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.
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.
We often set ambitious goals, such as going to the gym, adopting healthier eating habits, or reducing our social media use. However, despite our best intentions, staying committed can often feel like an uphill battle.
A review of evidence published in 2024 highlights why. While understanding the benefits of behaviour change and believing in its value are important, these play only minor roles. The strongest determinant of our ability to shift how we act everyday is our habits.
As the 19th and 20th-century philosopher William James put it, we are essentially “bundles of habits”. He believed that these habits could hold people back from achieving their full potential. If he were around today, he would probably be concerned at the way some people mindlessly check their phones every five minutes.
In a recent academic review, my colleagues and I at Trinity College Dublin illustrated that habits are governed by a delicate balance between two distinct brain systems. One system drives automatic responses to familiar cues in the environment, while the other enables the control of behaviour directed towards goals.
This interplay helps explain why we might mindlessly scroll through social media when bored, yet still retain the ability to deliberately put our phones away to focus on work. We reviewed decades of research from laboratory studies and real world settings for the study. Here, we share five practical strategies to help you build positive habits and break negative ones.
1. Forget the 21-day myth
Forget the 21-day rule – there is no magic number. This rule refers to a popular perception that it takes 21 days to form a new habit. Habit formation is different for every person.
In one study, habit formation such as having a piece of fruit with lunch was estimated to take 66 days on average, but it varied widely between individuals, from 18 days to 254 days.
It also depends on the specific habit itself. A study demonstrated this using a subset of AI called machine learning. The study analysed more than 12 million gym visits and 40 million instances of hospital handwashing to understand how habits form.
The research found that forming a gym habit typically takes months, while hospital staff can develop a handwashing habit in just weeks. No matter how long it takes, the key is sticking with it, even if you miss a day here and there.
2. Make rewards your ally
Your brain learns to repeat behaviour that is rewarding. One study examining people’s intake of water throughout the day found that it was more of a habit for people who perceived it as more rewarding.
The habit loop can also be reinforced through external rewards, such as treating yourself to something enjoyable after completing a workout.
Rewards are also important for breaking habits. If scrolling through social media becomes a way to unwind, try replacing it with an alternative activity that provides a similar sense of relaxation and enjoyment.
By substituting a positive behaviour, you not only avoid feeling deprived but also create a competing response to the old habit, making it easier to break the cycle.
3. Stack your habits
The brain has a natural tendency to combine different actions and respond to contextual cues – the kind that help people understand their surroundings. A strategy called habit stacking takes advantage of this by linking a desired behaviour to something you already do.
For example, research on flossing found that people who flossed immediately after brushing their teeth were more likely to establish a lasting habit. The existing cue – brushing your teeth – serves as a reminder, making the new habit – flossing – feel like a natural part of your routine.
So, if you want to start meditating, pair it with your morning coffee. Sip your coffee, then meditate for five minutes. Over time, the two types of behaviour become intertwined, making it easier to stick with your goals.
4. Watch out for stress
When life gets overwhelming, many of us find ourselves falling back into old habits, even ones we thought we had moved past. Acute and chronic stress can shift the balance away from controlled goal directed behaviour towards the automatic response system in the brain.
A functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study revealed that prolonged stress in humans leads to an over-reliance on the brain’s circuits that drive habits, while suppressing the prefrontal cortex, which governs deliberate decision making.
The good news? These effects are reversible. After a six week stress-free period, participants returned to goal directed behaviour, and their brain activity normalised.
5. Plan for weak moments
We like to set new ambitious goals when we feel motivated. Motivational changes are often initiated based around time, such as the start of a new year, a phenomenon known as the “fresh start effect”. But it is important to be strategic and prepare for situations when motivation is low and we still want to work towards our goals.
A powerful strategy for overcoming these weak moments is to plan ahead for specific situations by saying, “If I find myself reaching for a snack when I’m stressed, then I will take a five-minute walk instead.” This strategy is generally referred to as “if-then” plans.
This approach helps to preemptively trigger a healthier response in those moments when bad habits might otherwise take over.
So, while it might seem difficult, if you’re looking to rid yourself of a bad habit or replace it with a good one, our research suggests it’s possible to change your behaviour using strategies based on scientific evidence.
Eike Buabang receives funding from the Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme.
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.
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.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s election gamble has paid off. As a consequence of last night’s election results, the Progressive Conservatives are now set to form their third consecutive majority government.
By and large, last night’s election results were dull and uninspiring, looking very similar to the outcome of the province’s election in 2022. The Progressive Conservatives return (going from 79 to 80) with only one additional member of caucus, receiving a noticeable but modest two per cent bump in support.
And, while the Liberals saw even more of a recovery from 2018, the generally widespread distribution of that vote means that they were only able to gain five seats. Although tarnished, the New Democrats return as the official opposition party.
Unprepared rivals
These lacklustre results flow directly from lacklustre campaigns. The fact is that, regardless of Premier Ford’s legitimate calls for a renewed mandate amidst an aggressive American administration, the party had been looking for an excuse to call a premature election for quite some time. In doing so, they were able to — quite intentionally — catch their rivals unprepared, complete with incomplete candidate slates, unknown leaders and undercooked policy platforms.
It meant that, while Ford was able to run a safe and constrained front-runner’s campaign, his main opponents struggled to find the momentum necessary to move the dial and exploit enough backlash. This is alongside real policy vulnerabilities in health care and education, with enough voters expressing discontent with what they felt to be an unnecessary and self-serving election call.
Chaotic news cycle
There are good reasons to believe that voters were mostly apathetic towards the parties and their candidates. Alongside the reasons already stated, the dense, chaotic and ever-shifting news cycle of the last few months may have entailed that this election was able to slip by quietly.
But this does not seem to be the full story, as this year’s turnout — while still low — is slightly higher than that of 2022. Instead, voters also seemed to have wanted to maintain the status quo.
On the local level, siting members of the provincial legislature from all three parties generally performed quite well. Of the 111 ridings with party-nominated incumbents, for example, only four lost. So while many voters may have been unhappy with the election call, the unpredictable environment may have also had the reverse effect of leading them to support, if not fully endorse, the leaders they already have.
Regardless of the more limited dynamics of this election, however, we cannot overlook the fact that this has been a very real accomplishment for Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives. In a period of high executive turnover and anti-incumbent backlash, Doug Ford has, as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, brought about a track record of secure, consecutive majorities — a feat that was last attained by Leslie Frost and John Robarts.
In many ways, it brings to mind the years of the traditional “big blue machine,” when the party controlled the government of Ontario for 40 consecutive years.
Durable persona
Here, Ford’s success is much deeper than a matter of suave electoral maneuvering, and it is more long-standing than the recent confrontation with the Trump administration. Instead, these results attest to the fact that, while the Premier is not without his detractors, he has nevertheless managed to secure a stable, solid and sufficient base of support through the combination of both a carefully balanced policy agenda and a durable leadership persona.
As with his successful conservative predecessors, Ford practices a form of the pragmatic and moderate governance that characterizes Ontario. A large part of what makes this successful is the fact that while it makes policy decisions flexible, it does not make them arbitrary.
Ford continues to emphasize a government oriented around continual economic growth and innovation as a means to accomplish raising living standards, fund the province’s social programs and — more recently — rival the United States. Combined with Ford’s aptitude in retail politics this has created a clear and accessible political project supported by big developers, small business owners and private-sector workers’ unions.
In a political environment shaped by personality, Ford continues to suck up the majority of the political oxygen in Ontario. Even while a good portion of Ontarians may dislike Ford — he is far from the most popular of Canada’s premiers — they have not experienced an overriding need to get rid of the incumbent, nor pursue another course of change.
While politics is impossible to predict, it suggests that this state of continuity will persist in Ontario, even amid a chaotic global environment.
Sam Routley 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.
Healthy coastal ecosystems play crucial roles in the U.S. economy, from supporting multibillion-dollar fisheries and tourism industries to protecting coastlines from storms.
They’re also difficult to manage, requiring specialized knowledge and technology.
That’s why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – the federal agency best known for collecting and analyzing the data that make weather forecasts and warnings possible – leads most of the government’s work on ocean and coastal health, as well as research into the growing risks posed by climate change.
The government estimates that NOAA’s projects and services support more than one-third of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet, this is one of the agencies that the Trump administration has targeted, with discussions of trying to privatize NOAA’s forecasting operations and disband its crucial climate change research.
As a marine environmental historian who studies relationships among scientists, fishermen and environmentalists, I have seen how NOAA’s work affects American livelihoods, coastal health and the U.S. economy.
Here are a few examples from just NOAA’s coastal work, and what it means to fishing industries and coastal states.
Preventing fisheries from collapsing
One of the oldest divisions within NOAA is the National Marine Fisheries Service, known as NOAA Fisheries. It dates to 1871, when Congress created the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. At that time, the first generation of conservationists started to worry that America’s natural resources were finite.
By conducting surveys and interviewing fishermen and seafood dealers, the fish commissioners discovered that freshwater and saltwater fisheries across the country were declining.
Looking back on 150 years of NOAA’s fisheries history.
Oil spills and raw sewage were polluting waterways. Fishermen were using high-tech gear, such as pound nets, to catch more and more of the most valuable fish. In some areas, overfishing was putting the future of the fisheries in jeopardy.
One solution was to promote aquaculture, also known as fish or shellfish farming. Scientists and entrepreneurs reared baby fish in hatcheries and transferred them to rivers, lakes or bays. The Fish Commission even used refrigerated railroad cars to ship fish eggs across the country.
Men carry pails of fish specimens to a U.S. Fish Commission ‘fish car’ – a train car designed specifically for transporting fish or fish eggs to stock U.S. rivers, lakes and coastal waters – in this historical photo. Smithsonian Institution Archives
Corals build up reefs over centuries, creating “cities of the sea.” When they’re healthy, they provide nurseries that protect valuable fish species, like snapper, from predators. Reefs also attract tourism and protect coastlines by breaking up waves that cause storm-driven flooding and erosion.
The corals of Hawaii, Florida, Puerto Rico and other tropical areas provide over $3 billion a year in benefits – from sustaining marine ecosystems to recreation, including sport fishing.
A third important aspect of NOAA’s coastal work involves controlling invasive species in America’s waters, including those that have menaced the Great Lakes.
Zebra and quagga mussels, spiny water flea and dozens of other Eurasian organisms colonized the Great Lakes starting in the late 1900s after arriving in ballast water from transoceanic ships. These invaders have disrupted the Great Lakes food web and clogged cities’ water intake systems, causing at least $138 million in damage per year.
Zebra mussels found attached to this boat at an inspection station in Oregon show how easily invasive species can be moved. The boat had come from Texas and was on its way to Canada. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, CC BY-SA
In the Northwest Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, invasive lionfish, native to Asia and Australia, have spread, preying on native fish essential to coral reefs. Lionfish have become one of the world’s most damaging marine fish invasions.
When Republican President Richard Nixon proposed consolidating several different agencies into NOAA in 1970, he told Congress that doing so would promote “better protection of life and property from natural hazards,” “better understanding of the total environment” and “exploration and development leading to the intelligent use of our marine resources.”
The Trump administration is instead discussing tearing down NOAA. The administration has been erasing mentions of climate change from government research, websites and policies – despite the rising risks to communities across the nation. The next federal budget is likely to slash NOAA’s funding.
Commercial meteorologists argue that much of NOAA’s weather data and forecasting, also crucial to coastal areas, couldn’t be duplicated by the private sector.
As NOAA marks its 55th year, I believe it’s in the nation’s and the U.S. economy’s best interest to strengthen rather than dismantle this vital agency.
Christine Keiner conducted research at the NOAA Library for her books “The Oyster Question” and “Deep Cut.”
Americans’ trust in government and politicians is at record lows. In a 2022 Pew Research survey, about two-thirds of respondents said that all or most people who run for office want to serve their own personal interests rather than the community’s.
I have taught political ethics to hundreds of public policy students at the Harvard Kennedy School over the past 25 years. One of the most important concepts we discuss is directly tied to that falling faith in government. It’s a term people love to throw around but can’t always define: conflicts of interest.
Conflicts of interest pervade public service and jeopardize the quality of government action by degrading officials’ judgments. Controlling such conflicts is essential to the success of democracy because all citizens rely on millions of officials – from the president down to the person analyzing water quality in your city – to do their jobs conscientiously, using their best judgment. Citizens’ safety depends on government action in countless ways: to keep drinking water, food and medicines safe; to protect everyone from dangerous products and from individual and corporate predators; to keep airplanes, cars and trains from colliding; to ensure access to education, health care and pensions.
But what counts as a conflict of interest? In the public sector, they arise when an official has “secondary,” private interests that may affect their judgment about how best to promote the public good. The more intense these private interests are – such as the promise of great financial gain or the welfare of loved ones – the greater the conflict and risk to public good.
Not just money
Secondary interests often stem from financial concerns: future employment prospects, corporate positions, stock holdings, real estate and gifts. But secondary interests can also arise from concern for the well-being of family members and friends.
A conflict between primary and secondary interests – public vs. private – threatens the public by clouding the good judgment of officials. They may be tempted, even unconsciously, to make decisions that achieve secondary interests at the cost of not doing their best to advance the public interest.
During his last weeks in office, for example, former President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter and, preventively, many members of his family. The Constitution establishes the president’s pardon power as a mechanism to correct miscarriages of justice in the court system. Did Biden’s concern for the welfare of his family – a secondary, private interest – cloud his judgment about how best to use this extraordinary power to pardon for the sake of justice, a primary, public interest? It is impossible to peer inside his mind, but anyone can see that there was a strong conflict of interest.
Many public officials mistakenly deny that there is a conflict at all. Charlie Wilson, a secretary of defense in the 1950s, was previously president and CEO of General Motors, a defense contractor. “For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa,” he said during confirmation hearings. “The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country.”
After Trump was elected in 2016, he famously said that “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. Conflict of interest is an ethical principle that applies to everyone acting in a public role. The principal law regulating conflict of interest in the federal government does exempt the president and vice president. However, the emoluments clause of the Constitution prohibits some conflicts of interest.
The president enters his second term with large private assets in social media platform Truth Social and cryptocurrency $Trump – industries that the United States is figuring out how to regulate.
When leaders have a conflict of interest, it doesn’t necessarily mean they make bad judgments or act corruptly. Nevertheless, such conflicts can reduce citizens’ confidence about their leaders’ judgment.
Cost for the country
Conflicts of interest create three problems for democracy.
Most important, the public suffers when officials’ judgments are compromised: when they are no longer doing their level best for Americans because they are concerned about various private interests rather than with citizens’ rights and well-being.
Second, conflicts of interest reduce trust and confidence in government and democracy. Even if officials who have large conflicts of interest resist the pull of secondary interests, members of the public may – especially in this time of cynicism about government – still suspect that their leaders are acting corruptly.
Third, when officials use their powers to benefit their private interests rather than the public interests, they profit from their offices: This is corrupt and unfair.
Reducing risk
Though conflicts of interest are ubiquitous, there are good strategies to mitigate and manage them.
Federal agencies, as well as many state and local governments, require officials to mitigate their conflicts of interest by divesting from secondary interests, such as shifting from specific stock holdings to general funds and resigning from positions on boards of directors. Most U.S. presidents since Jimmy Carter have put their substantial assets into blind trusts in order to manage their conflicts of interests. In a blind trust, the owner knows the value of the trust but not the particular stocks and other holdings in it.
Transparency and disclosure is another common management tool. When information about officials’ secondary interests is publicly available, citizens can better understand the forces that affect the judgment of those in government. For example, people who have undergone Senate confirmation for high-level positions in the federal government must file extensive disclosures that detail their assets and many of their prior sources of income.
Finally, it is important to create offices and procedures with staff dedicated to monitoring and mitigating conflicts of interest. In the executive branch, the seventy-some staff at the Office of Government Ethics, and many more ethics officers across the federal government, regulate conflicts of interest and other ethical issues. In February 2025, Trump dismissed the office’s director, who had been confirmed by the Senate two months before.
Many states and cities have ethics commissions that adjudicate conflicts of interest, deciding when officials should recuse themselves from particular decisions in which they are conflicted. In 2002, for example, New York City’s Conflicts of Interest Board issued an advisory opinion about how multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg, the mayor at the time, should manage his conflicts of interest. They advised that he should recuse himself from all matters relating to the Bloomberg company, divest from large stock holdings and transfer those assets into professionally managed mutual funds, among other recommendations.
Wealth – and hyperwealth
Many conflict of interest measures are formulated with moderately wealthy individuals in mind. For example, the median wealth of a U.S. senator in 2018 was US$1.75 million. At that level, measures such as blind trusts, divestment and recusal are usually very workable.
Hyperwealthy multibillionaires, however, raise unprecedented conflict of interest concerns that are far more difficult to mitigate and manage. Because their financial interests are enormous and range across many parts of the economy, standard conflict of interest measures have proven difficult to implement.
Archon Fung serves on the National Governing Board of Common Cause, whose mission is to “to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest.” The organization has advocated to control conflicts of interest of many public figures, including Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
He also consults for Apple and serves on the Board of Advisors for the Boston Review.
How emotionally close you are to your pet is not necessarily a good measure of how your relationship affects your well-being.Nattalia Nuñez/Unsplash, CC BY-ND
For many people, pets provide unconditional love, companionship and a sense of security. But not all human-pet relationships are beneficial, and some may contribute to stress and anxiety rather than relief.
Psychologists have been studying attachment theory for decades. This framework explains how people form emotional bonds, seek closeness and manage separation. People with secure attachment tend to feel safe in relationships, while those with attachment anxiety may crave closeness but frequently worry about rejection or loss.
Just like with human relationships, people form attachment bonds with pets. Some form secure attachments, finding comfort in their pet and viewing them as a reliable source of companionship. Others experience anxious attachment, feeling excessive worry, distress and a heightened need for reassurance when separated from their pet.
In our recently published research, my research team and I found that attachment anxiety is strongly linked to depression symptoms among owners. This suggests that well-being isn’t just about having a pet, but about the quality of your bond.
Strong bonds aren’t always healthy bonds
My team and I set out to explore whether the way people bond with their pets has a measurable effect on their mental well-being.
We surveyed over 1,000 pet owners in the U.S. about their closeness to their pets; how often they engaged in activities like playing, cuddling or spending time together; and whether they felt secure or anxious in the relationship. We also measured symptoms of depression to examine how different characteristics of pet bonds might influence mental well-being.
Our results revealed a clear pattern: Higher pet attachment anxiety was the strongest predictor of depression symptoms. In other words, people who felt overly dependent on their pets, constantly worrying about being apart from them or whether their pet “loved” them back, were more likely to experience depression symptoms.
For mental health, emotional security in your relationship with your pet may matter more than how frequently you interact. Darwin Boaventura/Unsplash, CC BY-ND
Surprisingly, simply feeling emotionally close to a pet was not enough to predict better mental health. While some may assume that a stronger bond with a pet automatically leads to greater well-being, our findings suggest that the quality of the attachment matters more than its intensity. People with secure pet relationships reported better well-being, while those with higher attachment anxiety experienced greater distress.
We also found that while frequent pet interactions were linked to stronger and more secure human-pet bonds, interaction frequency did not significantly predict mental health outcomes. This reinforces the idea that emotional security in the relationship, rather than just the frequency of interaction, is what truly matters for mental health.
Interestingly, people who owned both a cat and a dog reported more depression symptoms than those with only one type of pet. While our study did not determine the cause, one possibility is that managing multiple pets can add stress or increase the burden of caregiving.
How pet relationships shape your mental health
Our findings highlight that pet ownership is not a one-size-fits-all solution for mental health. The way people bond with their pets – whether they feel emotionally secure or experience anxiety in the relationship – may be just as important as pet ownership itself in shaping well-being.
This research also raises important questions about the role of emotional support animals and animal-assisted interventions. If pet ownership is going to be integrated into mental health care, it may not be enough to simply encourage pet companionship. Instead, the quality of the human-animal bond could be a key factor in whether pets provide comfort or contribute to emotional distress.
This study does not suggest that people should stop seeking emotional support from pets. Instead, it highlights how the way people bond with their pets can influence well-being in ways they may not always realize.
For those who rely on their pets for emotional support, recognizing these patterns may help foster a bond that feels reassuring rather than stressful. Pets can provide deep comfort, but caregiving comes with challenges, too. Reflecting on both the joys and responsibilities of pet ownership can help strengthen the human-animal bond, supporting the well-being of both pets and owners.
Brian N. Chin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Conversation asked epidemiologistAnnette Regan to explain why this flu season is different from last year’s and what people can do to help reduce the spread.
How do flu cases and hospitalizations this year compare with previous years?
Beginning in late January and extending through February 2025, flu hospitalizations have been higher than any other week since before 2009.
Most flu cases appear to be from influenza A strains, with a split between influenza A/H3N2 and influenza A/H1N1. These are two different subtypes of the influenza A virus.
Researchers believe that historically seasons that are predominated by influenza A/H3N2 infections tend to be more severe, but infections from influenza A/H1N1 can still be very severe.
This year’s season is also peaking “late” compared with the past three flu seasons, which peaked in early or late December.
Unfortunately, there have been a number of deaths from flu too this season. Since Jan. 1, 2025, alone, over 4,000 people, including 68 children, have died from flu. While the number of deaths do not mark a record number, it shows that flu can be a serious illness, even in children.
Unless directed otherwise, everyone ages 6 months and older should get a flu shot.
Why are flu cases so high this year?
There are a number of factors behind any severe season, including poor community protection from low immunization rates and low natural immunity, virus characteristics, vaccine effectiveness and increased human contact via travel, office work or schools.
Unfortunately, flu vaccination rates have declined since the COVID-19 pandemic. At the end of the 2023-24 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors’ offices compared with an average year before the pandemic.
Flu vaccination rates began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. Flu vaccination in children has dropped from 59% in 2019-20 to 46% in 2024-25. In adults 65 years and older, the group with the greatest risk of hospitalization and death, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-20 to 43% in 2024-25.
Lower vaccination rates mean a greater portion of the population is not protected by vaccines. Data shows that vaccination reduces the risk of flu hospitalization. Even if a vaccinated person gets infected, they may be less likely to experience severe illness. As a result, low vaccination rates could contribute to higher flu severity this season.
However, low vaccination rates are probably not the only reason for the high rates of flu this season. In previous severe seasons, genetic changes to the viruses have made them better at infecting people and more likely to cause severe illness.
The effectiveness of annual flu vaccines varies depending on how well the vaccine matches the circulating virus. The effectiveness of vaccines ranges from 19% to 60% in any given season. In the 2023-24 flu season, the vaccine was 42% effective.
Similarly, early 2024-25 data from the U.S. shows that the vaccine was 41% to 55% effective against flu hospitalizations in adults and 63% to 78% effective against flu hospitalizations in children.
Something as simple as regular handwashing could keep you from getting the flu.
How do seasonal flu symptoms differ from COVID-19 and other illnesses?
It’s important to remember that people often incorrectly refer to “the flu” when they have a common cold. Flu is caused only by the influenza virus, which tends to be more severe than common colds and more commonly causes a fever.
Many of the signs and symptoms for flu, COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses are the same and can range from mild coldlike symptoms to pneumonia and respiratory distress. Common flu symptoms are fever, cough and fatigue, and may also include shortness of breath, a sore throat, nasal congestion, muscle aches and headache.
Some symptoms, such as changes in or loss of taste and smell, are more common for COVID-19. For both COVID-19 and flu, the symptoms do not start until about one to four days after infection, and symptoms seem to last longer for COVID-19.
The only way to know what virus is causing an infection is to test. This can be done using a rapid test, some of which now test for flu and COVID-19 together, or by seeing a doctor and getting tested using a nasal swab. There are prescription antiviral medications available to treat flu and COVID-19, but they need to be taken near the time that symptoms start.
Some people are at high risk of severe flu and COVID-19, such as those who are immunosuppressed, have diabetes or have chronic heart or lung conditions. In these cases, it is important to seek early care and treatment from a health care professional. Some doctors will also prescribe via telehealth calls, which can help reduce the strain on doctors’ offices, urgent care centers and emergency rooms when infection rates are high.
What can people do now to help steer clear of the flu?
There are a number of ways people can reduce their risk of getting or spreading flu. Since the flu season is still underway, it’s not too late to get a flu vaccine. Even in seasons when the vaccine’s effectiveness is low, it is likely to offer better protection compared with remaining unvaccinated.
Handwashing and disinfecting high-traffic surfaces can help reduce contact with the flu virus. Taking efforts to avoid contact with sick people can also help, including wearing a mask when in health care facilities.
Those who have been diagnosed with flu or are experiencing flu-like symptoms should avoid contact with other people, especially in crowded spaces. Covering coughs and sneezes can help reduce the amount of virus that is spread.
Annette Regan receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Global Vaccine Data Network, and she is employed by the Department of Research & Evaluation at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel Pastula, Professor of Neurology, Medicine (Infectious Diseases), and Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
In an interview with The Conversation U.S. associate health editor Alla Katsnelson, neurologist and medical epidemiologist Daniel Pastula explains why measles is so dangerous and how people and communities can protect themselves from the virus.
What is measles, and where does it come from?
Measles is an ancient disease caused by a virus that probably evolved in cattle and jumped into humans around 500 B.C. One of the first written accounts of it comes from a Persian physician named Rhazes in the ninth century C.E., and measles epidemics were described in medieval Europe and western Asia regularly beginning around 1100-1200. The virus got brought over to the Americas in the 1500s, and it wiped out large populations of native people as Europeans colonized the continent.
By the 1950s in the United States, there were 500,000 reported cases of measles each year – though the true number was probably closer to 4 million . It was so contagious, every kid was thought to have gotten measles by age 15. At that time, measles caused close to 50,000 hospitalizations annually and about 500 deaths, usually in children. It also caused over 1,000 cases of severe brain inflammation every year.
Since then, there have been occasional minor flare-ups, usually brought in by international travelers, but by and large, measles outbreaks have been rare. No one had died of it in the United States in nearly a decade.
Today, measles infections in the U.S. are almost completely preventable with vaccination.
About 10 to 14 days after infection, people suffering from measles experience a very high fever, cold-like symptoms including a runny nose and sneezing, and eye inflammation called conjunctivitis.
Next, they may develop white spots called Koplik spots inside their mouth and a diffuse, spotty, red rash that starts at the head and neck, then descends across the entire body. This rash is where the disease gets its name – the word “measles” is thought to come from a medieval Dutch word for “little blemishes.”
Symptoms of measles infection take about three weeks to resolve. People are contagious from about four days before symptoms emerge to four days after the rash starts.
What are the possible severe outcomes of measles?
Epidemiologists estimate that 1 in 5 people who are infected with measles get sick enough to be hospitalized. About 1 in 10 develop ear infections, some of which may result in permanent deafness.
About 1 in 20 people develop severe measles pneumonia, which causes trouble breathing. Reports from west Texas this month suggest that many infected children there have measles pneumonia.
About 1 in 1,000 people develop severe brain swelling. Both measles pneumonia and brain swelling can be fatal. About 3 in 1,000 people die after contracting measles.
In about 1 in 10,000 who get sick with measles and recover from it, the virus lies dormant in the brain for about a decade. It then can reactivate, causing a severe, progressive dementia called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is fatal within one to three years. There is no treatment or cure for the disease. I have seen a couple of suspected cases of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, and none of these patients survived, despite our best efforts.
Given how contagious measles is and how severe the outcomes can be, physicians and public health experts are gravely concerned right now.
How does measles spread?
Measles is one of the most contagious infectious diseases on the planet. The virus is so infectious that if you are in a room with an infected person and you are not vaccinated and have never had measles before, you have a 90% chance of becoming infected.
The measles virus is transmitted by droplets released into the air by infected people when they cough, sneeze or simply breathe. Virus particles can survive suspended in the air or on indoor surfaces for up to two hours, so people can get infected by touching a surface carrying virus particles and then touching their face.
Who should get the measles vaccine, and how effective is it?
The vaccine for measles has historically been called the MMR vaccine because it has been bundled with vaccines for two other diseases – mumps and rubella. Most children in the U.S. receive it as a two-dose regimen, which is 97% effective against measles.
Children generally get the first dose of the vaccine at 12-15 months old and the second dose when they are 4-6 years old. Infants who haven’t reached their first birthday generally do not receive it since their immune system is not yet fully developed and they do not develop quite as robust of an immune response. In an emergency, though, babies as young as 6 to 9 months old can be vaccinated. If an infant’s mother previously received the MMR vaccine or had been infected herself as a child, her transferred antibodies probably offer some protection, but this wanes in the months after birth.
People born before 1957 are considered immune without getting the vaccine because measles was so widespread at that time that everyone was presumed to have been infected. However, certain people in this age group, such as some health care workers, may wish to discuss vaccination with their providers. And some people who had the original version of the vaccine in the 1960s may need to get revaccinated, as the original vaccine was not as effective as the later versions.
In recent years, vaccination rates for measles and other diseases have fallen.
Based on available evidence, the vaccine is effective for life, so people who received two doses are most likely protected.
A single dose of the vaccine is 93% effective. Most people vaccinated before 1989 got just one dose. That year, an outbreak in vaccinated children with one dose spurred public health officials to begin recommending two doses.
People with certain risk factors who received only one dose, and everyone who has never received a dose, should talk to their health care providers about getting vaccinated. Because the vaccine is a live but weakened version of the virus, those who are severely immunocompromised or are currently pregnant cannot get it.
People who are immunocompromised, which includes those who have chronic conditions such as autoimmune disorders, are undergoing certain cancer treatments or have received an organ transplant, are more susceptible to measles even if they have been vaccinated.
In the current measles epidemic in Texas, the vast majority of people falling ill are unvaccinated. Public health officials there are urging unvaccinated people in affected areas to get vaccinated.
What measures can protect communities from measles outbreaks?
Vaccination is the best way to protect individuals and communities from measles. It’s also the most effective way to curb an ongoing outbreak.
High rates of vaccination are important because of a phenomenon called herd immunity. When people who are vaccinated do not get infected, it essentially stops the spread of the virus, thereby protecting those who are most susceptible to getting sick. When herd immunity wanes, the risk of infection rises for everyone – and especially for the most vulnerable, such as young children and people who are immunocompromised.
Because measles is so contagious, estimates suggest that 95% of the population must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Once vaccine coverage falls below that percentage, outbreaks are possible.
Having robust public health systems also provides protection from outbreaks and limits their spread. Public health workers can detect cases before an outbreak occurs and take preventive steps. During a measles outbreak, they provide updates and information, administer vaccines, track cases and oversee quarantine for people who have been exposed and isolation for people who are contagious.
Daniel Pastula does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
President Donald Trump’s various actions that appear to overstep the power of the executive office are creating what many legal scholars call a constitutional crisis. VladSt/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images
There is not one clear definition of what a constitutional crisis actually is. And, as constitutional law scholar Jeffrey Schmitt explains in an interview with Amy Lieberman, politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., there is also no comparable historical example for Trump’s exercise of executive power.
Former USAID employees terminated after the Trump administration dismantled the agency collect their personal belongings at the USAID headquarters on Feb. 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Why are some people calling what is currently underway a constitutional crisis?
I think legal experts are concerned that Trump is expanding executive power beyond anything we have known in American history. And as executive power continues to expand, we may eventually hit a tipping point that threatens the structure of the government, as laid out in the Constitution.
If the Constitution has one central feature, it is the separation of powers. The Constitution divides power between the states and the federal government, and federal power is divided between the three branches of government – the executive, judicial and legislative.
Now, Trump appears to be taking over Congress’ core powers, including taxing and spending. Typically, Congress passes a budget, and the president can sign or veto the bill. Once the budget is passed into law, the president cannot refuse to spend the allocated money.
Trump is freezing spending on things he does not support politically, like foreign aid. He also is trying to place new conditions on the disbursement of federal funds as a way to control state and private institutions. For example, a recent letter from his administration threatens to withhold federal funding from schools that do not abandon DEI programs.
Trump has also fired top officials at independent agencies such as a member of the independent National Labor Relations Board, when federal law and Supreme Court precedent indicate that he has no constitutional authority to do so. He has also fired agency watchdogs without following legal requirements to give Congress 30 days notice. When he fired most USAID employees and froze the agency’s foreign aid payments, he shuttered an entire agency established by Congress.
And his firing of thousands of federal workers isn’t just about who works in government – cuts like this make an agency unable to perform its mission.
The federal courts are intervening in some cases, but they are blocking only a small fraction of the president’s actions.
Are there other times in history the country has come close to a constitutional crisis?
President Abraham Lincoln and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt both led the country during periods of constitutional change, and they both clashed with the Supreme Court.
Slavery in the federal territories was the constitutional crisis that precipitated the Civil War. This issue dominated politics throughout the 1850s because people thought it would determine the future of slavery as new states were admitted to the Union. When Congress was unable to reach an agreement, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories in the infamous case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.
But opposition to the expansion of slavery was the unifying principle of the young Republican Party. So, during the election of 1860, Lincoln argued that Dred Scott was not binding on the country because it was not settled precedent. He acknowledged, though, that the court’s decisions are binding in the case before it.
When Lincoln campaigned for president in 1860, he promised to appoint judges who would overrule Dred Scott and to work with Congress to ban slavery in the territories. When Lincoln realized that constitutional change was necessary, he worked tirelessly to get the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, ratified in 1865.
Franklin Roosevelt also worked within the constitutional system to expand the role of the federal government in the New Deal, a series of domestic public works programs in the 1930s. When the Supreme Court ruled against early New Deal programs, FDR complained that the justices were old and out of touch.
So Roosevelt in 1937 proposed packing the Supreme Court with new justices in a transparent attempt to push the court into accepting his broad reading of federal power. This proposed change never became law, but the Supreme Court changed its views on federal power at roughly the same time, ending the crisis. The country overwhelmingly supported the New Deal’s expansion of federal power in several national elections.
President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson appear at an event in Miami on Jan. 27, 2025. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
How does today’s situation involving Trump differ?
Unlike Lincoln or Roosevelt, Trump is trying to seize the powers of Congress and unilaterally transform the federal government. Roosevelt worked with Congress to pass legislation and eventually convince the Supreme Court to accept his views. And while Lincoln rejected the court’s proslavery reading of the Constitution, Trump may be rejecting its central feature – the structural balance of power.
Can the country resolve this crisis?
Aside from Trump deciding to change course, there is not much that can be done. Courts can issue orders, but they do not have a military and cannot easily enforce them.
Congress has the power to remove the president, via impeachment. As we learned during Trump’s first term, however, impeachment is not easy.
If the president decides to ignore the courts – and Congress continues to do nothing – the final constitutional check on Trump’s power will be the next federal election.
Jeffrey Schmitt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Adam Lenton, Assistant Professor of Politics & International Affairs, Wake Forest University
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow on Feb. 23, 2025.Sergei Bobylyov/AFP via Getty Images
At face value, the Kremlin has plenty to celebrate after U.S. and Russian officials held high-level bilateral talks on the war in Ukraine for the first time since the full-scale conflict began in 2022.
Russian delegates at the meeting, which took place on Feb. 18 in Saudi Arabia, struck an ebullient tone. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov concluded that “the American side has begun to better understand our position,” while Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and an envoy for Moscow, noted that the delegates managed to loosen up enough to laugh and joke. President Vladimir Putin did not attend the meeting, but he characterized it the following day as “very friendly,” going as far as to describe the American delegation as “completely different people” who were “ready to negotiate with an open mind and without any judgment over what was done in the past.”
And the talks are far from the only reason for optimism in Moscow. In statements that echoed Kremlin propaganda, U.S. President Donald Trump blamed Ukraine for being invaded and described Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a “dictator.” The U.S. then sided with Russia in two United Nations votes on the conflict and opposed language describing Russia as the aggressor in a draft G7 statement marking the anniversary of the war.
This perceived rapprochement between Washington and Moscow has many critics on both sides of the Atlantic.
Within Russia the reaction has been mixed. And not everybody in Moscow is celebrating the apparent shift in U.S. policy.
Favoring pragmatism
Of course, many Russians would welcome a thaw in relations. In January, Russia’s leading independent polling group found that 61% of Russians favored peace talks over continuing the war in Ukraine – the highest level yet. Meanwhile, the number of web searches for “When will the ‘Special Military Operation’ end?” on Yandex, a Russian tech firm, reached its highest-ever weekly total in the wake of the U.S.-Russia talks.
While public opinion is unlikely to shape the Kremlin’s approach given Putin’s sole control over major foreign policy decisions, evidence suggests that a rapprochement with the United States could also be a boon for Putin at home.
In a recently published article in the peer-reviewed journal International Security, my co-author Henry Hale and I found that while most Russians view the U.S. and NATO as threats, they largely prefer a pragmatic, measured response from the Kremlin – an approach they believed Putin delivered prior to the war in 2022.
High-level summits between Russia and the U.S. have tended to be well received, we found. This is because they tap into a widely held preference for cooperation as well as depicting Russia as a geopolitical “equal” to the U.S.
Pro-war hardliners speak out
Yet not everyone is pleased with the prospect of closer U.S. ties. Russia’s vocal minority of tub-thumping war supporters is already angry.
This loose community of so-called “Z-patriots” – a reference to the large “Z” letters marking Russian military equipment at the beginning of the war – has been a double-edged sword for the Kremlin.
While they have been helpful in mobilizing grassroots support for the war, they have also lambasted Moscow’s execution and made pointed criticisms of top military brass. Such attacks are, in effect, a way of making veiled attacks on Putin himself.
And we are talking about a sizable minority. Estimates indicate that Z-patriots – the more hawkish and ideologically committed segment of war supporters – represent 13% to 27% of the Russian population.
One of this group’s most prominent ideologues, Zakhar Prilepin, didn’t pull any punches in a recent interview. He described as “humiliating” the fact that “the Russian media community, political scientists and politicians are dancing with joy and telling us how wonderful everything is (now that) Trump has arrived.”
There are reasons to take this group seriously. According to Marlène Laruelle, an expert on nationalism and ideology in Russia, the Z-patriots are emerging as key opinion leaders.
Unlike other ideological camps in Russia, the Z-patriots are very much a product of the war, having emerged from the popular military blogging community and with deep connections to paramilitary and veterans organizations. Indeed, many sympathized with former mercenary Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin’s anti-elite rants, while Igor Girkin, a former Donbas warlord who claimed to have sparked the initial war in eastern Ukraine in 2014, openly mocked Putin to his almost million-strong Telegram followers.
The Kremlin partially cracked down on some of the Z-patriots in 2023. Prigozhin’s ill-fated mutiny in June was followed by his suspicious death in a plane crash later that summer, while Girkin was jailed and handed a four-year prison sentence for “inciting extremism.”
Yet the Z-patriots remain a force. Girkin, commenting on the U.S.-Russia talks from prison, lamented the “egregious managerial and command failure” over the past three years and sarcastically concluded that Moscow’s political elites, aware of their own weakness, are likely to “‘drag their heels’ in their inimitable style – and with their well-known genius.”
Some of the sharpest criticisms of the Kremlin have been about the economy.
Recent weeks have seen renewed optimism among many in Russia that sanctions relief is on the horizon and that sought-after Western brands may return. Russia – since 2022 the most sanctioned country in the world – had previously appeared to accept that sanctions would remain for decades to come.
A few days later, Putin announced a willingness to develop Russia’s rare earth minerals with foreign partners, including the United States, in what appeared to be an attempt to outbid Zelenskyy.
This, too, provoked a populist backlash among Z-patriots.
Another displayed dismay that “stealing Russia’s natural resources once again became a prospect for mutually beneficial cooperation with American partners.”
“We’ve barely begun to develop small and medium businesses,” Prilepin noted, deriding the “unbearable” excitement around the possibility of Western brands returning.
These sentiments have struck a chord with other parts of society. After all, some Russian businesses have benefited from Western brands’ exit from the Russian market. The government is attempting to fend off these criticisms with a new bill proposed to Russia’s parliament on Feb. 27 calling to ban Western companies that had financially supported Ukraine.
What to do about veterans?
Perhaps most consequential will be what happens to the hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers currently on the front lines.
While runaway military spending and lavish payouts to soldiers continue to strain the Russian economy, demobilization also poses risks.
A report from the Institute for the Study of War recently concluded that demobilization would be politically risky for the Kremlin, fearful that masses of disgruntled veterans might constitute a potential challenge.
That said, many of the estimated 700,000 Russian troops in Ukraine will eventually return to civilian life and likely become an important constituency in Russian politics moving forward.
The Z-patriots may be a product of war, but they will have an afterlife beyond it. Meanwhile, regardless of any Russian rapprochement with the White House – or perhaps because of it – Russia’s hawks won’t be turning into doves anytime soon.
Adam Lenton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
If you are a frequent flyer, you’ve probably been at the airport waiting to jet somewhere on a winter trip when the voice of an airline employee announces over the intercom that there will be a slight delay while the plane gets deiced. But how does this process actually work, and why is it needed?
As a mechanical engineer who studies frost growth and water droplets on surfaces, I have come to appreciate the importance of deicing planes. Indeed, deicing is an important safety step performed by the airlines on wintry days because of how snow and ice can affect the physics of flying.
Why deice?
In short, deicing is necessary because snow and ice on airplane wings can decrease lift by as much as 30%. Lift is the vertical upward force that keeps a plane in the sky. It is generated when air flows over the wings of a plane.
Ice and snow can alter how air flows over the wings, which can affect a pilot’s ability to maneuver and control the aircraft. It can also increase the stall speed, which is not good either. Stall speed is the minimum speed needed by an aircraft to generate enough lift to keep it aloft.
Additionally, ice on the wings can break off in flight, potentially damaging one or more of the flaps on the wings or an engine. Needless to say, deicing has become an indispensable part of flying, especially in the winter months.
Operators apply green anti-icing fluid to the wing of a plane. The green hue, which indicates a Type IV fluid, helps the operators see which parts they might have missed. Orchidpoet/E+ via Getty Images
Deicing chemicals
Most people are familiar with the chemical deicers that are used on roads during the winter months. However, the salts in these products can be corrosive, so they’re not used on aircraft.
Glycols are very good at lowering the freezing point of water, which makes it harder for water to freeze or stay frozen on surfaces. Propylene glycol and ethylene glycol are the two most common types used, typically making up 30% to 70% of the deicing solution.
Glycols are made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Pictured here is the chemical structure of ethlyene glycol. Cacycle/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
For years, only ethylene glycol was used in deicers because of its low cost. However, because propylene glycol is less toxic to wildlife and humans, its adoption by commercial airlines has grown steadily since the 1980s.
How does the deicing process work?
Airlines use four standard fluid types when deicing aircraft. These fluids have different viscosities – viscosity is a measure of a fluid’s resistance to flow – and holdover times, which is the length of time the fluids are expected to protect the plane during snow or icing conditions.
The deicing process includes both complex crew logistics and interesting science.
In the United States, airlines typically use a two-step process before flying. First, they perform deicing using either a heated Type I fluid or a heated solution of Type I fluid and water.
Deicing removes existing ice and snow from the wings of the plane, which is why airlines often heat the deicing fluid to around 140 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 66 degrees Celsius) before application.
Type I fluids are the thinnest of the deicing fluids, and they’re often red or orange. They spread the easiest on a plane’s surface because they have the lowest viscosity. Since they’re thin enough to flow off a plane when it’s not moving – or moving slowly – they can be applied to any aircraft.
But as a result, they also have the shortest holdover times, often less than 20 minutes depending on the weather conditions. These holdover times vary, though, and can be less than five minutes for snow if the outside air temperature is below 14 F (minus 10 C).
Next, the ground crews will typically apply an anti-icing fluid to the aircraft – often Type II or Type IV. Anti-icing solutions are used to help prevent the future accumulation of snow and ice on the wings of planes.
Type II and Type IV fluids contain thickening agents that increase their viscosity. These thickeners allow the fluid to remain on the aircraft longer to help melt newly forming frost or ice. This translates to longer holdover times – often more than 30 minutes for snow – but it also means the plane needs to reach a higher speed to shear, or blow off, the fluid.
Once applied, Type II and IV fluids will generally stay on the aircraft until the plane is taxiing down the runaway during takeoff. By then, it has gained enough speed to produce the shear force necessary to remove the fluid from the plane. Type II fluids are a clear or pale straw color, while Type IV fluids are generally green. Including a colored dye helps the ground crew clearly see what parts of the plane have been coated and which areas still need application.
Type III fluids are not as common anymore. They are formulated to shear off at lower speeds and thus are sometimes used on small commuter aircraft since these planes typically don’t go as fast as commercial jetliners.
Environmental impact of deicing
Environmental considerations are also an important part of deicing. Glycols require a lot of oxygen to biodegrade, which can deplete dissolved oxygen in streams or lakes. This, in turn, can threaten aquatic life, like fish and other organisms, that need dissolved oxygen to breathe.
Airports are also increasingly starting to use fluid recovery systems to recycle the glycols and capture the additives in these fluids, which are often toxic, too. They’ll often use designated areas outside for deicing planes so they can collect and store the fluids after they run off the plane in holding tanks underground until they can be recycled.
Atmospheric icing
During flight, planes use other technologies to mitigate the icing risks. For example, most modern aircraft use bleed air systems, which channel hot air from the engine’s compressor through interior ducts to the leading edges of the wings and other critical areas to help prevent ice buildup while the plane is in the sky.
Some planes also use electrically heated panels embedded in the aircraft’s wings to generate heat. These control systems typically cannot be used while the plane is on the ground, since they rely on cold air flowing across the wing’s surface. This airflow is usually achieved at cruising altitude and is necessary to prevent the plane’s surface from getting too hot.
Airlines may sometimes also use icephobic coatings to help keep new ice from forming and sticking on the outside surfaces of planes. These coatings delay how soon new ice can form. They can also reduce how strongly the ice adheres to the surface.
Smaller planes may also use inflatable rubber strips called pneumatic boots on the wings that can be inflated as needed to break off accumulated ice on the leading edge of the wings.
Flying is truly a modern scientific marvel. A lot of engineering goes into not only getting planes off the ground but also keeping them ice-free during flight. So the next time you experience a weather-related delay at the airport, just remember that deicing is needed to ensure both a safe flight and a truly uplifting one.
Andrew Sommers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When wind or other disturbances detach winged maple seeds called samaras from their parent tree, they spin through the air – and can even spin when it’s raining. Impacts by high-speed raindrops only briefly interrupt the seed’s spinning because the seed can shed the drop rapidly and restart its spinning in less time than it takes to blink.
If you live somewhere with maple trees, you’ve probably seen their striking helicopter seeds – made up of a seed pod attached to a delicate wing. Maple samaras’ unique design and spinning movement can teach physicists like me about seed dispersal patterns and even engineering new types of flying vehicles.
The samaras’ spinning movement, called autorotation, keeps them in the air for longer so they travel farther.
The spinning flight of a maple samara.
In a February 2025 study, my colleagues and I filmed raindrops as they crashed into autorotating samaras. The samaras shed drops by shattering them, flinging the drops off, or rolling out of the way – like they’re turning away from a punch. If a drop falls in just the right place, the spinning seed can cut it in half.
The movement of a samara as it spins through the air. Our new study captured this pattern using a high-speed camera. Breanna Shaeffer and Andrew Dickerson, University of Tennessee-Knoxville
In order to keep flying, the samaras must shed the entire drop. Samaras shed drops fastest when the drops hit the heavier, round nutlet part of the seed, rather than the wing. Shedding is made easier by the samaras’ mildly water-repellent surface. We estimated that raindrop collisions reduce a samara’s time in flight and the distance it travels while spinning, but by less than 10%.
Why it matters
Maples are an important species to the Eastern United States. They provide syrup and timber, making them economically and commercially significant.
My team’s results provide context for other studies focused on how wind transports rotating and nonrotating seeds alike. Some seeds can even travel hundreds of miles.
From an engineering perspective, the insights gained from our study could inform the design of new types of aerial vehicles that use autorotation to ride the wind without a motor. Mimicking the shapes of these seeds could help such vehicles quickly recover from disruptions to flight.
Samaras are also visually intriguing. Discovering more about how small, beautiful parts of nature thrive could help scientists get people interested in the environment.
What still isn’t known
Maple samaras represent just one way that seeds use the wind to disperse farther. A dandelion’s parachute-like float relies on the seed’s light weight and high drag. A hop tree seed uses a single, wafer-shaped seed to flutter, while triplaris seeds have three wings that achieve a helicopter-like spin. Researchers still aren’t sure how raindrops can affect the flight of these seeds.
What’s next
Next, my colleagues and I hope to unravel the flight mechanics of the “rolling samaras” found on tulip poplar and ash trees. These seeds rotate like maple samaras, but the wing also rolls around the axis that runs across its wingspan as it does so.
Not only do we plan to compare their flight performance against the more recognizable maple samara, but we will also study how these seeds respond to perturbations such as wing damage and crosswinds.
How I do my work
I like to uncover the complexity in seemingly simple systems. So many of the brief, small and common interactions in our world are wonderfully beautiful. I seek to tell those stories through a camera lens and with mathematical flair.
Andrew Dickerson receives funding from the National Science Foundation.
So, it’s happened. You’re on stage, Oscar statue in hand, facing Hollywood’s finest and millions of viewers. You could keep it simple – thank your agent, your co-stars, your dog. Or you could use this moment to say something that matters.
That’s exactly what Jane Fonda just did at the 2025 Screen Actors Guild Awards, urging the audience “to resist successfully what is coming at us” as Elon Musk’s Doge holds a chainsaw to the US federal government. From the cold war to civil rights to Trump 2.0, award ceremonies have always been stages for activism.
Some of these political speeches have been electrifying. Some have flopped. Some have been drowned out by the orchestra before they even got started. If you’re going to make a political speech at the Oscars, you’d better do it right.
Thankfully, Kenneth Burke — one of the 20th century’s most influential rhetorical scholars — offers a road map. His theories on identification, dramatism and symbolic action explain why some speeches resonate while others fall flat.
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.
1. Know your two (very different) audiences
Burke argued in the 1950s that rhetoric isn’t just about persuasion – it’s about identification. A speaker is most persuasive when they convince their audience that they share the same values and concerns. If people feel you’re “one of them”, they’re more likely to listen.
The Oscars create a unique rhetorical challenge. Inside LA’s Dolby Theatre, you might be surrounded by like-minded pampered progressives. But beyond that room, millions of viewers at home may be far less receptive.
Michael Moore’s infamous acceptance speech in 2003.
Director Michael Moore learned this the hard way in 2003 when, after winning best documentary for his film Bowling for Columbine, he stormed the stage and declared: “Shame on you, Mr Bush! Shame on you!” The result? A mix of cheers and boos. And days of being pilloried on cable news. Instead of drawing people in, Moore’s approach alienated half his audience.
Compare this with Meryl Streep’s speech at the 2017 Golden Globes when collecting her lifetime achievement award. She also criticised her president but framed it differently: “Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”
She didn’t need to utter Donald Trump’s name. And because she framed her speech as a universal concern, rather than a partisan attack, it resonated beyond the room.
2. Put yourself in the story
Burke’s second idea is that all communication is “dramatic” – a performance shaped by setting, characters and conflict. In a political speech, the most compelling “character” is often you, the speaker.
Audiences don’t just respond to abstract arguments. They connect with people who embody the very struggle they’re speaking about.
Lily Gladstone accepting the Golden Globe for best actress in 2024.
Lily Gladstone’s 2024 Golden Globes speech worked this way. When she won best actress for Killers of the Flower Moon, she didn’t start with industry statistics or broad calls for change. Instead, she spoke in Blackfeet, honouring her Indigenous roots: “I just spoke a bit of Blackfeet language, a beautiful community – the nation that raised me.”
That one sentence transformed her win into a moment of cultural recognition, making her speech as much an act of representation as a speech about representation.
3. Frame your argument wisely
If you want your audience to engage, you must frame your message in a way that pulls them in. Whereas a speech that just states a problem can feel like noise, one that connects the issue to a larger story can be powerful.
This is where Burke’s idea of symbolic action comes in. He defined it as “the making or construction of social reality through symbols that foster identification”. Put another way: words don’t just describe reality, they shape it.
Oprah Winfrey’s speech from the 2018 Golden Globes.
Take Oprah Winfrey’s 2018 Golden Globes speech picking up the Cecil B. DeMille award. Instead of simply condemning sexism in Hollywood, she tied it to a broader historical movement, from civil rights to #MeToo: “For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dared to speak their truth to the power [of] those men. But their time is up. Their time is up!”
Winfrey wasn’t just talking about change – she was creating it in real time, rallying the room behind a clear, urgent message. That’s the difference between listing a problem and delivering a message that sticks.
4. Turn your speech into an act of protest
While framing helps persuade an audience, some moments go further, becoming acts of defiance themselves. This is when a speech moves beyond words into symbolic action.
Let’s take perhaps the most famous protest in Oscars history. In 1973, Marlon Brando refused to pick up his best actor statue – sending in his place Sacheen Littlefeather, who explained she was there as a protest for Hollywood’s treatment of Native American people.
Sacheen Littlefeather refuses to accept the best actor Oscar on behalf of Marlon Brando.
“He very regretfully cannot accept this very generous award,” she told the audience. “And the reasons for this being are the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry … and on television in movie reruns, and also with recent happenings at Wounded Knee.”
In under a minute, she transformed what could have been a quiet refusal into a national reckoning. The audience’s reaction – some cheering, some booing – only made it clearer. This wasn’t just a speech, it was a moment.
A speech that merely describes a problem may be forgotten, but one that transforms the moment itself? That’s the stuff of history.
5. Expect a backlash, and decide if you care
No matter how well you craft your speech, someone is going to be angry. Burke’s final idea for helping us understand this is the “scapegoat mechanism”, by which one figure is cast as the discordant element that must be removed to restore unity.
If you make a political speech at the Oscars, it could be you. Vanessa Redgrave learned this in 1978: after winning best supporting actress for her role in Julia, she defended her pro-Palestine activism against attacks from the Jewish Defence League, who she called a “bunch of Zionist hoodlums”. The reaction was instant – cheers mixed with boos.
Vanessa Redgrave accepts the Oscar for supporting actress in 1978.
Later that night, screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky publicly rebuked her, saying: “A simple ‘thank you’ would have sufficed.” The backlash hurt Redgrave’s career, but she stood by her words.
If you’re going to say something political, be prepared to own it. And make sure you beat the orchestra.
Tom F. Wright 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.
A federal judge in the District Court of Columbia will shortly decide if the US president, Donald Trump, is allowed to dictate the terms of service of the Associated Press (AP), the US wire agency that proudly proclaims it is read by 4 billion people every day.
In a (typically for this administration) knee-jerk decision on February 11, White House officials informed AP that its journalists would be barred from entering restricted areas such as the Oval Office and Air Force One until it stops using the geographic term “Gulf of Mexico” – in contravention of an executive order renaming it the “Gulf of America”.
AP’s style guide explains that the Gulf of Mexico has carried this name for more than 400 years, and that Trump’s order only holds authority within the US. It notes that as a global news agency, it “must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences”.
But the style guide adds that, while AP will continue to refer to the body of water by its original name, it will do so “while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen”.
According to AP’s executive editor, Julie Pace: “Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the first amendment” – which covers freedom of speech and the press.
In seeking to overturn the ban, AP brought a lawsuit (AP-v-Budowich-Complaint) against the White House chief of staff, Susan Wiles, the deputy chief of staff, Taylor Budowich, and its press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, in their official capacities.
After a short hearing, Judge Trevor N. McFadden – who was appointed by Trump – declined to restore AP’s access immediately, and instead set another hearing date for March 20. According to the Washington Post, the judge was “not sufficiently convinced the situation was ‘dire’ enough to warrant such an intervention” – and therefore was “not inclined to act precipitously on the executive office of the president”.
Following this decision, the White House denied access to Trump’s first cabinet meeting on February 26 to an AP photographer, as well as reporters from Reuters, HuffPost and German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. Instead, officials allowed in cameras from ABC and Newsmax, plus reporters from Axios, the Blaze, Bloomberg and NPR.
Pick and mix
But can the president be allowed this pick-and-mix approach to access to the seat of power?
The White House press pool has been in place for more than a century, with the seating allocation in the press briefing room decided by the board of the White House Correspondents’ Association. As the major American news agency, AP has traditionally held the coveted middle front-row seat, which it still retains – even though senior officials have tweeted veiled threats to rescind AP’s entire White House credentials.
The press briefing room holds 49 seats, with some seats shared between two companies on rotation, and a few journalists or photographers permitted to stand in the aisles when there is room. Meanwhile, Air Force One (in reality, two Boeing 747s used on rotation) only has room for 13 people to represent the entire White House press corps. The pool on the plane is ordinarily made up of three agency reporters (AP, Reuters and Bloomberg), four photographers (including from AP), three network TV journalists, a radio reporter and two print reporters.
Trump has an ongoing fight against “legacy” news outlets that dominated coverage before the advent of the internet. These media often have strict editorial guidelines, but the president has regularly dismissed them as “fake news”. During the election campaign, he ignored well-known programmes such as CBS’s Sixty Minutes in favour of Joe Rogan’s podcast.
At the Pentagon, Trump’s new military brooms have also been sweeping legacy media companies out of their briefing rooms. This list includes NBC, the New York Times, Politico, CNN and The Washington Post. In their place will go Trump-friendly outlets such as Newsmax and the Washington Examiner.
‘Privilege, not a right’
Meanwhile, a petition by media companies is calling on the US government to “honor its commitment to freedom of expression” by upholding “a nonpartisan defense of a free press”. Included on this petition are the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Press Institute, and the Society of Professional Journalists.
Members of the press pool are usually the only reporters that get to throw questions at senior members of the administration. Its members follow the president on important trips both nationally and internationally. AP is a widely trusted non-profit news organisation, and its reports get syndicated to media organisations throughout the world, with any profits used to pay for its staff and its newsgathering.
CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins questions the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt over the banning of AP from White House briefings.
The White House released a statement on February 24: “As we have said from the beginning, asking the president of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.”
However, having an independent arbiter making decisions about press pool representation is surely preferable in maintaining a free press and accountability than allowing each administration to pick its own reporters – or even its own facts.
Colleen Murrell received funding from Irish regulator Coimisiún na Meán (2021-4) for research for the annual Reuters Digital News Report Ireland.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Helen Drake, Professor of French and European Studies and Director of Loughborough University London’s Institute for Diplomacy and International Affairs, Loughborough University
If there was a book of diplomacy, then French president Emmanuel Macron threw it at US president Donald Trump in their joint press conference in Washington DC. Macron delivered quite the masterclass in the diplomatic arts. Unthreatening body language and public displays of affection? Check.
Meeting your interlocutor on any and every inch of common ground? Check. Macron’s willing use of fluent English was a key tactic here. Other than when answering French-language questions (when to have responded in English would have brought Macron yet more domestic grief), he adapted to the language of his hosts.
Macron and Trump’s press conference.
Recalling shared memories of happier, shared times? Check. It was smart to remind Trump of his time as a guest at the reopening of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris just a few months previously.
Gently correcting a friend in danger of veering too far from reality (here, regarding the extent and type of European aid to Ukraine) as you would expect from a true ally? Again, check.
These are the soft skills of diplomacy as communication between human beings to which Macron typically brings his heart, body and soul. On this occasion and on this criterion he outperformed even himself, and outclassed his host by some degree.
At times, Trump looked enraptured by this performance from such an interesting specimen of utter Europeanness. At others, the host fidgeted and listened stony-faced to the halting interpretation of Macron’s rapid-fire French. He tried a few gauche niceties of his own (“say hello to your beautiful wife”) and dialled up to the max his personal brand of touchy-feely diplomacy.
Behind the scenes
Beyond the memorable set pieces of diplomatic theatre lies, of course, the message itself. This must represent the voice, the interests and the concerns of the state or other diplomatic actor. But it may well go against the flow, disrupting the smooth surface of diplomatic pleasantries.
Former French president Charles de Gaulle notoriously ruffled cold-war feathers in the 1960s with rousing speeches to stir non-aligned countries and French-speaking people to contest the existing world order. Former foreign minister Dominique de Villepin will be remembered for his eloquent, impassioned plea to the United Nations security council in 2003 against the allied invasion of Iraq.
Macron has dabbled in free-wheeling diplomacy himself. He claimed in 2019 that Nato was close to “brain death” and maintained a dialogue with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In Macron’s account at the press conference with Trump, he closed this line of communication when he learned of the atrocities being perpetrated by Russian forces.
Articulating France’s global, strategic interests is where Macron feels most comfortable and probably where he is best suited (judged by the standards of his domestic political failings). His trip to Washington at such a pivotal moment in Trump’s second presidency, with the fate of Ukraine in the balance, was a natural move for a leader who, since the beginning of his first mandate in 2017, has sought to lead the European conversation about the continent’s security.
His sense of urgency to secure greater European autonomy and capacity in its defence lies behind his willingness to talk to all parties. France does, after all, go by the fiendishly untranslatable label of a “puissance d’équilibres” (which means an actor with the power to strike a balance but also perhaps to bring others into balance or even, simply, to keep the peace).
Macron’s readiness to confront the cold, hard facts of contemporary international relations – he has already told the French they need to put themselves on a wartime footing in economic terms – gives him a track record of sorts in the diplomatic negotiations now to come: between Europeans themselves, and between Europe and the US.
But facing down Macron’s fancy optics is one particularly awkward fact – namely that Trump does not do diplomacy by the book, or at least not the one he was metaphorically gifted by president Macron. Where the point of diplomacy is to establish a common language with shared codes and expectations in order to ease tensions and bridge differences between parties, Trump’s diplomatic how-to guide boasts new chapters on the arts of bullying, harassment, gaslighting and, of course, the deal.
For now, the US president is tolerating the quaint diplomatic overtures of these curious Europeans and given the ultra-high stakes of what couldn’t be further from a game, that is diplomacy itself.
Helen Drake 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 Benjamin Selwyn, Professor of International Relations and International Development, Department of International Relations, University of Sussex
The UK’s food system was described as broken in a recent parliamentary report – and it’s not hard to see why. High living costs, a health crisis of diet-related chronic disease, farmers’ incomes squeezed and low pay across the agricultural sector all play their parts.
And these elements are underpinned by an environmentally destructive mode of agricultural production – the longer the livestock-intensive system prevails, the greater the environmental, economic and social costs.
The opportunity cost of not dealing with the food crisis is severe. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission found that the price of the UK’s unhealthy food system is around £268 billion a year – almost equivalent to the government’s entire expenditure on health. And farmers are also worried about the sector as they face an unpredictable climate, smaller profits and changes to tax relief policies.
I have researched how a green new deal for agriculture – namely a food system that complements rather than undermines the environment, while tackling social inequities – could begin to address these problems.
In 2024 the UK’s farming sector experienced its second-worst harvest on record. Huge levels of rain last winter disrupted farmers’ ability to grow crops and reduced yields.
The UK’s population faces a significant health crisis, exacerbated by the high cost of living. In 2022, around two-thirds of the population across all four nations were either overweight or obese.
Retailers, processors and distributors grab an exorbitant share of the final value of many agricultural products. Sometimes farmers make as little as 1p profit for each item they produce. And farm workers’ earnings can sometimes leave them facing absolute poverty.
What’s more, the UK farming sector is systemically inefficient. Dairy and meat products provide about 32% of calories consumed in the UK, and less than half (48%) of the protein. At the same time, livestock and their feed make up 85% of the UK’s total land use for agriculture.
To make matters worse, land ownership is highly concentrated – about 25,000 landowners, typically corporations and members of the aristocracy, own about 50% of England, for example.
What would change look like?
A green new deal for agriculture would require a significant reorientation of policy, akin to the 1945 Labour government’s establishment of the welfare state. Critics might decry the costs and difficulties – but the longer the government waits, the greater the economic and environmental costs are likely to be.
The government could introduce compulsory sale orders to spread land ownership more evenly. These would enable public bodies to obtain land that has been left derelict, vacant or that has been used in environmentally damaging ways. These measures could be supported by the establishment of community land trusts – non-profit, democratic organisations that own and work land for the benefit of local people.
And a green new deal for agriculture could start with the government using its ecosystems service payments, where farmers and landowners are paid to manage their land in an environmentally beneficial way, to stimulate a transition to more plant-based proteins. This could combat hardship among farmers and agricultural workers, and tackle food poverty and ill health in the population. It would also establish the basis for a more sustainable agricultural system.
The UK think tank Green Alliance has mapped a green protein transition. It would entail an increase in “agro-ecologically” farmed land – that is, methods that bring a more ecological approach to farming. At present, this is about 3% of UK land, and it would have to rise to 60% by 2050. Under the plan, by 2030 10% of farmland would become semi-natural habitat, rising to one-third by 2050. This would protect land and facilitate natural restoration, and would also support agro-ecological farming methods.
In this scenario, Britons would be projected to eat 45% less meat and dairy, replacing them with alternative proteins – plants and synthetic foods such as those made from precision fermentation. This is a revolutionary technology producing proteins that can be used in new alternatives to meat and dairy.
Many conceptions of the protein transition from animal sources to more plant products ignore the necessity of improving farmers’ and agricultural workers’ incomes. But this will be crucial.
Ecosystems service payments should be broadened to include a focus on sustainable incomes. Farms can be paid directly by government for sustainable production to combat farmer poverty. And the real living wage of £12.60 an hour should be compulsory for agricultural workers.
As land use shifts from livestock grazing and feed crop production, more ground could be used for food crops for human consumption. There would then be more scope to change which food crops are produced – from wheat to legumes, for example.
Flour made from broad beans – which can be grown in the UK – packs a bigger protein punch than traditional wheat flour. Narsil/Shutterstock
Research has shown that flour made from broad beans is higher in key nutrients – protein, iron and fibre – than wheat flour. Bread, pasta, pizza, cakes and biscuits could increasingly be produced using broad bean flour, underpinning a shift towards more nutritious diets.
A protein transition would also free up land for fruit and vegetable production for domestic consumption, reducing the UK’s heavy import dependence by using polytunnels and environmentally sustainable greenhouses.
Climate breakdown means that the frequency of poor harvests will increase. And the volatile economic and political global picture means that affordable food imports cannot be taken for granted.
A green new deal for agriculture could begin to remedy many of the problems the UK faces due to its broken food system. What’s needed is a coalition including courageous political parties, farmers, and workers within and beyond food production. Working together, these groups would be well placed to withstand the economic, political and environmental shocks that are on the horizon.
Benjamin Selwyn 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.
Nobody likes to wait, and we are willing to pay to avoid it. Expedited shipping, fast food and video streaming are all profitable because they reduce or eliminate that wait. You can test this by asking a group of people to choose between receiving £100 now or £110 in a year. Research shows a significant majority will choose the £100.
But why do many people choose not to wait, when it seems obvious that they would be better off doing so? Sometimes this impatience is just put down to irrationality, impulsivity or short-sightedness, but there is also a long tradition in psychology and economics that views impatience as, at least in part, a rational response to the world.
Perhaps the world of today, or perhaps the world in which we evolved.
Recent research proposes that our evolutionary history shaped our impatience, and uses mathematical models to show how it works.
The key idea is this. Imagine a large population of identical people who can choose between enjoying an early reward, or a larger reward later in time. An example might be choosing between two hunting grounds, one close and one further away.
The closer one is guaranteed to yield a small animal quite quickly, while the farther one is likely to yield a big animal but only after a considerable wait or a gruelling hunt. Another example might be eating the juvenile, smaller fruit on a tree or waiting a few months until the fruit are abundant and ripe.
Of course there is a catch. If the people wait too long for the large reward, there is a chance they won’t live long enough to earn it. And even if they do, the ripe fruit might have vanished before they reached it, perhaps stolen by a rival.
As the authors of the recent study show, the animals (including humans) they model are better off taking the bird in the hand with even relatively small amounts of risk (you might not reach the birds) and uncertainty (there might not be two birds when you get there).
Although models like this are simplifications of the real world, they are valuable for conceptualising how evolution might have produced particular tendencies in humans and other animals. But this model doesn’t do a lot to explain the human impatience we see now.
In most studies of choice over time, people display high levels of impatience even in settings where risk is all but eliminated, and when it is financially beneficial to be patient.
One explanation is that the evolved way of valuing the future is still in place even in modern humans. We act as if the world is uncertain and risky, as it would have been for hunter gatherers, even when it is not.
Good things come to those who wait
Another explanation might be that we struggle to think about how the £110 is better than the £100. There is a lot of evidence for this.
Consider, for example, an experiment I carried out in 2012 with psychologists Marc Scholten and Shane Frederick. Participants chose between £700 now or £700 plus £42 in one year.
When given the choice in terms of monetary amounts, people were impatient. But if the £42 was described instead as “plus 6%” they were much more patient.
People know that earning 6% a year is a great interest rate. But many people do not do the calculations and the extra £42 seems paltry compared to the £700.
Another result that does not fit this evolutionary story concerns people’s responses to losses. Take a choice between paying a bill for £100 now or £100 later. A lot of people, often a majority, will prefer to pay the bill now. Indeed, some will prefer to pay £110 now rather than £100 later.
Yet the possibility that you will not have to pay a future bill, or that the bill might have vanished by the time you get to it (the indebted has forgotten or died) should make you want to delay paying bills as long as possible. The more common response is probably partly due to a fundamental aversion to debt, which does not have an obvious evolutionary basis, but it is associatedwith religiosity.
It remains to be seen if these complex preferences (such as patience for negative outcomes) can be explained by the process of natural selection, or if it is something that came later in human development.
Evolutionary theory is an essential tool for thinking about the foundations of human decision making. The modern world is, however, very different from the environment in which we evolved.
Andrée Blouin was a political activist and writer from the Central African Republic. Until recently, her name hardly ever appeared in the grand narratives of Africa’s liberation.
When she died in 1986, her passing was hardly in the news – a stark contrast to her pivotal role as an adviser and campaign strategist to newly independent African leaders in Algeria, both Congos, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Guinea and Ghana.
She was more than a participant. She was an organising force, an architect of resistance, a strategist who shaped the fight against colonial rule. Yet, like many women in African history, her contributions faded into the margins, overshadowed by the men she helped empower.
Interest in Blouin has been rekindled. She is featured in the Oscar-nominated documentary Soundtrack to a Coup d’État about DRC independence leader Patrice Lumumba. She worked as his speechwriter and chief of protocol.
Now a new annual book award called the Andrée Blouin Prize has been launched in her honour by a South Africa-based publishing house, Inkani Books. Its mission is to amplify the voices of African women, cisgender and transgender, writing about history, politics and current affairs from a left perspective.
For me as a literary historian who has been preoccupied with archives of marginal historical figures, this activation of Blouin powerfully highlights her legacy. It also invites new engagement with her work.
Who was Andrée Blouin?
Blouin was born in 1921 in Central African Republic but from the age of three she was placed in an orphanage in neighbouring Congo Brazzaville. She ran away when she was 14 and so began a life of rebellion.
She would grow up to be a formidable political operator. Her reach touches many parts of Africa. For her, the struggle was not just local, it was everywhere. As a multilingual person, she spoke a dozen languages, a gift that allowed her to easily move between places and political contexts.
Her political awakening was deeply personal – she was radicalised by her son’s death from malaria in a colonial hospital in 1942. He had been denied life-saving medication. Colonialism, she realised, was not just her own misfortune but a system of evil suffocating African lives.
Today history is vindicating this fascinating historical figure. This is happening through the wealth of archival material – photographs, videos, interviews and texts – that places her at the centre of political action. The image of African liberation tends to be men in suits. And yet a smiling Blouin can be seen with them, side by side, even addressing large crowds.
It is thanks to the refusal of this archive to be repressed that we can review moments that shaped African liberation history. And appreciate the roles that women like Blouin played.
Behind the prize
African literary prizes have seen significant growth in recent years, both in number and influence. They play an important role in promoting African literature, offering recognition and financial support to writers, and shaping the literary canon.
They can also address the need for dedicated platforms that amplify underrepresented voices.
Inkani Books describes itself as a “people’s movement-driven publishing house”. It is introducing The Andrée Blouin Prize in her honour. The impetus for the prize, according to Inkani’s publishing director Efemia Chela, was to directly challenge erasure of women in history and in political writing.
This prize is not just an accolade; it is a reclamation of space, a declaration that African revolutionary women’s narratives will no longer be sidelined.
The publishing house, established less than five years ago, has been reissuing popular books about revolutionary figures. These include the likes of Thomas Sankara, Kwame Nkrumah, Amílcar Cabral and Frantz Fanon. These men are often celebrated for their heroism and intellectual contributions to pan-African ideas about freedom, politics and revolution.
The Andrée Blouin Prize is a bold act of reclamation, ensuring that the narratives of African revolutionary women are no longer overlooked but recognised, celebrated and centred.
In fact, this is an invitation for contemporary women to write themselves into literary history.
The inaugural winner will receive a $2,000 advance and a publishing contract with Inkani. The prize is open to all women across Africa and is dedicated to showcasing and celebrating the continent’s diverse and vibrant experiences.
It is part of a broader movement challenging historical exclusions in African publishing. Literary production is dominated by big multinational publishing companies that determine reading tastes and trends.
Last year, Nigeria-based Cassava Republic Press launched the Global Black Women’s Non-Fiction Manuscript Prize to spotlight exceptional works by Black women.
Tinashe Mushakavanhu 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.
