Reforming the Cabinet Circular guiding Regulatory Impact Analysis, increasing the Ministry’s role in policy making. The Ministry will now be involved from the beginning of the policy making process, leading to fewer, higher quality Regulatory Impact Statements.
Preparing and consulting publicly on the Regulatory Standards Bill, that will be a game changer for the entire economy.
“This occurs alongside the Ministry’s work as a central agency to be the central steward of regulation across the public sector. The fourth sector review is also set to be announced shortly,” says Mr Seymour. “The Ministry will also be busy in its second year supporting the Regulatory Standards Bill through the House, conducting more sector reviews, responding to red tape tips, and supporting the public sector to use more effective and efficient regulations that work for New Zealand. “Bad regulation is killing our prosperity in three ways. It adds costs to the things we do; it prevents productive people from achieving innovative things that grow the economy, and it chips away at the heart of our identity and culture. It’s the fear that comes from worrying WorkSafe or some other regulator will come and shut you down. You can’t measure it, but we all know it’s there. “It’s clear that now is the time for a significant reset. Many governments over the years have paid lip-service to cutting red tape. This Government is committed to doing something about it.”
Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) has introduced bicameral legislation to make college textbooks more affordable. The Affordable College Textbook Act would authorize a competitive grant program to support the creation and expansion of open college textbooks — textbooks that are available under an open license — which would allow professors, students, researchers and others to freely access the materials.
Textbook costs are one of the most overlooked costs of going to college, but they can be a substantial barrier to pursuing a college education. According to the College Board, the average student at a four-year public institution of higher education spent $1,290 on college books and supplies during the 2024-2025 academic year. In a 2020 U.S. PIRG survey, 65-percent of students decided not to buy a textbook because of the cost, and 94 percent of those students were worried it would affect their grade negatively.
“A college education is far more expensive than the simple cost of tuition, room, and board — and the textbook market causes serious sticker shock on campuses across the nation,” said Senator King. “Students are faced with numerous additional fees from the time they move in until the time they graduate. The Affordable College Textbook Act is a commonsense step toward saving students — and teachers — from the hidden, overlooked fees associated with a college education. Thanks to my colleagues for prioritizing the success of the next generation of students.”
The Affordable College Textbook Act expands and updates provisions from the College Textbook Affordability Act which was included in the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act. The provisions aimed to make more information available to students looking to manage college textbook costs. The 2008 law required textbook publishers to disclose to faculty the cost of a textbook to their students, required schools to publish textbook price information in course catalogues when practicable, and required publishers to offer unbundled supplemental materials. The provisions took effect July 1, 2010.
Specifically, the Affordable College Textbook Act would:
Authorize a grant program, similar to the U.S. Department of Education’s Open Textbook Pilot program for which Congress already has appropriated $54 million and saved students more than $250 million. The grant would support projects at colleges to create and expand the use of open textbooks, with priority for programs that would achieve the highest savings for students;
Ensure that any open textbooks or educational materials created using program funds would be free and easily accessible to the public;
Require entities who receive funds to complete a report on the effectiveness of the program in achieving savings for students;
Improve and update existing requirements for publishers and institutions that provide information on textbook costs, including new disclosure requirements to students on how companies providing digital materials may use student data; and
Require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with an update on the price trends of college textbooks.
The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Representative Joe Neguese (D-Colo.) in the U.S. House.
Senator King has been a long time advocate of higher education; working to make college more affordable and accessible for Maine students. Last year, he cosponsored bipartisan legislation that would permanently extend a tax-free student loan repayment provision to help ease the burden of student loans. Senator King has also worked to make college campuses safer — introducing bipartisan legislation to prevent hazing on college campuses, as well as legislation that would require hazing incidents to be reported as part of a college’s annual crime report.
The visit of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House has not gone to plan – at least not to his plan. There were [extraordinary scenes] as a press conference between Zelensky and Trump descended into acrimony, with the US president loudly berating his opposite number, who he accused of “gambling with world war three”.
“You either make a deal or we’re out,” Trump told Zelensky. His vice-president, J.D.Vance, also got in on the act, accusing the Ukrainian president of “litigating in front of the American media”, and saying his approach was “disrespectful”. At one point he asked Zelensky: “Have you said thank you even once?”
Reporters present described the atmosphere as heated with voices raised by both Trump and Vance. The New York Times said the scene was “one of the most dramatic moments ever to play out in public in the Oval Office and underscored the radical break between the United States and Ukraine since Mr Trump took office”.
Underlying the angry exchanges were differences between the Trump administration and the Ukrainian government over the so-called “minerals deal” that Zelensky was scheduled to sign. But any lack of Ukrainian enthusiasm for the deal is understandable.
In its present form, it looks more like a memorandum of understanding that leaves several vital issues to be resolved later. The deal on offer is the creation of will be called a “reconstruction investment fund”, to be jointly owned and managed by the US and Ukraine.
Into the proposed fund will go 50% of the revenue from the exploitation of “all relevant Ukrainian government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian government)” and “other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure)”.
This means that private infrastructure – much of it owned by Ukraine’s wealthy oligarchs – is likely to become part of the deal. This has the potential of further increasing friction between Zelensky and some very powerful Ukrainians.
Meanwhile, US contributions are less clearly defined. The preamble to the agreement makes it clear that Ukraine already owes the US. The very first paragraph notes that “the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022”.
Western and Ukrainian analysts have also pointed out that there may be fewer and less accessible mineral and rare earth deposits in Ukraine than are currently assumed. The working estimates have been based mostly on Soviet-era data.
Since the current draft leaves details on ownership, governance and operations to be determined in a future fund agreement, Trump’s very big deal is at best the first step. Future rounds of negotiations are to be expected.
Statement of intent
From a Ukrainian perspective, this is more of a strength than a weakness. It leaves Kyiv with an opportunity to achieve more satisfactory terms in future rounds of negotiation. Even if any improvements will only be marginal, it keeps the US locked into a process that is, overall, beneficial for Ukraine.
Take the example of security guarantees. The draft agreement offers Ukraine nothing anywhere near Nato membership. But it notes that the US “supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace”, adding that: “Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments.”
The significance of this should not be overstated. At its bare minimum, it is an expression of intent by the US that falls short of security guarantees but still gives the US a stake in the survival of Ukraine as an independent state.
But it is an important signal both in terms of what it does and does not do – a signal to Russia, Europe and Ukraine.
Trump does not envisage that the US will give Ukraine security guarantees “beyond very much”. He seems to think that these guarantees can be provided by European troops (the Kremlin has already cast doubts on this idea).
But this does not mean the idea is completely off the table. On the contrary, because the US commitment is so vague, it gives Trump leverage in every direction.
He can use it as a carrot and a stick against Ukraine to get more favourable terms for US returns from the reconstruction investment fund. He can use it to push Europe towards more decisive action to ramp up defence spending by making any US protection for European peacekeepers contingent on more equitable burden-sharing in Nato.
And he can signal to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, that the US is serious about making a deal stick – and that higher American economic stakes in Ukraine and corporate presence on the ground would mean US-backed consequences if the Kremlin reneges on a future peace agreement and restarts hostilities.
That these calculations will ultimately lead to the “free, sovereign and secure Ukraine” that the agreement envisages is not a given.
For now, however, despite all the shortcomings and vagueness of the deal on key issues –– and the very public argument between the parties – it still looks like it serves all sides’ interests in moving forward in this direction.
This article has been updated with details of the meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
Tetyana Malyarenko 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.
Since the Labour government came to power in the UK past year, its international relations have been pursued under the banner of what foreign secretary David Lammy calls “progressive realism”. This involves “using realist means to pursue progressive ends”, including taking “pragmatic steps” to improve relations with other states.
Lammy rejects the notion that “idealism has no place in foreign policy” but also argues that the UK should be “realistic about the state of the world and the country’s role in it”.
The visit of the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, to the White House to meet US president Donald Trump has been the biggest test of this approach. Outlining a set of foreign policy principles is one thing, acting on them is another.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
In practice, progressive and realist foreign policies can pull in different directions. Combining them might be a form of “cakeism” – you usually can’t be a realist and have your progressivism too. Sometimes, however, clever diplomacy can find a way.
Did Starmer find that way in his response to Trump’s ideas on negotiating with Russia without a defined role for Ukraine?
Progressive realism in action
Progressivism is associated with a commitment to the rule of international law. In the case of Ukraine, that would mean opposing any peace deal that rewarded Russia’s aggression or the concession of land to Russia.
Progressivism is also associated with a support for international criminal law. The progressive in this case might be opposed to any peace deal that did not see Russian president Vladimir Putin hauled before the International Criminal Court (the same court that Trump has sanctioned).
Realism, on the other hand, is sometimes associated with a foreign policy committed to the promotion of self-interest, defined narrowly as the material wellbeing of the nation. Faced with the threat of further US tariffs, and the impact they would have on the government’s economic priorities, the realist would probably recommend that the UK do absolutely nothing to upset Trump.
Starmer has so far managed to walk this particular tightrope with a “pragmatic” form of progressivism. He remains committed to the vision of a world order based on international law and so is not realist in that sense. He was not willing to betray Ukraine just to be friends with Trump and avoid US tariffs, for instance.
But he was pragmatic because he realised the only way to advance progressive principles was to persuade Trump that they set out the path to a sustainable peace. For this reason, my colleague Jamie Gaskarth and I have argued UK policy might better be described as “progressive pragmatism”.
Starmer has a broader definition of the national interest than that sometimes associated with realism. It is in the UK’s interest to maintain an international order based on laws that codify the progressive principles of national self-determination and international justice.
From this perspective, the UK is right not to turn its back on Ukrainian self-determination by jumping on Trump’s bandwagon. That is a slippery slope. It can lead to a world order that is unstable because it is dictated by the great powers. Ukraine today, Greenland, Palestine, Taiwan tomorrow.
His pragmatism was very much on display in Washington, however. It meant staying close to the US not just to avoid tariffs, which Starmer appears to have done with the help of an invitation from King Charles for a state visit to the UK. It meant working with Trump’s ideas on Russia to persuade him that supporting Ukraine is the way to a “durable” peace.
Durable peace here is not simply a question of satisfying Russia and having sufficient military force on the ground (the so-called US “backstop”) to deter future Russian aggression. It must also respect the political power of a progressive principle: national self-determination.
To conclude a peace that does not include the Ukrainian people is not just a moral betrayal, it is politically imprudent because it creates grievances, which become causes of conflict. That does not mean the only way forward is to return to the pre-2014 status quo, but it does mean Kyiv’s involvement in peace negotiations has to be meaningful, not symbolic.
In 1990 the transatlantic positions were reversed. UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher was troubled by the fall of Berlin wall. She proposed that the occupying powers that had divided Germany in 1945 decide the terms of reunification.
The administration of the then US president, George Bush senior, had a broader understanding of history and the future. They realised that a dictated peace after the first world war contributed to the grievances that led to the second.
On that occasion the US approach prevailed. Germany was allowed to reunify on its own terms and choose its own alliances. It was a progressive and pragmatic solution that was committed to national self-determination and it set the foundations for the durable peace that self-described realists thought would never happen.
Starmer made a point in Washington of congratulating Trump for breaking the impasse. He was rewarded when the president suggested that a trade deal is now on the table. As he flies back across the Atlantic, Starmer might continue the flattery by comparing Trump’s actions to the way Ronald Reagan sowed the seeds of the new world order in the 1980s.
He should recall, however, that the details of that new order were subsequently worked out by the administration of George Bush Snr., which had a pragmatic respect for national self-determination. That now means supporting Ukraine in any upcoming negotiation.
Jason Ralph has in the past received funding from Research Councils UK and the EU. He does not currently hold a research grant. He is a member of the UK Labour Party.
Keir Starmer was only the second European leader to visit Donald Trump’s second White House. The first, France’s Emmanuel Macron, had barely taken off when Starmer touched down, but had already raised the bar by behaving regally in front of the world’s media alongside his fellow president in the Oval Office.
In manner, Macron manifested his eight years in office (four of which were already spent with Trump in the White House). Starmer has had a mere eight months. But it was a challenge, judged in its own immediate terms, that the prime minister met.
Raising the curtain, in a highly untypical coup de théâtre, Starmer flourished – as few can – a letter from the King to give to the president, and then effectively forced Trump to read it on camera and agree to the invitation enclosed within.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Starmer of course knew he was nudging an open door: much came down to assiduous preparation. The British Embassy, under a finally confirmed ambassador Peter Mandelson, worked overtime to choreograph and lubricate.
Starmer had been wise in contradicting Trump only indirectly. Nothing could be gained – as president Zelenskyy already demonstrated – from doing so publicly. So early an offer of a state visit to the UK ran the risk of appearing desperate, but was mitigated by its also being “unprecedented” as the second to be offered to Trump. A word recently worn smooth by over-use, there was nevertheless another precedent set in the suggestion of a pre-state visit visit between Trump and the king. With this president, more than any other, royal diplomacy is a critical national asset.
Starmer’s announcement of an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 worked similarly well. That funds are to be diverted from foreign aid for that purpose the Labour leadership deemed as being politically cost-free – or at least good value – politically. It was, indeed, almost Trumpian. The relevant minister disagreed.
It is hard to recall greater shifts in a country’s foreign policy in so short a space of time. Insofar as one can discern Trump’s purposefulness, it is to create pandemonium, which has the secondary effect of galvanising actors to act – not least for fear of further pandemonium.
Thus last week the US voting with Russia, Iran and North Korea, and not with Britain, at the UN. The Trump administration’s designation of choice is now “the Russia-Ukraine conflict”, as if it were merely a border dispute.
Therefore, ahead of Starmer’s arrival in Washington, he was faced with the US apparently aligning itself with a country his describes as “the most acute threat” to the UK. “Jaw-dropping” was the adjective of choice for more than a few informed observers who had thought themselves prepared for whatever may transpire.
The actors Trump primarily wishes to galvanise are European leaders, recalcitrants he thinks should do more to keep their own peace. For Macron to have been told that Putin would accept Nato forces policing the peace was scene-changing, but the only witness to the veracity of that news was Trump, who exhales untruths as easily as he breathes. The Russians soon denied it.
Macron’s offer of France’s (non-Nato) airborne nuclear force complemented Starmer’s commitment to British boots on the ground and helped him elicit Trump’s commitment to mutual defence.
But Trump guaranteeing the peace that Starmer and Macron are willing to police was the cherry conspicuously missing from the cake. The suggestion was subject to a classic Trump equivocation (we’ll always support the Brits, but they won’t need our support).
For the British government, July’s election already resembles a hospital pass. The effect of 20% tariffs on GDP growth could be catastrophic. Trump’s talk of tariff-free trade deals was more than expected, but one such was offered last time without much being doing about, before it was cancelled by President Biden. This time, Trump has said his vice president is drawing up a plan, even that being absent before.
And in a categorical demonstration of the benefits of lobbying there was effective presidential approval of the Chagos islands deal, simultaneously shooting one of Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s few foxes stone dead.
Warm words
Thus has passed the most potentially difficult meeting of a prime minister and a president since Suez. Nothing else comes close. Cliche – eggshells, tightropes – proliferated in previews.
When Starmer was last at the White House, in September, he had asked Biden for a meeting about Ukraine and received it. However unsatisfactory the outcome, public face was maintained. Trump has the ability – and the form – to have humiliated in a way which would permanently have scarred Starmer. That he did the opposite ought not to distract from the vulnerability of the supplicant.
Instead there were encomia from Trump as to the two countries – “special relationship”, “unique friendship”, “fantastic country”, “I’ve always cared” – and of Starmer – “a special man”, “a very special person”. And in describing Starmer’s accent as “beautiful”, the president revealed the hitherto unknown allure of the adenoidal.
Power plays sit ill with Starmer, but he nonetheless ventured two corrections from his armchiar, one to a statement made by the president and another to one made by the vice-president. The subsequent praise for Starmer’s negotiating tenacity from Trump, that much-vaunted artist of the deal, was as priceless – and unfamiliar – as the following morning’s front pages.
However successful this visit, however, nothing can be assumed, still less guaranteed. That the British government would so extensively war-game a meeting with its closest ally tells its own tale, or, rather a tale perhaps yet to be told. At this moment, for the next four years the relationship at least feels more secure than it did a few days before the trip. By such diurnal turns are the affairs of allies now measured.
Martin Farr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andre Spicer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bayes Business School, City St George’s, University of London
When Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman was asked whether it was possible to predict a hit film, he responded with three words that have become a Hollywood maxim: “Nobody knows anything.” He went on to explain that “not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work”.
Although Goldman’s famous phrase might resonate through the film business, it doesn’t stop people cooking up theories around which films might succeed at the annual Academy of Motion Picture Awards. Over the years, a range of theories have appeared, including: Oscar winners are not always the best films; there is an Oscar-worthy format that winners follow; and that winning an Oscar is actually a long-term curse.
Although there is a great deal of speculation about such theories, it’s less clear what the evidence actually says about them. To find out, I took a look at the rapidly growing field of “Oscarology” – the scientific study of the Academy Awards.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
One common theory is that it is entirely predictable who the Oscars will go to. Interestingly, this seems to have some truth to it. One statistical analysis found that by tracking a range of factors, it was possible to predict the winner of the Academy Awards in the four major categories with an overall accuracy of 69%.
Nickel Boys, one of the best picture nominees.
Factors which go into making these predictions include whether the nominee won a Golden Globe or Directors Guild award, and their previous nominations for an Oscar. Past success is a strong indicator of future success, with one important exception: having previously won an Academy Award means a nominee for best actor or best actress is much less likely to win again.
A second theory is that winning an Oscar is a golden ticket to big financial rewards. This is indeed correct. A study found there is a substantial boost in US box office earnings following a win in the the best supporting actor/actress, best actor/actress and best picture categories.
Best picture nominee Conclave stars Ralph Fiennes, also nominated for best actor.
Further research has found that Oscar nominations really make a positive impact on box office receipts – while actually winning the award gives a more modest boost. Interestingly, winning an award does not always translate to success in other parts the world. One study found that Oscar winners that were comedies performed better in Asian markets, but dramas performed worse.
The next theory is the idea that Oscar winners follow a particular format. Researchers have indeed found there is an Oscar-worthy format which some filmmakers follow. The “Oscar bait” format uses genres like war movies, historical epics and biographies, as well as plot elements such as war crimes, disabilities, political intrigue and show business.
Mikey Madison, star of best picture nominee Anora, is also up for best actress.
However, making a film using this Oscar-worthy format is not a guarantee of success. Films employing this concept which were nominated for an award received significantly greater financial returns. However, those using the Oscar-bait format which missed out on a nomination typically made large losses.
Then comes the theory that winning an Oscar is more about the quality of networks rather than the quality of the film. Again, there is some truth to this. Researchers have found that one way to improve the chances of winning an Oscar is to be part of film industry networks and work alongside people who have already won awards.
As well as a best picture nomination, Wicked’s Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo are also nominated.
There are some indicators that Oscars do not necessarily go to the best-quality movies. One analysis which compared Oscar winners to lists of 100 best movies of all time found that only 26% of films which appeared on all three main lists of best movies were also Oscar winners.
This research also notes that some movies which are staples of lists of classic movies (such as Singing in the Rain) were not even nominated for the best picture Oscar. What this suggests is that winning an Oscar does not always mean a film will be seen as a classic – and vice versa.
Best picture nominee I’m Still Here sees Brazilian Fernanda Torres nominated for best actress.
The final theory is that there is an “Oscar curse” – that winning an Oscar leads to personal and professional tragedy. This theory is largely incorrect. Researchers have found that Oscar winners live about one year longer than their less successful peers. Others have found that winning an Academy Award leads to greater professional success, with Oscar winners and nominees appearing in more films than their non-winning peers.
However, one area of truth in the idea of an Oscar curse is for men in their personal lives. Nominees and winners of the best actor award had a higher divorce rate than their peers.
Theories around the Oscars may prove to be not entirely correct – but they do provide a useful approximation of which films will triumph. Past performance, social networks and formula-following all seem to be good indicators of who will succeed. Perhaps Goldman’s advice that “no one knows anything” is not entirely true.
Andre Spicer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Vegan Tigress, a new play by Claire Parker, shines a spotlight on the largely-forgotten feminist fairytale writer Mary De Morgan (1850-1907). And the timing is particularly apt. The show opened, at London’s Bread & Roses Theatre, in the lead up to International Women’s Day and during the year of the 175th anniversary of De Morgan’s birth.
The production, by LynchPin Theatre Company, is part of a wider cultural project to celebrate underappreciated Victorian women writers, actors and activists. Parker has also written plays on feminist actor Ellen Terry and her daughter Edie Craig.
It also speaks to a general resurgence of interest in the creative De Morgan family. Mary’s father was Augustus De Morgan, the mathematician and logician and her brother was the potter, tile designer and novelist William De Morgan.
The Bread and Roses Theatre – an intimate space above a lively Clapham pub – creates an immersive experience. The audience shares De Morgan’s modest London quarters along with the accidentally summoned ghost of her ex-lover’s formidable mother: Lady Tuttle (played by Edie Campbell).
Providing comedic value, Tuttle deploys her spectral status to prank De Morgan (played by Parker), but her presence also highlights the stark differences between them, staging a debate between feminist and patriarchal versions of Victorian-Edwardian womanhood.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Shrill-voiced, upper-class and tightly corseted, Tuttle opposes women’s education and refers to suffragettes as “hyenas in petticoats and bitter spinsters”.
Striding across the stage swathed in silk skirts and a velvet, lace-trimmed bodice, she is both a mesmerising and somewhat villainous matriarch. By contrast, De Morgan is an irreverent free spirit who wears bohemian clothing, admires revolutionaries and has been a suffragist since she was 16.
The show portrays De Morgan as a pioneering professional woman, writing feverishly at a desk flanked by piles of beautiful antiquarian books. Parker and Campbell are hypnotic in their imaginative retellings and performances of De Morgan’s stories such as the The Hair Tree (1877), which are woven into the play.
The Vegan Tigress transports the audience into fantastical realms, fusing eerie lighting with dazzling props and sound effects – thunder, birdsong, clamouring voices.
With impressive ease, the actors shape-shift into bizarre animal forms – a puppet parrot, a tortured tiger and a grotesque tortoise. Together they illuminate the sociopolitical subtexts of De Morgan’s stories.
The trailer for The Vegan Tigress.
Her subversive tale from 1877, A Toy Princess (which Parker describes in the play), critiques doll-like ideals of femininity, prefigures the feminist fairy tales of Angela Carter and resonates with the Barbiemania that surrounded the release of the Barbie film in 2023.
In literature and in life, De Morgan resists conventional narratives of marriage and motherhood, enacting alternative destinies for women.
Especially successful as a visual manifestation of the stories’ transformative power is the simultaneously symbolic and literal change we witness in Lady Tuttle.
The more she reads The Windfairies (1900, one of three fairy tale collections by De Morgan) and political publications (Votes for Women), the less straitlaced she becomes – literally. Her corset unbuttons and her tied hair loosens. Despite being a ghost, Lady Tuttle comes alive as her mind expands, testifying to the powerful potential of reading and writing.
In joyful and poignant moments of female bonding in the second half of the play, Tuttle and De Morgan dance the tango, and embark arm-in-arm on the trip of a lifetime to Egypt, where De Morgan worked in real life in a girls’ reformatory. The show becomes a celebration of female creativity, companionship and community.
At the play’s close, the fourth wall is broken and the audience is addressed by De Morgan as “people from the future”. It prompts a reflection on how far we have come since first-wave feminism, but also how far we still have to go (given #MeToo and the reversal of Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion across the States in 1973), making Parker’s revival of De Morgan timely and important.
If De Morgan’s legacy is, as she soliloquises, “arming lost, disenfranchised girls and women with the tools to stand their ground”, what will ours be?
Lucy Ella Rose 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.
Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has arrived in Washington for talks with his US counterpart, Donald Trump. One of the key issues on their agenda is the “very big deal” announced by the US president on February 25. This deal would give the United States access to Ukraine’s critical mineral and rare earth deposits in return for continuing US support.
Trump has made sure his domestic audience understands that – as he told his first cabinet meeting on February 26 – in contrast to his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, he’s getting something out of Kyiv in return for the support the US has given Ukraine in the past.
The message coming from the Ukrainian side was a bit more circumspect. Zelensky took pains to emphasise that the deal was still a draft and that its successful conclusion would depend on the outcome of talks with Trump.
The lack of Ukrainian enthusiasm for the deal is justified. In its present form, it looks more like a memorandum of understanding that leaves several vital issues to be resolved later. The deal on offer is the creation of will be called a “reconstruction investment fund”, to be jointly owned and managed by the US and Ukraine.
Into the proposed fund will go 50% of the revenue from the exploitation of “all relevant Ukrainian government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian government)” and “other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure)”.
This means that private infrastructure – much of it owned by Ukraine’s wealthy oligarchs – is likely to become part of the deal. This has the potential of further increasing friction between Zelensky and some very powerful Ukrainians.
Meanwhile, US contributions are less clearly defined. The preamble to the agreement makes it clear that Ukraine already owes the US. The very first paragraph notes that “the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022”.
Western and Ukrainian analysts have also pointed out that there may be fewer and less accessible mineral and rare earth deposits in Ukraine than are currently assumed. The working estimates have been based mostly on Soviet-era data.
Since the current draft leaves details on ownership, governance and operations to be determined in a future fund agreement, Trump’s very big deal is at best the first step. Future rounds of negotiations are to be expected.
Statement of intent
From a Ukrainian perspective, this is more of a strength than a weakness. It leaves Kyiv with an opportunity to achieve more satisfactory terms in future rounds of negotiation. Even if any improvements will only be marginal, it keeps the US locked into a process that is, overall, beneficial for Ukraine.
Take the example of security guarantees. The draft agreement offers Ukraine nothing anywhere near Nato membership. But it notes that the US “supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace”, adding that: “Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments.”
The significance of this should not be overstated. At its bare minimum, it is an expression of intent by the US that falls short of security guarantees but still gives the US a stake in the survival of Ukraine as an independent state.
But it is an important signal both in terms of what it does and does not do – a signal to Russia, Europe and Ukraine.
Trump does not envisage that the US will give Ukraine security guarantees “beyond very much”. He seems to think that these guarantees can be provided by European troops (the Kremlin has already cast doubts on this idea).
But this does not mean the idea is completely off the table. On the contrary, because the US commitment is so vague, it gives Trump leverage in every direction.
He can use it as a carrot and a stick against Ukraine to get more favourable terms for US returns from the reconstruction investment fund. He can use it to push Europe towards more decisive action to ramp up defence spending by making any US protection for European peacekeepers contingent on more equitable burden-sharing in Nato.
And he can signal to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, that the US is serious about making a deal stick – and that higher American economic stakes in Ukraine and corporate presence on the ground would mean US-backed consequences if the Kremlin reneges on a future peace agreement and restarts hostilities.
That these calculations will ultimately lead to the “free, sovereign and secure Ukraine” that the agreement envisages is not a given.
For now, however, despite all its shortcomings and vagueness on key issues, it looks like it serves all sides’ interests in moving forward in this direction, albeit at a snail’s pace.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
Tetyana Malyarenko 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: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, today announced $2,718,333 in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant for permanent repairs to Delgado and Elaine Nunez Community Colleges and Southeastern Louisiana University.
“Hurricane Ida dealt a tough blow to south Louisiana. This $2.7 million will help Louisianians cover the costs for repairs to Delgado Community College, Elaine Nunez Community College and Southeastern Louisiana University,” said Kennedy.
The FEMA aid will fund the following:
$2,718,333 to the Office of Risk Management for permanent repairs to Delgado Community College, Elaine Nunez Community College and Southeastern Louisiana University as the direct result of Hurricane Ida.
