The United States used to be a leader in vaccine research, development and policymaking. Now US Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr is undermining the country’s vaccine program at the highest level and supercharging vaccine skepticism.
On Wednesday, RFK Jr announced the US would stop funding the global vaccine alliance, Gavi, because he claimed that “when the science was inconvenient today, Gavi ignored the science”. RFK Jr questioned the safety of COVID vaccines for pregnant women, as well as the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine.
On Thursday, when the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met, the person who first drew RFK Jr into vaccine scepticism, Lyn Redwood, shared disproved claims about a chemical called thimerosal in flu vaccines being harmful.
The undermining of regulation, advisory processes and funding changes will have global impacts, as debunked claims are given new levels of apparent legitimacy. Some of these impacts will be slow and insidious.
So what should we make of these latest claims and funding cuts?
Thiomersal is a distraction
Thiomersal (thimerosal in the the US) is a safe and effective preservative that prevents bacterial and fungal contamination of the vaccine contained in a multi-dose vial. It’s a salt that contains a tiny amount of mercury in a safe form.
Thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in any vaccines routinely given in Australia. But it’s still used in the Q fever vaccine.
Other countries use multi-dose vials with thiomersal when single-dose vials are too expensive.
In the US, just 4% of adult influenza vaccines contain thiomersal. So focusing on removing vaccines containing thimerosal is a distraction for the committee.
COVID vaccines in pregnancy prevent severe illness
On Wednesday, RFK criticised Gavi’s encouragement of pregnant women to receive COVID-19 vaccines.
A COVID-19 infection before and during pregnancy can increase the risk of miscarriage two- to four-fold, even if it’s only a mild infection.
Conversely, there is good evidence vaccination during pregnancy is safe and can reduce the chance of hospitalisation of pregnant people and of infants by passing antibodies through the placenta.
In Australia, pregnant people who have never received a primary COVID-19 vaccine are recommended to have one. However, they are not generally recommended to have booster unless they have underlying risk conditions or prefer to have one. This is due to population immunity.
COVID-19 vaccine advice should adapt to changes in disease risk and vaccine benefit. It doesn’t mean previous decisions were wrong, nor that vaccine boosters are unsafe.
RFK’s criticism of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy may influence choices individuals make in other countries, even when unvaccinated pregnant women are encouraged to consider vaccination.
The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine is safe
RFK Jr also questioned the safety of the combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine as he announced the withdrawal of US funding support for Gavi.
In the early 2000s, three community-based observational studies reported a possible association between increased chance of death in infants and use of the DTP vaccine.
A few subsequent studies also reported associations, with higher risk in girls, prompting a World Health Organization (WHO) review of safety.
Real world studies are complicated and the data can be difficult to interpret correctly. Often, the very factors that influence whether someone gets vaccinated can also be associated with other health risks.
When the WHO committee reviewed all the studies on DTP safety in 2014, it did not indicate serious adverse events. It concluded there was substantial evidence against these claims.
What will de-funding Gavi mean for vaccination rates?
Gavi, the vaccine alliance, supports vaccine purchasing in low-income countries.
The US has historically accounted for 13% of all donor funds.
However, RFK Jr said Gavi needed to re-earn the public trust and “consider the best science available” before the US would contribute funding again.
Gavi predicted in March that the impact of US funding cuts could result in one million deaths through missed vaccines.
Could something like this happen in Australia?
Australia is fortunate to be buffered from these impacts.
Our vaccine advisory body, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, has people with deep expertise in vaccination. We have robust decision processes that weigh evidence critically and make careful recommendations to government.
Our governments remain committed to vaccination. The federal government released the National Immunisation Strategy in mid-June with a comprehensive plan to continue to strengthen our program.
The federal government also announced A$386 million to support the work of Gavi from 2026 to 2030.
All of this keeps our vaccine policies strong, preventing disease and increasing life expectancy here and overseas.
But to mitigate the possible influence of the US in Australia, our governments, health professionals and the public need to be ready to rapidly tackle the misinformation, distortions and half-truths RFK Jr cleverly packages – with quality information.
Julie Leask receives research funding from NHMRC, WHO, US CDC, NSW Ministry of Health. She received funding from Sanofi for travel to an overseas meeting in 2024. She has consulting fees from RTI International and the Task Force for Global Health.
Catherine Bennett has received honoraria for contributing to independent advisory panels for Moderna and AstraZeneca, and has received NHMRC, VicHealth and MRFF funding for unrelated projects. She was the health lead on the Independent Inquiry into the Australian Government COVID-19 Response .
The United States used to be a leader in vaccine research, development and policymaking. Now US Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr is undermining the country’s vaccine program at the highest level and supercharging vaccine skepticism.
On Wednesday, RFK Jr announced the US would stop funding the global vaccine alliance, Gavi, because he claimed that “when the science was inconvenient today, Gavi ignored the science”. RFK Jr questioned the safety of COVID vaccines for pregnant women, as well as the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine.
On Thursday, when the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met, the person who first drew RFK Jr into vaccine scepticism, Lyn Redwood, shared disproved claims about a chemical called thimerosal in flu vaccines being harmful.
The undermining of regulation, advisory processes and funding changes will have global impacts, as debunked claims are given new levels of apparent legitimacy. Some of these impacts will be slow and insidious.
So what should we make of these latest claims and funding cuts?
Thiomersal is a distraction
Thiomersal (thimerosal in the the US) is a safe and effective preservative that prevents bacterial and fungal contamination of the vaccine contained in a multi-dose vial. It’s a salt that contains a tiny amount of mercury in a safe form.
Thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in any vaccines routinely given in Australia. But it’s still used in the Q fever vaccine.
Other countries use multi-dose vials with thiomersal when single-dose vials are too expensive.
In the US, just 4% of adult influenza vaccines contain thiomersal. So focusing on removing vaccines containing thimerosal is a distraction for the committee.
COVID vaccines in pregnancy prevent severe illness
On Wednesday, RFK criticised Gavi’s encouragement of pregnant women to receive COVID-19 vaccines.
A COVID-19 infection before and during pregnancy can increase the risk of miscarriage two- to four-fold, even if it’s only a mild infection.
Conversely, there is good evidence vaccination during pregnancy is safe and can reduce the chance of hospitalisation of pregnant people and of infants by passing antibodies through the placenta.
In Australia, pregnant people who have never received a primary COVID-19 vaccine are recommended to have one. However, they are not generally recommended to have booster unless they have underlying risk conditions or prefer to have one. This is due to population immunity.
COVID-19 vaccine advice should adapt to changes in disease risk and vaccine benefit. It doesn’t mean previous decisions were wrong, nor that vaccine boosters are unsafe.
RFK’s criticism of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy may influence choices individuals make in other countries, even when unvaccinated pregnant women are encouraged to consider vaccination.
The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine is safe
RFK Jr also questioned the safety of the combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine as he announced the withdrawal of US funding support for Gavi.
In the early 2000s, three community-based observational studies reported a possible association between increased chance of death in infants and use of the DTP vaccine.
A few subsequent studies also reported associations, with higher risk in girls, prompting a World Health Organization (WHO) review of safety.
Real world studies are complicated and the data can be difficult to interpret correctly. Often, the very factors that influence whether someone gets vaccinated can also be associated with other health risks.
When the WHO committee reviewed all the studies on DTP safety in 2014, it did not indicate serious adverse events. It concluded there was substantial evidence against these claims.
What will de-funding Gavi mean for vaccination rates?
Gavi, the vaccine alliance, supports vaccine purchasing in low-income countries.
The US has historically accounted for 13% of all donor funds.
However, RFK Jr said Gavi needed to re-earn the public trust and “consider the best science available” before the US would contribute funding again.
Gavi predicted in March that the impact of US funding cuts could result in one million deaths through missed vaccines.
Could something like this happen in Australia?
Australia is fortunate to be buffered from these impacts.
Our vaccine advisory body, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, has people with deep expertise in vaccination. We have robust decision processes that weigh evidence critically and make careful recommendations to government.
Our governments remain committed to vaccination. The federal government released the National Immunisation Strategy in mid-June with a comprehensive plan to continue to strengthen our program.
The federal government also announced A$386 million to support the work of Gavi from 2026 to 2030.
All of this keeps our vaccine policies strong, preventing disease and increasing life expectancy here and overseas.
But to mitigate the possible influence of the US in Australia, our governments, health professionals and the public need to be ready to rapidly tackle the misinformation, distortions and half-truths RFK Jr cleverly packages – with quality information.
Julie Leask receives research funding from NHMRC, WHO, US CDC, NSW Ministry of Health. She received funding from Sanofi for travel to an overseas meeting in 2024. She has consulting fees from RTI International and the Task Force for Global Health.
Catherine Bennett has received honoraria for contributing to independent advisory panels for Moderna and AstraZeneca, and has received NHMRC, VicHealth and MRFF funding for unrelated projects. She was the health lead on the Independent Inquiry into the Australian Government COVID-19 Response .
As the ceasefire between Israel and Iran seems to be holding for now, it is important to reflect on whether this whole episode was worth the risks.
Wider escalation was (and remains) possible, and we do not know whether Iran will seek a nuclear weapon with renewed vigour in the future.
So, could we live with a nuclear-armed Iran, if it does indeed continue to pursue a bomb?
Is an Iranian bomb an existential threat?
The conventional wisdom, at least in the Western world, is that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose an existential threat to Israel, and possibly the United States as well.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities were aimed at rolling back “the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival”.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described an Iranian bomb as “an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to the United States, and to the entire world”.
Iran, of course, did not yet possess a nuclear weapon when the strikes occurred, as the UN nuclear watchdog attested. The strikes were aimed at preventing Iran from being able to do so in the future – a prospect seen by Israel and the US as simply “unthinkable”.
But if Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – would this pose an existential threat to Israel or the US?
The Israeli government officially neither confirms nor denies the existence of its nuclear arsenal. But thanks to leaks from inside the Israeli nuclear program – as well as the best assessments from around the world – we can be quite sure they exist. It also explains why Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty – it can’t without giving up this stockpile.
The US, of course, has been nuclear-armed since 1945 and openly maintains an inventory of thousands of nuclear warheads. These provide a deterrent against nuclear attacks on the United States.
Washington also provides extended nuclear deterrence guarantees to over 30 states, including members of NATO, Japan, South Korea and Australia. It does not need to provide this for Israel given the Israeli arsenal. But if there was ever any doubt about Israel’s stockpile, it certainly could.
After 80 years of living with nuclear weapons, we know the deterrent effect of assured nuclear retaliation is very powerful. It deterred both the Soviets and Americans from using nuclear weapons against each other through multiple Cold War crises. It has deterred both India and Pakistan from using them in multiple standoffs, including quite recently. It has deterred both North Korea and the US from striking each other.
Similarly, Iran would no doubt be deterred from using a nuclear weapon by a certain Israeli or American response.
Iranian leaders have called for the destruction of Israel, and the chants of “death to Israel” and “death to America” are a common occurrence at rallies held by supporters of the regime.
But beneath the fiery rhetoric lies a truism: no Iranian leader would destroy Israel with a nuclear weapon if it came at the expense of the destruction of Iran.
In the history of the nation-state, not a single one has ever knowingly committed suicide. Not for any reason – ideological, religious, political or any other. All nations value survival over everything else because this allows for the achievement of other goals, such as power and prosperity.
Further, Iran is ruled by a brutally authoritarian, theocratic regime. And for authoritarian regimes, staying in power is the number one priority. There is no staying in power the day after a nuclear exchange.
Not a panacea
This does not mean an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a welcome development. Far from it.
There is no doubt the existence of over 12,000 nuclear weapons globally poses a potentially existential risk to all of humanity.
But the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a unique risk to Israel or the United States simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If we can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and for that matter, a nuclear-armed Israel, we can live, however reluctantly, with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Regardless of whether the current proposed ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, the military operation initiated by Israel and bolstered by the United States was extremely dangerous and unnecessary, based on both countries’ justification.
The regime in Tehran is brutal, authoritarian, openly antisemitic and worthy of our disdain. But there is no evidence it is suicidal.
The claim an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel or the United States and justifies unilateral, preventive military attacks makes no sense.
It is time to stop repeating it.
Benjamin Zala has received funding from the Stanton Foundation, a US philanthropic group that funds nuclear research. He is an honorary fellow at the University of Leicester on a project that is funded by the European Research Council.
As the ceasefire between Israel and Iran seems to be holding for now, it is important to reflect on whether this whole episode was worth the risks.
Wider escalation was (and remains) possible, and we do not know whether Iran will seek a nuclear weapon with renewed vigour in the future.
So, could we live with a nuclear-armed Iran, if it does indeed continue to pursue a bomb?
Is an Iranian bomb an existential threat?
The conventional wisdom, at least in the Western world, is that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose an existential threat to Israel, and possibly the United States as well.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities were aimed at rolling back “the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival”.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described an Iranian bomb as “an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to the United States, and to the entire world”.
Iran, of course, did not yet possess a nuclear weapon when the strikes occurred, as the UN nuclear watchdog attested. The strikes were aimed at preventing Iran from being able to do so in the future – a prospect seen by Israel and the US as simply “unthinkable”.
But if Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – would this pose an existential threat to Israel or the US?
The Israeli government officially neither confirms nor denies the existence of its nuclear arsenal. But thanks to leaks from inside the Israeli nuclear program – as well as the best assessments from around the world – we can be quite sure they exist. It also explains why Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty – it can’t without giving up this stockpile.
The US, of course, has been nuclear-armed since 1945 and openly maintains an inventory of thousands of nuclear warheads. These provide a deterrent against nuclear attacks on the United States.
Washington also provides extended nuclear deterrence guarantees to over 30 states, including members of NATO, Japan, South Korea and Australia. It does not need to provide this for Israel given the Israeli arsenal. But if there was ever any doubt about Israel’s stockpile, it certainly could.
After 80 years of living with nuclear weapons, we know the deterrent effect of assured nuclear retaliation is very powerful. It deterred both the Soviets and Americans from using nuclear weapons against each other through multiple Cold War crises. It has deterred both India and Pakistan from using them in multiple standoffs, including quite recently. It has deterred both North Korea and the US from striking each other.
Similarly, Iran would no doubt be deterred from using a nuclear weapon by a certain Israeli or American response.
Iranian leaders have called for the destruction of Israel, and the chants of “death to Israel” and “death to America” are a common occurrence at rallies held by supporters of the regime.
But beneath the fiery rhetoric lies a truism: no Iranian leader would destroy Israel with a nuclear weapon if it came at the expense of the destruction of Iran.
In the history of the nation-state, not a single one has ever knowingly committed suicide. Not for any reason – ideological, religious, political or any other. All nations value survival over everything else because this allows for the achievement of other goals, such as power and prosperity.
Further, Iran is ruled by a brutally authoritarian, theocratic regime. And for authoritarian regimes, staying in power is the number one priority. There is no staying in power the day after a nuclear exchange.
Not a panacea
This does not mean an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a welcome development. Far from it.
There is no doubt the existence of over 12,000 nuclear weapons globally poses a potentially existential risk to all of humanity.
But the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a unique risk to Israel or the United States simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If we can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and for that matter, a nuclear-armed Israel, we can live, however reluctantly, with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Regardless of whether the current proposed ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, the military operation initiated by Israel and bolstered by the United States was extremely dangerous and unnecessary, based on both countries’ justification.
The regime in Tehran is brutal, authoritarian, openly antisemitic and worthy of our disdain. But there is no evidence it is suicidal.
The claim an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel or the United States and justifies unilateral, preventive military attacks makes no sense.
It is time to stop repeating it.
Benjamin Zala has received funding from the Stanton Foundation, a US philanthropic group that funds nuclear research. He is an honorary fellow at the University of Leicester on a project that is funded by the European Research Council.
The scientists who precisely measure the position of Earth are in a bit of trouble. Their measurements are essential for the satellites we use for navigation, communication and Earth observation every day.
But you might be surprised to learn that making these measurements – using the science of geodesy – depends on tracking the locations of black holes in distant galaxies.
The problem is, the scientists need to use specific frequency lanes on the radio spectrum highway to track those black holes.
Satellites and the services they provide have become essential for modern life. From precision navigation in our pockets to measuring climate change, running global supply chains and making power grids and online banking possible, our civilisation cannot function without its orbiting companions.
To use satellites, we need to know exactly where they are at any given time. Precise satellite positioning relies on the so-called “global geodesy supply chain”.
This supply chain starts by establishing a reliable reference frame as a basis for all other measurements. Because satellites are constantly moving around Earth, Earth is constantly moving around the Sun, and the Sun is constantly moving through the galaxy, this reference frame needs to be carefully calibrated via some relatively fixed external objects.
These black holes are the most distant and stable objects we know. Using a technique called very long baseline interferometry, we can use a network of radio telescopes to lock onto the black hole signals and disentangle Earth’s own rotation and wobble in space from the satellites’ movement.
Different lanes on the radio highway
We use radio telescopes because we want to detect the radio waves coming from the black holes. Radio waves pass cleanly through the atmosphere and we can receive them during day and night and in all weather conditions.
Radio waves are also used for communication on Earth – including things such as wifi and mobile phones. The use of different radio frequencies – different lanes on the radio highway – is closely regulated, and a few narrow lanes are reserved for radio astronomy.
However, in previous decades the radio highway had relatively little traffic. Scientists commonly strayed from the radio astronomy lanes to receive the black hole signals.
To reach the very high precision needed for modern technology, geodesy today relies on more than just the lanes exclusively reserved for astronomy.
Radio traffic on the rise
In recent years, human-made electromagnetic pollution has vastly increased. When wifi and mobile phone services emerged, scientists reacted by moving to higher frequencies.
However, they are running out of lanes. Six generations of mobile phone services (each occupying a new lane) are crowding the spectrum, not to mention internet connections directly sent by a fleet of thousands of satellites.
Today, the multitude of signals are often too strong for geodetic observatories to see through them to the very weak signals emitted by black holes. This puts many satellite services at risk.
What can be done?
To keep working into the future – to maintain the services on which we all depend – geodesy needs some more lanes on the radio highway. When the spectrum is divided up via international treaties at world radio conferences, geodesists need a seat at the table.
Other potential fixes might include radio quiet zones around our essential radio telescopes. Work is also underway with satellite providers to avoid pointing radio emissions directly at radio telescopes.
Any solution has to be global. For our geodetic measurements, we link radio telescopes together from all over the world, allowing us to mimic a telescope the size of Earth. The radio spectrum is primarily regulated by each nation individually, making this a huge challenge.
But perhaps the first step is increasing awareness. If we want satellite navigation to work, our supermarkets to be stocked and our online money transfers arriving safely, we need to make sure we have a clear view of those black holes in distant galaxies – and that means clearing up the radio highway.
Lucia McCallum 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 scientists who precisely measure the position of Earth are in a bit of trouble. Their measurements are essential for the satellites we use for navigation, communication and Earth observation every day.
But you might be surprised to learn that making these measurements – using the science of geodesy – depends on tracking the locations of black holes in distant galaxies.
The problem is, the scientists need to use specific frequency lanes on the radio spectrum highway to track those black holes.
Satellites and the services they provide have become essential for modern life. From precision navigation in our pockets to measuring climate change, running global supply chains and making power grids and online banking possible, our civilisation cannot function without its orbiting companions.
To use satellites, we need to know exactly where they are at any given time. Precise satellite positioning relies on the so-called “global geodesy supply chain”.
This supply chain starts by establishing a reliable reference frame as a basis for all other measurements. Because satellites are constantly moving around Earth, Earth is constantly moving around the Sun, and the Sun is constantly moving through the galaxy, this reference frame needs to be carefully calibrated via some relatively fixed external objects.
These black holes are the most distant and stable objects we know. Using a technique called very long baseline interferometry, we can use a network of radio telescopes to lock onto the black hole signals and disentangle Earth’s own rotation and wobble in space from the satellites’ movement.
Different lanes on the radio highway
We use radio telescopes because we want to detect the radio waves coming from the black holes. Radio waves pass cleanly through the atmosphere and we can receive them during day and night and in all weather conditions.
Radio waves are also used for communication on Earth – including things such as wifi and mobile phones. The use of different radio frequencies – different lanes on the radio highway – is closely regulated, and a few narrow lanes are reserved for radio astronomy.
However, in previous decades the radio highway had relatively little traffic. Scientists commonly strayed from the radio astronomy lanes to receive the black hole signals.
To reach the very high precision needed for modern technology, geodesy today relies on more than just the lanes exclusively reserved for astronomy.
Radio traffic on the rise
In recent years, human-made electromagnetic pollution has vastly increased. When wifi and mobile phone services emerged, scientists reacted by moving to higher frequencies.
However, they are running out of lanes. Six generations of mobile phone services (each occupying a new lane) are crowding the spectrum, not to mention internet connections directly sent by a fleet of thousands of satellites.
Today, the multitude of signals are often too strong for geodetic observatories to see through them to the very weak signals emitted by black holes. This puts many satellite services at risk.
What can be done?
To keep working into the future – to maintain the services on which we all depend – geodesy needs some more lanes on the radio highway. When the spectrum is divided up via international treaties at world radio conferences, geodesists need a seat at the table.
Other potential fixes might include radio quiet zones around our essential radio telescopes. Work is also underway with satellite providers to avoid pointing radio emissions directly at radio telescopes.
Any solution has to be global. For our geodetic measurements, we link radio telescopes together from all over the world, allowing us to mimic a telescope the size of Earth. The radio spectrum is primarily regulated by each nation individually, making this a huge challenge.
But perhaps the first step is increasing awareness. If we want satellite navigation to work, our supermarkets to be stocked and our online money transfers arriving safely, we need to make sure we have a clear view of those black holes in distant galaxies – and that means clearing up the radio highway.
Lucia McCallum 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.
Even though the survey says these Americans are doing so “just for fun” and claim they rely on the information gained by divination “only a little,” the persistence — and apparent rise — of these practices suggests something deeper is at play.
Tarot card: The High Priestess (Waite–Smith deck), c. 1909. (Pamela Colman Smith), CC BY
I study ancient divination, but to better understand how diviners work, I have observed contemporary diviners at work and talked with them about their practices. They say their clients request tarot consultations more frequently than they did in the past.
Divination methods, including tarot and astrology, offer a way to ask questions when other systems fail to provide answers. These questions can be highly personal and difficult to address in a formal religious setting. The divinatory answers allow people to feel they’ve gained insight, which in turn gives a perception of control over an uncertain future.
Apart from astrology and tarot, some of the best known divination methods include: the interpreting of dreams, reading coffee cups or tea leaves, observing animals and nature, reading palms and other body features such as nose shape and eye placement.
When a diviner uses things, such as cards, tea leaves, dice or shells, the connecting thread to many of these methods is that people cannot control the signs they produce. For example, divination consultants typically mix the tarot card deck to make sure the result are randomized. People should not manipulate the results.
Many people turn to religion when they face the unknown in their lives. They address their insecurities in worship, asking for divine help.
But there have always been people who did not have access to organized religion. Divinatory practices can be especially appealing to those who have been excluded from traditional religion and had to come up with alternative ways to address uncertainties.
In an age marked by ongoing anxiety, political instability and waning trust in institutions, centuries-old divination rituals offer alternative ways for folks to seek entertainment but also to gain a sense of insight, agency and connection. What may seem like harmless fun can also serve as a serious response to a chaotic world. Divinatory practices can provide both spiritual exploration and emotional validation.
Besides increasing political insecurity, another reason for the increased interest in tarot may be the visual aspect. Increased interest in the decorated cards may be a reflection of our highly visual culture. Interest in the cards with images may reflect interest in other images we watch. They are like photos with messages.
The fascination with tarot may also speak about a need to control the consultation as a diviner and their client see exactly the same thing. The images in the cards are also symbolic, and they can be interpreted in different ways.
In principle, the cards can be consulted anywhere without particular preparations. The only material one needs is a deck of cards. The accessible materiality may be adding to their popularity.
Even though the survey says these Americans are doing so “just for fun” and claim they rely on the information gained by divination “only a little,” the persistence — and apparent rise — of these practices suggests something deeper is at play.
Tarot card: The High Priestess (Waite–Smith deck), c. 1909. (Pamela Colman Smith), CC BY
I study ancient divination, but to better understand how diviners work, I have observed contemporary diviners at work and talked with them about their practices. They say their clients request tarot consultations more frequently than they did in the past.
Divination methods, including tarot and astrology, offer a way to ask questions when other systems fail to provide answers. These questions can be highly personal and difficult to address in a formal religious setting. The divinatory answers allow people to feel they’ve gained insight, which in turn gives a perception of control over an uncertain future.
Apart from astrology and tarot, some of the best known divination methods include: the interpreting of dreams, reading coffee cups or tea leaves, observing animals and nature, reading palms and other body features such as nose shape and eye placement.
When a diviner uses things, such as cards, tea leaves, dice or shells, the connecting thread to many of these methods is that people cannot control the signs they produce. For example, divination consultants typically mix the tarot card deck to make sure the result are randomized. People should not manipulate the results.
Many people turn to religion when they face the unknown in their lives. They address their insecurities in worship, asking for divine help.
But there have always been people who did not have access to organized religion. Divinatory practices can be especially appealing to those who have been excluded from traditional religion and had to come up with alternative ways to address uncertainties.
In an age marked by ongoing anxiety, political instability and waning trust in institutions, centuries-old divination rituals offer alternative ways for folks to seek entertainment but also to gain a sense of insight, agency and connection. What may seem like harmless fun can also serve as a serious response to a chaotic world. Divinatory practices can provide both spiritual exploration and emotional validation.
Besides increasing political insecurity, another reason for the increased interest in tarot may be the visual aspect. Increased interest in the decorated cards may be a reflection of our highly visual culture. Interest in the cards with images may reflect interest in other images we watch. They are like photos with messages.
The fascination with tarot may also speak about a need to control the consultation as a diviner and their client see exactly the same thing. The images in the cards are also symbolic, and they can be interpreted in different ways.
In principle, the cards can be consulted anywhere without particular preparations. The only material one needs is a deck of cards. The accessible materiality may be adding to their popularity.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Beatrix Beisner, Professor, Aquatic ecology; Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en limnologie (GRIL), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
Plankton have inspired and influenced art, science and architecture.(Shutterstock)
Not much attention is paid to plankton because these creatures are usually hidden from sight. They are mostly microscopic in size and live in aquatic environments, but human lives are intricately connected with plankton.
The etymology of “plankton” originates from the ancient Greek word for “drifter.” Plankton refers to all organisms suspended in all types of waters (oceans, lakes, rivers and even groundwaters), including viruses, bacteria, insects, larval fish and jellyfish. Plankton come in many shapes and sizes, but what unites all of them is a tendency to drift with currents.
There are both plant (phytoplankton) and animal (zooplankton) types, as well as organisms that blur the line by belonging to both. These include carnivorous plants or photosynthesizing animals (mixoplankton).
Phytoplankton are an essential part of aquatic ecosystems. (Shutterstock)
Understanding plankton
We are an international group of researchers working on plankton that inhabit aquatic waters from high alpine lakes to the deep oceans. We represent a much larger consortium of researchers (the Plankton Passionates) who have recently considered all the ways in which plankton are crucial for human well-being, society, activity and life on our planet.
In our work, we have identified six broad themes that allow us to classify the value of plankton.
Plankton are integral to the ecological functioning of all aquatic environments. For example, phytoplankton use photosynthesis to create biomass that is transferred throughout the ecosystem, much as plants and trees do on land. Phytoplankton are mostly eaten by zooplankton, which are in turn prime food for fish like sardines and herring. These small fish are fed upon by larger fish and birds. That means healthy food-web functioning is critically sustained by plankton.
Plankton play a critical role in other ways that affect the ecological functioning of aquatic environments. Specifically, plankton affect the cycles of matter and the bio-geochemistry of their ecosystems. While phytoplankton use sunlight to grow and reproduce, they also move nutrients, oxygen and carbon around.
Phytoplankton are an essential climate variable — studying them provides key indicators for planetary health and climate change — because they capture carbon dioxide (CO2). When phytoplankton are eaten by zooplankton, and these animals die and sink to the bottom of water bodies, this stores carbon away from the atmosphere to where it can no longer contribute to climate change; this process is known as the biological carbon pump.
Plankton have also played a role in several human endeavours, including the evolution of science itself advancing many theoretical developments in ecology, such as the study of biodiversity. This diversity of plankton forms — including organisms that look like crystals or jewelry — have fascinated researchers.
Jellyfish are plankton because they are carried by currents through the water. (Shutterstock)
Several theories or frameworks used throughout ecology have emerged from studying plankton, but their applications go further. For example, Russian biologist Georgy Gause observed competition among plankton, leading to his competitive exclusion principle that’s now commonly applied in socioeconomic contexts.
Because of their foundational role in aquatic food webs, plankton are critical to many human economies. Many planktonic organisms are cultured directly for human consumption including jellyfish, krill, shrimp and copepod zooplankton.
Virtually all protein in aquatic ecosystems comes from plankton. Some are used as supplements, such as spirulina powder or omega-3 vitamins from krill or copepods.
Several plankton-derived compounds are highly prized in medicine, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, including some plankton toxins used for their immune-stimulating effects. Luciferases are a group of enzymes produced by bioluminescent organisms, including many marine plankton, and are also important in biomedical research.
On the other hand, plankton can also lead to high economic costs when harmful algal blooms, like toxic red tides, occur along coastlines or cyanobacterial blooms arise in lakes.
Plankton benefits for humans
Finally, our research considers the role of plankton in human culture, recreation and well-being. Beyond their use as a food source and in medicine, plankton can be culturally important.
Bioluminescent marine dinoflagellates create incredibly powerful nighttime displays in coastal regions, forming the basis for cultural events and tourist attractions. Diatoms are a type of phytoplankton present in all aquatic ecosystems, and their silica-rich skeletons have been used for flint tools during the Stone Age and as opal in jewelry.
An illustration from the 1887 book ‘Report on the Radiolaria collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76.’ (Illus. by E. Haeckel/engraving by A. Giltsch)
Plankton are critical to all of these components. We all benefit from plankton due to their essential role in regulating aquatic habitats, their long-term involvement in climate regulation and the vital resources they provide to humanity.
Humanity lives with plankton as their incredible diversity connects life across land and water and is one of the driving forces behind Earth’s ecological stability and ecosystem services that we value. Plankton are part of humanity’s living in nature, which emphasizes their vital role in our identity, lifestyles and culture.
Plankton profoundly affect communities bordering water, but also those further away through plankton-inspired art and design. Finally, living as nature highlights the physical, mental and spiritual interconnectedness with the natural world.
We need to better recognize the value of plankton as a resource, and as an essential part of stabilizing Earth systems and maintaining them for human well-being.
Beatrix Beisner receives funding from NSERC. She is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Plankton Research (Oxford University Press) and a member of the Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en limnologie (GRIL), an FRQNT-funded network.
Maria Grigoratou receives funding from the NSF project WARMEM (OCE-1851866) and the EU-funded HORIZON Europe projects EU4OceanObs2.0 and BioEcoOcean (101136748) to Maria Grigoratou. Maria is now affiliated with the European Polar Board.
Sakina-Dorothée Ayata receives funding from the European Commission (NECCTON, iMagine, Blue-Cloud2026 projects), the French National Research Agency (ANR, Traitzoo project), and the Institut Universitaire de France (IUF).
Susanne Menden-Deuer receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation and NASA.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Beatrix Beisner, Professor, Aquatic ecology; Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en limnologie (GRIL), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
Plankton have inspired and influenced art, science and architecture.(Shutterstock)
Not much attention is paid to plankton because these creatures are usually hidden from sight. They are mostly microscopic in size and live in aquatic environments, but human lives are intricately connected with plankton.
The etymology of “plankton” originates from the ancient Greek word for “drifter.” Plankton refers to all organisms suspended in all types of waters (oceans, lakes, rivers and even groundwaters), including viruses, bacteria, insects, larval fish and jellyfish. Plankton come in many shapes and sizes, but what unites all of them is a tendency to drift with currents.
There are both plant (phytoplankton) and animal (zooplankton) types, as well as organisms that blur the line by belonging to both. These include carnivorous plants or photosynthesizing animals (mixoplankton).
Phytoplankton are an essential part of aquatic ecosystems. (Shutterstock)
Understanding plankton
We are an international group of researchers working on plankton that inhabit aquatic waters from high alpine lakes to the deep oceans. We represent a much larger consortium of researchers (the Plankton Passionates) who have recently considered all the ways in which plankton are crucial for human well-being, society, activity and life on our planet.
In our work, we have identified six broad themes that allow us to classify the value of plankton.
Plankton are integral to the ecological functioning of all aquatic environments. For example, phytoplankton use photosynthesis to create biomass that is transferred throughout the ecosystem, much as plants and trees do on land. Phytoplankton are mostly eaten by zooplankton, which are in turn prime food for fish like sardines and herring. These small fish are fed upon by larger fish and birds. That means healthy food-web functioning is critically sustained by plankton.
Plankton play a critical role in other ways that affect the ecological functioning of aquatic environments. Specifically, plankton affect the cycles of matter and the bio-geochemistry of their ecosystems. While phytoplankton use sunlight to grow and reproduce, they also move nutrients, oxygen and carbon around.
Phytoplankton are an essential climate variable — studying them provides key indicators for planetary health and climate change — because they capture carbon dioxide (CO2). When phytoplankton are eaten by zooplankton, and these animals die and sink to the bottom of water bodies, this stores carbon away from the atmosphere to where it can no longer contribute to climate change; this process is known as the biological carbon pump.
Plankton have also played a role in several human endeavours, including the evolution of science itself advancing many theoretical developments in ecology, such as the study of biodiversity. This diversity of plankton forms — including organisms that look like crystals or jewelry — have fascinated researchers.
Jellyfish are plankton because they are carried by currents through the water. (Shutterstock)
Several theories or frameworks used throughout ecology have emerged from studying plankton, but their applications go further. For example, Russian biologist Georgy Gause observed competition among plankton, leading to his competitive exclusion principle that’s now commonly applied in socioeconomic contexts.
Because of their foundational role in aquatic food webs, plankton are critical to many human economies. Many planktonic organisms are cultured directly for human consumption including jellyfish, krill, shrimp and copepod zooplankton.
Virtually all protein in aquatic ecosystems comes from plankton. Some are used as supplements, such as spirulina powder or omega-3 vitamins from krill or copepods.
Several plankton-derived compounds are highly prized in medicine, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, including some plankton toxins used for their immune-stimulating effects. Luciferases are a group of enzymes produced by bioluminescent organisms, including many marine plankton, and are also important in biomedical research.
On the other hand, plankton can also lead to high economic costs when harmful algal blooms, like toxic red tides, occur along coastlines or cyanobacterial blooms arise in lakes.
Plankton benefits for humans
Finally, our research considers the role of plankton in human culture, recreation and well-being. Beyond their use as a food source and in medicine, plankton can be culturally important.
Bioluminescent marine dinoflagellates create incredibly powerful nighttime displays in coastal regions, forming the basis for cultural events and tourist attractions. Diatoms are a type of phytoplankton present in all aquatic ecosystems, and their silica-rich skeletons have been used for flint tools during the Stone Age and as opal in jewelry.
An illustration from the 1887 book ‘Report on the Radiolaria collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76.’ (Illus. by E. Haeckel/engraving by A. Giltsch)
Plankton are critical to all of these components. We all benefit from plankton due to their essential role in regulating aquatic habitats, their long-term involvement in climate regulation and the vital resources they provide to humanity.
Humanity lives with plankton as their incredible diversity connects life across land and water and is one of the driving forces behind Earth’s ecological stability and ecosystem services that we value. Plankton are part of humanity’s living in nature, which emphasizes their vital role in our identity, lifestyles and culture.
Plankton profoundly affect communities bordering water, but also those further away through plankton-inspired art and design. Finally, living as nature highlights the physical, mental and spiritual interconnectedness with the natural world.
We need to better recognize the value of plankton as a resource, and as an essential part of stabilizing Earth systems and maintaining them for human well-being.
Beatrix Beisner receives funding from NSERC. She is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Plankton Research (Oxford University Press) and a member of the Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en limnologie (GRIL), an FRQNT-funded network.
Maria Grigoratou receives funding from the NSF project WARMEM (OCE-1851866) and the EU-funded HORIZON Europe projects EU4OceanObs2.0 and BioEcoOcean (101136748) to Maria Grigoratou. Maria is now affiliated with the European Polar Board.
Sakina-Dorothée Ayata receives funding from the European Commission (NECCTON, iMagine, Blue-Cloud2026 projects), the French National Research Agency (ANR, Traitzoo project), and the Institut Universitaire de France (IUF).
Susanne Menden-Deuer receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation and NASA.
According to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate for youth aged 15-24 is 12.2 per cent — over double that of the prime working-age population.
The outlook is bleaker for students planning to return to full-time studies in the fall. Unemployment for this group has reached just over 20 per cent, the highest level since 2009, when the global economy was reeling from the Great Recession.
Roles in retail, hospitality and customer service often serve as a first taste of working life, helping young people build confidence, develop transferable skills and expand their professional networks. Without access to these opportunities, many young Canadians risk falling behind before their careers even begin.
The long-term implications are serious. According to a 2024 report from consulting firm Deloitte, Canada stands to lose $18.5 billion in GDP over the next decade if youth unemployment remains high.
Young Canadians are facing one of the toughest hiring seasons in years. (Shutterstock)
Many young job-seekers are understandably discouraged by today’s labour market. But as digital natives, Gen Z have advantages to bring to the table, including creativity, values-driven mindsets and fluency in technology.
The key is to stay open, proactive and creative by pursuing non-linear experiences that can serve as legitimate entry points into the workforce. Here are four actionable strategies for Gen Z starting their careers:
Side projects, such as building websites or freelancing, can also help people start their careers. These are increasingly recognized as valid ways to break into the job market.
2. Build core skills that matter.
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report identifies analytical thinking, resilience, creativity, leadership and self-awareness as the most in-demand skills for the future. These can be developed through volunteer work, community leadership, mentorship or personal projects.
As workplaces adopt AI and automation, tech literacy is becoming increasingly valuable. Microcredentials can help build specialized skills, while apprenticeships and other experiential learning opportunities offer experiences that employers value.
Networks are also a key part of job success. Relationships with peers, mentors and community members can provide support, broaden perspectives and lead to unexpected opportunities. Participating in interest groups or volunteering can help young workers feel more connected and confident while developing skills that matter.
A new working generation
While these steps won’t solve the systemic challenges facing the labour market, they can help young Canadians gain traction in a system that is still catching up to the needs of their generation.
This will require the collaboration of government, employers, educational institutions and community service providers to innovatively reduce existing barriers. Importantly, these sectors are being asked to “walk the talk” when it comes to addressing youth unemployment.
Gen Z is entering the workforce during a time of profound economic and social change. But they also have unparalleled access to information, supportive communities and platforms to share ideas and make a meaningful impact.
By acting with intention, young Canadians can navigate this landscape with agency, laying the foundation not only for jobs but for careers that reflect their values and ambitions.
Leda Stawnychko receives funding from SSHRC.
Warren Boyd Ferguson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
According to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate for youth aged 15-24 is 12.2 per cent — over double that of the prime working-age population.
The outlook is bleaker for students planning to return to full-time studies in the fall. Unemployment for this group has reached just over 20 per cent, the highest level since 2009, when the global economy was reeling from the Great Recession.
Roles in retail, hospitality and customer service often serve as a first taste of working life, helping young people build confidence, develop transferable skills and expand their professional networks. Without access to these opportunities, many young Canadians risk falling behind before their careers even begin.
The long-term implications are serious. According to a 2024 report from consulting firm Deloitte, Canada stands to lose $18.5 billion in GDP over the next decade if youth unemployment remains high.
Young Canadians are facing one of the toughest hiring seasons in years. (Shutterstock)
Many young job-seekers are understandably discouraged by today’s labour market. But as digital natives, Gen Z have advantages to bring to the table, including creativity, values-driven mindsets and fluency in technology.
The key is to stay open, proactive and creative by pursuing non-linear experiences that can serve as legitimate entry points into the workforce. Here are four actionable strategies for Gen Z starting their careers:
Side projects, such as building websites or freelancing, can also help people start their careers. These are increasingly recognized as valid ways to break into the job market.
2. Build core skills that matter.
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report identifies analytical thinking, resilience, creativity, leadership and self-awareness as the most in-demand skills for the future. These can be developed through volunteer work, community leadership, mentorship or personal projects.
As workplaces adopt AI and automation, tech literacy is becoming increasingly valuable. Microcredentials can help build specialized skills, while apprenticeships and other experiential learning opportunities offer experiences that employers value.
Networks are also a key part of job success. Relationships with peers, mentors and community members can provide support, broaden perspectives and lead to unexpected opportunities. Participating in interest groups or volunteering can help young workers feel more connected and confident while developing skills that matter.
A new working generation
While these steps won’t solve the systemic challenges facing the labour market, they can help young Canadians gain traction in a system that is still catching up to the needs of their generation.
This will require the collaboration of government, employers, educational institutions and community service providers to innovatively reduce existing barriers. Importantly, these sectors are being asked to “walk the talk” when it comes to addressing youth unemployment.
Gen Z is entering the workforce during a time of profound economic and social change. But they also have unparalleled access to information, supportive communities and platforms to share ideas and make a meaningful impact.
By acting with intention, young Canadians can navigate this landscape with agency, laying the foundation not only for jobs but for careers that reflect their values and ambitions.
Leda Stawnychko receives funding from SSHRC.
Warren Boyd Ferguson 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 – Canada – By Karen S. Acton, Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Policy, OISE, University of Toronto
Only nine per cent of Canadian students learn about climate change often in school, while 42 per cent say it’s rarely or never discussed in the classroom.
These are some of the concerning findings from the new 2025 national survey at the nonprofit Learning for a Sustainable Future (LSF), where I serve as a research consultant. Our team surveyed over 4,200 people, including students, educators, parents and the general public.
The message is clear: Canadians want schools to do more. A strong majority of respondents (62 per cent) believe climate change should be a high priority in education. More than half (56 per cent) believe it should be taught by all teachers.
Understanding is slipping
According to the survey, 80 per cent of Canadians accept that climate change is real and impacting their lives. Most (67 per cent) believe we are in a climate emergency, yet this belief has declined from 72 per cent in 2022.
Also slipping is Canadians’ understanding of climate change, as the pass rate for the survey’s 10-question quiz dipped to 57 per cent in 2025 from 67 per cent in 2022.
Fewer respondents correctly identified human activities as the primary cause of climate change, or named greenhouse gas emissions as the predominant factor. Many still mistakenly believe the ozone hole is to blame, highlighting one of many persistent climate misconceptions.
Also concerning was the increase in Canadians who felt that the seriousness of climate change is exaggerated.
A recent report by climate communications centre Re.Climate noted a similar decline in public perception of how much of a threat climate change poses. In 2023, 44 per cent of Canadians said reducing carbon emissions was a top energy policy priority. By 2025, that number had dropped to 31 per cent.
The LSF survey highlights Canadians’ dissatisfaction with climate education. When asked to grade schools on how well they were addressing climate change issues, only four per cent gave schools an “A.” Three-quarters of Canadians gave a “C” or lower.
One dominant concern included addressing the spread of climate misinformation. Only 17 per cent of Canadians felt confident in their ability to distinguish between real and false climate news.
Misinformation is a growing barrier to public understanding and action on climate issues. For many young people, social media is a dominant source of climate information, but it’s not always a reliable one.
To address this, almost 80 per cent of respondents, and in particular 87 per cent of educators, agree that climate education in schools should focus more on critical thinking and media literacy.
Teachers willing, but under-supported
The good news is that almost half of the educators we surveyed felt confident about their ability to teach climate change. Many are incorporating more climate-related projects and lifestyle and consumer changes into the classroom.
However, many barriers remain. Most educators still spend fewer than 10 hours per year on climate topics, and 42 per cent rarely address it at all. A full 60 per cent of teachers told us they want to do more but need professional development to feel equipped.
Teachers need more time, resources and strategies to address how climate change connects to broader issues like mental health, social justice and Indigenous knowledge.
Educators are also seeking a school-wide culture that promotes climate change education, but nearly half said they lack support from their principal or school boards.
Unsurprisingly, given the global nature of climate change, the challenges voiced by educators are not unique to Canada. Surveys of teachers in England and the United States found they face similar obstacles, compounded by low teacher confidence, the complexity of the topic and leadership not supporting climate change as a priority.
Almost half of the educators surveyed felt confident about their ability to teach climate change, and many are incorporating more climate-related projects and lifestyle and consumer changes into the classroom. (Shutterstock)
Students need the opportunity
One of the most hopeful takeaways is that students want to learn more about climate change at school, beginning in the early grades. When asked what they would tell their teacher, students told us they wanted lessons that go beyond the science to include real-world solutions and personal empowerment.
They called for open classroom discussions, a clearer understanding of the impacts of climate change and concrete strategies for action.
As one student put it: “Present it to me in a way that’s relevant that I can understand, and tell me how I can personally make an impact.”
Another added: “Everyone needs to do their part or nothing will change!”
These appeals echo those from the recent Voice of 1,000 Kids survey, which found young people want adults to take the climate crisis more seriously and step up to help solve it.
The LSF survey found that 76 per cent of respondents recognize that systemic change is needed to address climate challenges, yet only 19 per cent believe government is doing a good job.
This suggests strong public demand for policy action. Canadian governments must introduce mandatory climate curriculum standards, increased funding for teacher professional learning and resources, and transformative teaching strategies to foster critical thinking and empowerment.
Almost 70 per cent of respondents said they believe young people can inspire important climate action. Supporting school-wide cultures that embrace sustainability isn’t just good teaching — it’s a pathway to broader social change.
Now more than ever, we need a reimagined education system that values climate learning as a core competency. Policymakers and education leaders must rise to meet this challenge before another generation of students graduate feeling unprepared to face the defining issue of their time.
Karen S. Acton works as a consultant for Learning for a Sustainable Future (LSF).
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Karen S. Acton, Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Policy, OISE, University of Toronto
Only nine per cent of Canadian students learn about climate change often in school, while 42 per cent say it’s rarely or never discussed in the classroom.
These are some of the concerning findings from the new 2025 national survey at the nonprofit Learning for a Sustainable Future (LSF), where I serve as a research consultant. Our team surveyed over 4,200 people, including students, educators, parents and the general public.
The message is clear: Canadians want schools to do more. A strong majority of respondents (62 per cent) believe climate change should be a high priority in education. More than half (56 per cent) believe it should be taught by all teachers.
Understanding is slipping
According to the survey, 80 per cent of Canadians accept that climate change is real and impacting their lives. Most (67 per cent) believe we are in a climate emergency, yet this belief has declined from 72 per cent in 2022.
Also slipping is Canadians’ understanding of climate change, as the pass rate for the survey’s 10-question quiz dipped to 57 per cent in 2025 from 67 per cent in 2022.
Fewer respondents correctly identified human activities as the primary cause of climate change, or named greenhouse gas emissions as the predominant factor. Many still mistakenly believe the ozone hole is to blame, highlighting one of many persistent climate misconceptions.
Also concerning was the increase in Canadians who felt that the seriousness of climate change is exaggerated.
A recent report by climate communications centre Re.Climate noted a similar decline in public perception of how much of a threat climate change poses. In 2023, 44 per cent of Canadians said reducing carbon emissions was a top energy policy priority. By 2025, that number had dropped to 31 per cent.
The LSF survey highlights Canadians’ dissatisfaction with climate education. When asked to grade schools on how well they were addressing climate change issues, only four per cent gave schools an “A.” Three-quarters of Canadians gave a “C” or lower.
One dominant concern included addressing the spread of climate misinformation. Only 17 per cent of Canadians felt confident in their ability to distinguish between real and false climate news.
Misinformation is a growing barrier to public understanding and action on climate issues. For many young people, social media is a dominant source of climate information, but it’s not always a reliable one.
To address this, almost 80 per cent of respondents, and in particular 87 per cent of educators, agree that climate education in schools should focus more on critical thinking and media literacy.
Teachers willing, but under-supported
The good news is that almost half of the educators we surveyed felt confident about their ability to teach climate change. Many are incorporating more climate-related projects and lifestyle and consumer changes into the classroom.
However, many barriers remain. Most educators still spend fewer than 10 hours per year on climate topics, and 42 per cent rarely address it at all. A full 60 per cent of teachers told us they want to do more but need professional development to feel equipped.
Teachers need more time, resources and strategies to address how climate change connects to broader issues like mental health, social justice and Indigenous knowledge.
Educators are also seeking a school-wide culture that promotes climate change education, but nearly half said they lack support from their principal or school boards.
Unsurprisingly, given the global nature of climate change, the challenges voiced by educators are not unique to Canada. Surveys of teachers in England and the United States found they face similar obstacles, compounded by low teacher confidence, the complexity of the topic and leadership not supporting climate change as a priority.
Almost half of the educators surveyed felt confident about their ability to teach climate change, and many are incorporating more climate-related projects and lifestyle and consumer changes into the classroom. (Shutterstock)
Students need the opportunity
One of the most hopeful takeaways is that students want to learn more about climate change at school, beginning in the early grades. When asked what they would tell their teacher, students told us they wanted lessons that go beyond the science to include real-world solutions and personal empowerment.
They called for open classroom discussions, a clearer understanding of the impacts of climate change and concrete strategies for action.
As one student put it: “Present it to me in a way that’s relevant that I can understand, and tell me how I can personally make an impact.”
Another added: “Everyone needs to do their part or nothing will change!”
These appeals echo those from the recent Voice of 1,000 Kids survey, which found young people want adults to take the climate crisis more seriously and step up to help solve it.
The LSF survey found that 76 per cent of respondents recognize that systemic change is needed to address climate challenges, yet only 19 per cent believe government is doing a good job.
This suggests strong public demand for policy action. Canadian governments must introduce mandatory climate curriculum standards, increased funding for teacher professional learning and resources, and transformative teaching strategies to foster critical thinking and empowerment.
Almost 70 per cent of respondents said they believe young people can inspire important climate action. Supporting school-wide cultures that embrace sustainability isn’t just good teaching — it’s a pathway to broader social change.
Now more than ever, we need a reimagined education system that values climate learning as a core competency. Policymakers and education leaders must rise to meet this challenge before another generation of students graduate feeling unprepared to face the defining issue of their time.
Karen S. Acton works as a consultant for Learning for a Sustainable Future (LSF).
Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark has warned the country needs to maintain its nuclear-free policy as a “fundamental tenet” of its independent foreign policy in the face of gathering global storm clouds.
Writing in a new book being published next week, she says “nuclear war is an existential threat to humanity. Far from receding, the threat of use of nuclear weapons is ever present.
Writing before the US surprise attack with B-2 stealth bombers and “bunker-buster” bombs on three Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, Clark says “the Middle East is a tinder box with the failure of the Iran nuclear deal and with Israel widely believed to possess nuclear weapons”.
The Doomsday Clock references the Ukraine war theatre where “use of nuclear weapons has been floated by Russia”.
Also, the arms control architecture for Europe is unravelling, leaving the continent much less secure. India and Pakistan both have nuclear arsenals, she says.
“North Korea continues to develop its nuclear weapons capacity.”
‘Serious ramifications’ Clark, who was also United Nations Development Programme administrator from 2009 to 2017, a member of The Elders group of global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela in 2007, and is an advocate for multilateralism and nuclear disarmament, says an outright military conflict between China and the United States “would be one between two nuclear powers with serious ramifications for East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and far beyond.”
She advises New Zealand to be wary of Australia’s decision to enter a nuclear submarine purchase programme with the United States.
“There has been much speculation about a potential Pillar Two of the AUKUS agreement which would see others in the region become partners in the development of advanced weaponry,” Clark says.
“This is occurring in the context of rising tensions between the United States and China.
“Many of us share the view that New Zealand should be a voice for de-escalation, not for enthusiastic expansion of nuclear submarine fleets in the Pacific and the development of more lethal weaponry.”
Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior . . . publication July 2025. Image: Little Island Press
In the face of the “current global turbulence, New Zealand needs to reemphasise the principles and values which drove its nuclear-free legislation and its advocacy for a nuclear-free South Pacific and global nuclear disarmament.
Clark says that the years 1985 – the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by French secret agents on 10 July 1985 — and 1986 were critical years in the lead up to New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation in 1987.
“New Zealanders were clear – we did not want to be defended by nuclear weapons. We wanted our country to be a force for diplomacy and for dialogue, not for warmongering.”
Chronicles humanitarian voyage The book Eyes of Fire chronicles the humanitarian voyage by the Greenpeace flagship to the Marshall Islands to relocate 320 Rongelap Islanders who were suffering serious community health consequences from the US nuclear tests in the 1950s.
The author, Dr David Robie, founder of the Pacific Media Centre at Auckland University of Technology, was the only journalist on board the Rainbow Warrior in the weeks leading up to the bombing.
His book recounts the voyage and nuclear colonialism, and the transition to climate justice as the major challenge facing the Pacific, although the “Indo-Pacific” rivalries between the US, France and China mean that geopolitical tensions are recalling the Cold War era in the Pacific.
Dr Robie is also critical of Indonesian colonialism in the Melanesian region of the Pacific, arguing that a just-outcome for Jakarta-ruled West Papua and also the French territories of Kanaky New Caledonia and “French” Polynesia are vital for peace and stability in the region.
On June 22, American warplanes crossed into Iranian airspace and dropped 14 massive bombs.
The attack was not in response to a provocation; it came on the heels of illegal Israeli aggression that took the lives of more than 600 Iranians.
This was a return to something familiar and well-practised: an empire bombing innocents across the orientalist abstraction called “the Middle East”.
That night, US President Donald Trump, flanked by his vice-president and two state secretaries, told the world: “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace”.
There is something chilling about how bombs are baptised with the language of diplomacy and how destruction is dressed in the garments of stability. To call that peace is not merely a misnomer; it is a criminal distortion.
But what is peace in this world, if not submission to the West? And what is diplomacy, if not the insistence that the attacked plead with their attackers?
In the 12 days that Israel’s illegal assault on Iran lasted, images of Iranian children pulled from the wreckage remained absent from the front pages of Western media. In their place were lengthy features about Israelis hiding in fortified bunkers.
Victimhood serving narrative Western media, fluent in the language of erasure, broadcasts only the victimhood that serves the war narrative.
And that is not just in its coverage of Iran. For 20 months now, the people of Gaza have been starved and incinerated. By the official count, more than 55,000 lives have been taken; realistic estimates put the number at hundreds of thousands.
Every hospital in Gaza has been bombed. Most schools have been attacked and destroyed.
Leading human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have already declared that Israel is committing genocide, and yet, most Western media would not utter that word and would add elaborate caveats when someone does dare say it live on TV.
Presenters and editors would do anything but recognise Israel’s unending violence in an active voice.
Despite detailed evidence of war crimes, the Israeli military has faced no media censure, no criticism or scrutiny. Its generals hold war meetings near civilian buildings, and yet, there are no media cries of Israelis being used as “human shields”.
Israeli army and government officials are regularly caught lying or making genocidal statements, and yet, their words are still reported as “the truth”.
Bias over Palestinian deaths A recent study found that on the BBC, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, despite Palestinians dying at a rate of 34 to 1 compared with Israelis. Such bias is no exception, it is the rule for Western media.
Like Palestine, Iran is described in carefully chosen language. Iran is never framed as a nation, only as a regime. Iran is not a government, but a threat — not a people, but a problem.
The word “Islamic” is affixed to it like a slur in every report. This is instrumental in quietly signalling that Muslim resistance to Western domination must be extinguished.
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons; Israel and the United States do. And yet only Iran is cast as an existential threat to world order.
Because the problem is not what Iran holds, but what it refuses to surrender. It has survived coups, sanctions, assassinations, and sabotage. It has outlived every attempt to starve, coerce, or isolate it into submission.
It is a state that, despite the violence hurled at it, has not yet been broken.
And so the myth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction becomes indispensable. It is the same myth that was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. For three decades, American headlines have whispered that Iran is just “weeks away” from the bomb, three decades of deadlines that never arrive, of predictions that never materialise.
Fear over false ‘nuclear threat’ But fear, even when unfounded, is useful. If you can keep people afraid, you can keep them quiet. Say “nuclear threat” often enough, and no one will think to ask about the children killed in the name of “keeping the world safe”.
This is the modus operandi of Western media: a media architecture not built to illuminate truth, but to manufacture permission for violence, to dress state aggression in technical language and animated graphics, to anaesthetise the public with euphemisms.
Time Magazine does not write about the crushed bones of innocents under the rubble in Tehran or Rafah, it writes about “The New Middle East” with a cover strikingly similar to the one it used to propagandise regime change in Iraq 22 years ago.
But this is not 2003. After decades of war, and livestreamed genocide, most Americans no longer buy into the old slogans and distortions. When Israel attacked Iran, a poll showed that only 16 percent of US respondents supported the US joining the war.
After Trump ordered the air strikes, another poll confirmed this resistance to manufactured consent: only 36 percent of respondents supported the move, and only 32 percent supported continuing the bombardment
The failure to manufacture consent for war with Iran reveals a profound shift in the American consciousness. Americans remember the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis dead and an entire region in flames. They remember the lies about weapons of mass destruction and democracy and the result: the thousands of American soldiers dead and the tens of thousands maimed.
They remember the humiliating retreat from Afghanistan after 20 years of war and the never-ending bloody entanglement in Iraq.
Low social justice spending At home, Americans are told there is no money for housing, healthcare, or education, but there is always money for bombs, for foreign occupations, for further militarisation. More than 700,000 Americans are homeless, more than 40 million live under the official poverty line and more than 27 million have no health insurance.
And yet, the US government maintains by far the highest defence budget in the world.
Americans know the precarity they face at home, but they are also increasingly aware of the impact US imperial adventurism has abroad. For 20 months now, they have watched a US-sponsored genocide broadcast live.
They have seen countless times on their phones bloodied Palestinian children pulled from rubble while mainstream media insists, this is Israeli “self-defence”.
The old alchemy of dehumanising victims to excuse their murder has lost its power. The digital age has shattered the monopoly on narrative that once made distant wars feel abstract and necessary. Americans are now increasingly refusing to be moved by the familiar war drumbeat.
The growing fractures in public consent have not gone unnoticed in Washington. Trump, ever the opportunist, understands that the American public has no appetite for another war.
‘Don’t drop bombs’ And so, on June 24, he took to social media to announce, “the ceasefire is in effect”, telling Israel to “DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,” after the Israeli army continued to attack Iran.
Trump, like so many in the US and Israeli political elites, wants to call himself a peacemaker while waging war. To leaders like him, peace has come to mean something altogether different: the unimpeded freedom to commit genocide and other atrocities while the world watches on.
But they have failed to manufacture our consent. We know what peace is, and it does not come dressed in war. It is not dropped from the sky.
Peace can only be achieved where there is freedom. And no matter how many times they strike, the people remain, from Palestine to Iran — unbroken, unbought, and unwilling to kneel to terror.
Ahmad Ibsaisis a first-generation Palestinian American and law student who writes the newsletter State of Siege.
Advocacy groups in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) disrupted the US Department of Defense’s public meeting this week, which tackled proposed military training plans on Tinian, voicing strong opposition to further militarisation in the Marianas.
Members of the Marianas for Palestine, Prutehi Guahan and Commonwealth670 burst into the public hearing at the Crowne Plaza hotel in Garapan, chanting, “No build-up! No war!” and “Free, free, Palestine!”
As the chanting echoed throughout the venue on Wednesday, the DOD continued the proceedings to gather public input on its CNMI Joint Military Training proposal.
The US plan includes live-fire ranges, a base camp, communications infrastructure, and a biosecurity facility. Officials said feedback from Tinian, Saipan and Rota communities would help shape the final environmental impact statement.
Salam Castro Younis, of Chamorro-Palestinian descent, linked the military expansion to global conflicts in Gaza and Iran.
“More militarisation isn’t the answer,” Younis said. “We don’t need to lose more land. Diplomacy and peace are the way forward – not more bombs.”
Saipan-born Chamorro activist Anufat Pangelinan echoed Younis’s sentiment, citing research connecting climate change and environmental degradation to global militarisation.
‘No part of a war’ “We don’t want to be part of a war we don’t support,” he said. “The Marianas shouldn’t be a tip of the spear – we should be a bridge for peace.”
The groups argue that CJMT could make Tinian a target, increasing regional hostility.
“We want to sustain ourselves without the looming threat of war,” Pangelinan added.
In response to public concerns from the 2015 draft EIS, the DOD scaled back its plans, reducing live-fire ranges from 14 to 2 and eliminating artillery, rocket and mortar exercises.
Mark Hashimoto, executive director of the US Marine Corps Forces Pacific, emphasised the importance of community input.
“The proposal includes live-fire ranges, a base camp, communications infrastructure and a biosecurity facility,” he said.
Hashimoto noted that military lease lands on Tinian could support quarterly exercises involving up to 1000 personnel.
Economic impact concerns Tinian residents expressed concerns about economic impacts, job opportunities, noise, environmental effects and further strain on local infrastructure.
The DOD is expected to issue a Record of Decision by spring 2026, balancing public feedback with national security and environmental considerations.
In a joint statement earlier this week, the activist groups said the people of Guam and the CNMI were “burdened by processes not meant to serve their home’s interests”.
The groups were referring to public input requirements for military plans involving the use of Guam and CNMI lands and waters for war training and testing.
“As colonies of the United States, the Mariana Islands continue to be forced into conflicts not of our people’s making,” the statement read.
“ After decades of displacement and political disenfranchisement, our communities are now in subservient positions that force an obligation to extend our lands, airspace, and waters for use in America’s never-ending cycle of war.”
They also lamented the “intense environmental degradation” and “growing housing and food insecurity” resulting from military expansion.
“Like other Pacific Islanders, we are also overrepresented disproportionately in the military and in combat,” they said.
“Meanwhile, prices on imported food, fuel, and essential goods will continue to rise with inflation and war.”
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Alexander Richard Braczkowski, Research Fellow at the Centre for Planetary Health and Resilient Conservation Group, Griffith University
In the shadows of Python Cave, Uganda, a leopard leaps from a guano mound – formed by bat excrement – and sinks its teeth into a bat. But this is no ordinary bat colony. The thousands of Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) found in this cave are known carriers of one of the world’s deadliest viruses: Marburg, a close cousin of Ebola.
I am a conservation scientist with over 17 years of experience in wildlife ecology, monitoring and human-wildlife conflict. I’m the co-founder of the Kyambura Lion Project, which made this discovery.
For years, scientists studying how diseases spread from animals to humans have hypothesised that zoonotic diseases jump from a wildlife reservoir (like a bat) to an intermediate host (monkey) and potentially to us, humans.
For past Marburg outbreaks in Uganda, two spillover pathways have been identified: the first, involves humans coming into contact with a fruit bat habitat (namely caves filled with bat guano). Indeed, fruit bats are thought to have infected two tourists at Python Cave in 2007 and 2008.
The second pathway involves humans and animals eating the same fruit that bats have fed upon or made contact with. This second spillover pathway was identified by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists in 2023. They tracked bats from the cave entering cultivated gardens to feed.
But Atukwatse and the team of young Ugandan scientists (Yahaya Ssemakula, Johnson Muhereza, Orin Cornille and Winfred Nsabimana) have potentially found another pathway: predation by at least 14 species.
Such rich visual evidence of a viral interface – bats, predators and people – is virtually non-existent in the literature. Many theoretical depictions of this process exist, and there are isolated incidents of a monkey predating on a bat or wildlife feeding on bat guano, but Atukwatse’s discovery of this many different predators repeatedly feeding on a known Marburg virus reservoir is a first.
His discovery highlights two uncomfortable truths:
many potential zoonotic interfaces remain undocumented – often right under our noses
the people most likely to detect them first are those living closest to wild frontiers.
But the bigger message is this: global health institutions need to stop overlooking local scientists and start funding field-based detection systems across Africa and Asia.
If we want to detect the next outbreak early, we should be empowering more Atukwatses, not waiting for the next lab test.
Atukwatse had heard from nearby guides that a large bat cave lay close to the survey grid. That kind of site, he reasoned, could be perfect leopard territory: a place to hunt, rest or avoid the heat.
This is ecological attentiveness at its best – the field biology equivalent of a commodities trader spotting volatility in a geopolitical flashpoint.
Atukwatse had his radar on and acted on instinct, setting five camera traps at the cave’s entrance and along the surrounding animal trails. Just one week later, he got what he hoped for: three separate clips of a leopard hunting bats in broad daylight. He left the cameras in place in protective casing. He checked them every 7–10 days.
But that was just the beginning.
The scale of the discovery
When I first looked at Atukwatse’s videos, our joint excitement was around the leopard footage. We knew they were adaptable and could even eat small rodents , but no one had ever recorded them eating bats in Africa.
As more clips came in, we realised something bigger was unfolding. Blue monkeys were seen grabbing bats mid-roost. A crowned eagle and a Nile monitor fought over two bat carcasses. A fish eagle – typically a piscivore, which is a carnivorous species that primarily eats fish – was filmed clutching bats in its talons.
Over 304 trap-nights, Atukwatse’s traps recorded 261 independent predator events from at least 14 different species.
Then came the second shock: over 400 human visitors – many of them tourists – were filmed approaching the cave mouth without any protective gear. Some stood just metres from a known Marburg virus reservoir. Importantly, the Uganda Wildlife Authority has built a sanctioned viewing platform about 35 metres from the cave. However, tourists broke park rules and walked within two metres of the cave mouth.
It was only after I visited the cave myself to take stills of the team that we put this all together. Atukwatse had just found the first visual evidence, at a large scale in nature, of at least 14 predators feeding on a known wildlife virus reservoir harbouring one of Earth’s deadliest viruses.
This wasn’t the result of million-dollar pathogen surveillance. It wasn’t even the core aim of our leopard survey. This happened because a young Ugandan field scientist followed his ecological gut.
Why does the discovery matter?
For decades, disease ecologists have known that major outbreaks often originate in wildlife – swine flu, avian flu and even SARS-CoV-2 all trace back to animal hosts. But what’s often missing is direct observation of spillover interfaces – the exact moments when a virus jumps from a bat, goose, or other animal into new species like humans, livestock or other wildlife.
Atukwatse’s discovery may be the first large-scale visual record of such an interface in nature: a roost of Egyptian fruit bats known to harbour a deadly virus, actively predated upon by at least 14 species, with hundreds of humans visiting the same cave mouth unprotected.
This may be a Rosetta Stone moment for spillover ecology – shifting our understanding from hypothetical models to a real, observable interface.
These kinds of spillover sites exist in other places in nature: in a Chinese wet market where a civet meets a meat processor, or in a Gabonese village where a bat is butchered for bushmeat. The difference? Most of them go undocumented. Atukwatse just filmed one.
Alexander Richard Braczkowski is the scientific director of the Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust Kyambura Lion Project.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Alexander Richard Braczkowski, Research Fellow at the Centre for Planetary Health and Resilient Conservation Group, Griffith University
In the shadows of Python Cave, Uganda, a leopard leaps from a guano mound – formed by bat excrement – and sinks its teeth into a bat. But this is no ordinary bat colony. The thousands of Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) found in this cave are known carriers of one of the world’s deadliest viruses: Marburg, a close cousin of Ebola.
I am a conservation scientist with over 17 years of experience in wildlife ecology, monitoring and human-wildlife conflict. I’m the co-founder of the Kyambura Lion Project, which made this discovery.
For years, scientists studying how diseases spread from animals to humans have hypothesised that zoonotic diseases jump from a wildlife reservoir (like a bat) to an intermediate host (monkey) and potentially to us, humans.
For past Marburg outbreaks in Uganda, two spillover pathways have been identified: the first, involves humans coming into contact with a fruit bat habitat (namely caves filled with bat guano). Indeed, fruit bats are thought to have infected two tourists at Python Cave in 2007 and 2008.
The second pathway involves humans and animals eating the same fruit that bats have fed upon or made contact with. This second spillover pathway was identified by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists in 2023. They tracked bats from the cave entering cultivated gardens to feed.
But Atukwatse and the team of young Ugandan scientists (Yahaya Ssemakula, Johnson Muhereza, Orin Cornille and Winfred Nsabimana) have potentially found another pathway: predation by at least 14 species.
Such rich visual evidence of a viral interface – bats, predators and people – is virtually non-existent in the literature. Many theoretical depictions of this process exist, and there are isolated incidents of a monkey predating on a bat or wildlife feeding on bat guano, but Atukwatse’s discovery of this many different predators repeatedly feeding on a known Marburg virus reservoir is a first.
His discovery highlights two uncomfortable truths:
many potential zoonotic interfaces remain undocumented – often right under our noses
the people most likely to detect them first are those living closest to wild frontiers.
But the bigger message is this: global health institutions need to stop overlooking local scientists and start funding field-based detection systems across Africa and Asia.
If we want to detect the next outbreak early, we should be empowering more Atukwatses, not waiting for the next lab test.
Atukwatse had heard from nearby guides that a large bat cave lay close to the survey grid. That kind of site, he reasoned, could be perfect leopard territory: a place to hunt, rest or avoid the heat.
This is ecological attentiveness at its best – the field biology equivalent of a commodities trader spotting volatility in a geopolitical flashpoint.
Atukwatse had his radar on and acted on instinct, setting five camera traps at the cave’s entrance and along the surrounding animal trails. Just one week later, he got what he hoped for: three separate clips of a leopard hunting bats in broad daylight. He left the cameras in place in protective casing. He checked them every 7–10 days.
But that was just the beginning.
The scale of the discovery
When I first looked at Atukwatse’s videos, our joint excitement was around the leopard footage. We knew they were adaptable and could even eat small rodents , but no one had ever recorded them eating bats in Africa.
As more clips came in, we realised something bigger was unfolding. Blue monkeys were seen grabbing bats mid-roost. A crowned eagle and a Nile monitor fought over two bat carcasses. A fish eagle – typically a piscivore, which is a carnivorous species that primarily eats fish – was filmed clutching bats in its talons.
Over 304 trap-nights, Atukwatse’s traps recorded 261 independent predator events from at least 14 different species.
Then came the second shock: over 400 human visitors – many of them tourists – were filmed approaching the cave mouth without any protective gear. Some stood just metres from a known Marburg virus reservoir. Importantly, the Uganda Wildlife Authority has built a sanctioned viewing platform about 35 metres from the cave. However, tourists broke park rules and walked within two metres of the cave mouth.
It was only after I visited the cave myself to take stills of the team that we put this all together. Atukwatse had just found the first visual evidence, at a large scale in nature, of at least 14 predators feeding on a known wildlife virus reservoir harbouring one of Earth’s deadliest viruses.
This wasn’t the result of million-dollar pathogen surveillance. It wasn’t even the core aim of our leopard survey. This happened because a young Ugandan field scientist followed his ecological gut.
Why does the discovery matter?
For decades, disease ecologists have known that major outbreaks often originate in wildlife – swine flu, avian flu and even SARS-CoV-2 all trace back to animal hosts. But what’s often missing is direct observation of spillover interfaces – the exact moments when a virus jumps from a bat, goose, or other animal into new species like humans, livestock or other wildlife.
Atukwatse’s discovery may be the first large-scale visual record of such an interface in nature: a roost of Egyptian fruit bats known to harbour a deadly virus, actively predated upon by at least 14 species, with hundreds of humans visiting the same cave mouth unprotected.
This may be a Rosetta Stone moment for spillover ecology – shifting our understanding from hypothetical models to a real, observable interface.
These kinds of spillover sites exist in other places in nature: in a Chinese wet market where a civet meets a meat processor, or in a Gabonese village where a bat is butchered for bushmeat. The difference? Most of them go undocumented. Atukwatse just filmed one.
Alexander Richard Braczkowski is the scientific director of the Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust Kyambura Lion Project.
The leaders of Bougainville and Papua New Guinea have signed a deal that may bring the autonomous region’s quest for independence closer.
Called “Melanesian Agreement”, the deal was developed earlier this month in 10 days of discussion at the New Zealand army base at Burnham, near Christchurch.
Both governments have agreed that the national Parliament in PNG has a key role in the decision over the push for independence.
They recognise that the Bougainville desire for independence is legitimate, as expressed in a 2019 independence referendum result, and that this is a unique situation in PNG.
That is the agreement’s attempt to overcome pressure from other parts of PNG that are also talking about autonomy.
The parties say they are committed to maintaining a close, peaceful and enduring relationship between PNG and Bougainville.
Both sides said that to bring referendum results to the national Parliament both governments would develop a sessional order, which was a the temporary adjustment of Parliament’s rules.
Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee They said that a Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee on Bougainville, which would provide information to MPs and the general public about the Bougainville conflict and resolution, is a vital body.
The parties said they would explore the joint creation of a Melanesian framework with agreed timelines, for a pathway forwards, that may form part of the Joint Consultations Report presented to the 11th National Parliament.
Once the Bipartisan Committee completes its work, the results of the referendum and the Joint Consultation Report would be taken to the Parliament.
The parties said they would accept the decision of the national Parliament, in the first instance, regarding the referendum results, and then commit to further consultations if needed, and this would be in an agreed timeline.
In the meantime, institutional strengthening and institutional building within Bougainville would continue.
To ensure progress is made and political commitment is sustained, the monitoring of this Melanesian Agreement could include an international component, a Parliamentary component, and the Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee, all with UN support.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The leaders of Bougainville and Papua New Guinea have signed a deal that may bring the autonomous region’s quest for independence closer.
Called “Melanesian Agreement”, the deal was developed earlier this month in 10 days of discussion at the New Zealand army base at Burnham, near Christchurch.
Both governments have agreed that the national Parliament in PNG has a key role in the decision over the push for independence.
They recognise that the Bougainville desire for independence is legitimate, as expressed in a 2019 independence referendum result, and that this is a unique situation in PNG.
That is the agreement’s attempt to overcome pressure from other parts of PNG that are also talking about autonomy.
The parties say they are committed to maintaining a close, peaceful and enduring relationship between PNG and Bougainville.
Both sides said that to bring referendum results to the national Parliament both governments would develop a sessional order, which was a the temporary adjustment of Parliament’s rules.
Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee They said that a Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee on Bougainville, which would provide information to MPs and the general public about the Bougainville conflict and resolution, is a vital body.
The parties said they would explore the joint creation of a Melanesian framework with agreed timelines, for a pathway forwards, that may form part of the Joint Consultations Report presented to the 11th National Parliament.
Once the Bipartisan Committee completes its work, the results of the referendum and the Joint Consultation Report would be taken to the Parliament.
The parties said they would accept the decision of the national Parliament, in the first instance, regarding the referendum results, and then commit to further consultations if needed, and this would be in an agreed timeline.
In the meantime, institutional strengthening and institutional building within Bougainville would continue.
To ensure progress is made and political commitment is sustained, the monitoring of this Melanesian Agreement could include an international component, a Parliamentary component, and the Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee, all with UN support.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Summer is the UK’s best-loved season. It’s easy to see why, with the warmer, sunnier weather it brings. But the temperature isn’t the only reason people prefer midsummer to the dark days of winter. Many also report their mood is better during the warmer months.
But why is it that our mood changes so much through the seasons? While there are many complex reasons why the weather can have such a significant affect on our mood and wellbeing, the key answer lies in our brain – and the way almost all of our body’s systems are hardwired to respond to what’s going on around us.
Your body’s core temperature is set at 37°C. Temperature is regulated by an area of the brain known as the hypothalamus. This nerve centre receives information about temperature from all over the body and initiates actions to either cool down or warm up accordingly.
The outside temperature can also affect our biological clock – otherwise known as our circadian rhythms. These govern, among other functions, our sleep-wake cycles.
Our circadian rhythms are also regulated by the hypothalamus – more specifically, a part of it called the suprachiasmatic nucleus. The fact that both temperature control and sleep-wake cycles are governed from within the same region of the brain suggests they are inextricably connected.
This connection can also partly help to explain why our moods can shift so much from winter to summer. It’s the interaction between these nervous pathways that are believed to impact mood through their effect on sleep, mood-influencing neurotransmitters, and more.
For instance, in winter, many people find their mood takes a dip – especially during the long, dark days of midwinter. Some people even develop seasonal affective disorder (Sad), a condition associated with depressive episodes that fluctuate with the comings-and-goings of the different seasons – though it’s typically more common in the winter because of the darker days and cold temperatures.
Sad can also cause sleep disturbances, lethargy and appetite changes – particularly cravings for carbohydrates. As the summer months arrive, people with winter Sad usually find their symptoms significantly improve.
There’s some evidence that Sad is linked to secretion of a hormone called melatonin – a hormone that’s also linked to our circadian rhythms. Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland, which shares nervous connections with the hypothalamus and acts to control timing and quality of sleep.
Melatonin levels typically remain relatively low during the day – but levels start to creep up in the evening, reaching their highest levels in the middle of the night. But the lower levels of daylight in the winter can cause dysfunction with melatonin levels, typically increasing it’s secretion. This probably explains why people feel sleepier and more fatigued in winter – and which may in turn trigger depression.
But it’s not just melatonin that’s linked to Sad. Other neurotransmitters which act as mood boosters (such as serotonin) appear to be affected by dark and cold days too. There also seems to be a link with geographical location – with evidence showing the condition is more common in regions furthest from the equator, where there are extremes of daylight and temperature.
Summertime sadness
When summer finally makes an appearance, the effect of sunshine and heat upon the energy-boosting neurotransmitters (such as serotonin) makes a notable difference to mood. This may be partly due to increased amounts of vitamin D – which is made in the skin, and requires sunlight exposure to reach higher levels. Vitamin D has been proven to positively affect serotonin levels.
But not everyone finds themselves pleased by summer’s hotter temperatures and longer days. Some may find they feel more miserable this season.
It’s less clear why some people get Sad in the summertime – and is probably due to a range of factors. It may be due to the heat and humidity or even feelings of self-consciousness. It could possibly even be due to sleep disruptions – since the longer days might disrupt our circadian rhythm.
Certain health conditions may also influence how we cope with the warmer temperatures. Take the menopause, where symptoms such as hot flushes may be exacerbated by the warmer weather. Those dealing with these symptoms may find it becomes even more difficult during heat waves – and this may take a toll on their mental wellbeing.
Some research does show that rising temperatures can be a precipitant for acute mental illness. One study examined a population of patients with bipolar disorder and found there was a significant peak in the number of hospital admissions in the summer months compared to patients with other psychiatric disorders. Their statistical analysis demonstrated that higher temperatures and solar radiation levels were the most significant determinants of acute episodes.
Another study has also suggested a link between increased temperatures and risk of suicidal behaviour.
The body’s natural responses to heat also feeds into the biological stress response. The mechanisms by which the body cools down, such as sweating and promoting blood flow to the skin, can cause dehydration and skin flushing. This may make people feel of frustrated and irritable, have trouble concentrating and may even impact the quality of sleep.
The interplay between temperature, sunlight, the body’s circadian clock and mood is a complex and intriguing conundrum – and one which is as unique as each person. While some of us are hard-wired to be sunchasers, others eagerly look forward to the dark days of winter. But in a world where climate change is a definite reality, we need to better understand how a warming world is going to affect our wellbeing.
Dan Baumgardt 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.
After eight years of renovations, the Waldorf Astoria in New York has reopened and is welcoming new guests. The Waldorf – as most people know it – introduced room service, velvet ropes, red-velvet cake and Thousand Island dressing. It gave its name to a salad, a chain of lunchrooms, as well as a now obscure form of democracy.
In 1907, the novelist Henry James said the Waldorf embodied what he called the “hotel spirit”: it was a place where everyone was equal – as long as they could afford the price of admission. To James, hotels defined America’s emerging culture and ideals. He said this new “spirit” was one of opportunity; of a new elite that was accessible not only by lineage, but by money.
As the historian and journalist David Freeland wrote, the Waldorf generally made room for all who were “able and ready to pay” and who displayed a willingness to “conduct themselves properly”. The Waldorf ethos was developed by its first maître d’, Oscar Tschirky – known simply as “Oscar of the Waldorf” because people struggled to pronounce his name. “Our innovations were startling and sensational”, Tschirky said in his ghost-written autobiography in 1943, “but they were always genteel”.
Those early innovations included the invention of the “presidential suite”, which saw the hotel become an unlikely early force for American feminism when it became a hub of high-level talks between suffragists and President Woodrow Wilson.
The Waldorf, then, is an American institution – or, at least, it used to be.
It is now in the hands of Chinese owners and has been shunned by presidents since Barack Obama, worried over potential security risks. The brand itself has been watered down as there are currently 32 “Waldorf Astorias” dotted around the globe.
The story of the Waldorf encapsulates modern America’s crisis of the establishment. Few places better personify the creation of the US version of the establishment (much more about money than breeding or class). And in the past decade, the hotel’s position, like the US establishment more generally, has come under assault by a rival hotel owner, Donald Trump.
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.
Trump has his own ideas about how to use these modern palaces to project power – and his innovations are anything but genteel. So what can the beginnings of this former American institution tell us about America today? As a researcher of political and democratic institutions, I have been examining the role of hotels in the story of American democracy. And this particular story begins with a Swiss-born waiter.
Oscar of the Waldorf
Tschirky was born in the Swiss Alpine village of Le Locle in 1866. He and his mother boarded the steamer La France in 1883, bound for New York. In his book, he recalled his mother’s announcement:
Yes, Oscar, we’re going to go to America and live with your brother in that great land of plenty where we can have everything we’ve always wanted.
That night, according to his book, was “the beginning of Oscar’s career as beloved servitor and counsellor to the great and near great of this world”.
Although it would be ten years after arriving in New York, that Tschirky would join the Waldorf (which was just about to open) as maître d’. His contract and salary commenced on January 1 1893, ahead of the grand opening of the Fifth Avenue hotel in March. He would occupy his post for the next half-century as “host to the world”.
Tschirky would remain in place as the hotel expanded in 1897 when John Jacob Astor IV built and connected the larger, taller Astoria Hotel next door. Then in 1931 the hotel was forced to relocate when its Fifth Avenue location was razed for the Empire State Building. The “new” Waldorf Astoria New York reopened on Park Avenue with the addition of its famous towers, making it the tallest hotel in the world at the time.
Tschirky was born just one year after the end of the American Civil War. It was an America of Jim Crow laws and segregation. He would live to see women’s suffrage, but not the civil rights reforms of the mid-1960s.
In this turbulent context, it appears that Tschirky did his best to keep the Waldorf out of politics. He stuck to the advice given by the Waldorf’s manager, George Boldt (himself a German immigrant) who told him that it was “not up to the hotel to settle international affairs”.
Tschirky came to understand, realise, and represent the “hotel spirit” of a new America as he presided over the establishment of hotels as American palaces: not only for visitors, but for the new American aristocracy.
A presidential palace
The Waldorf famously hosted every US president from Grover Cleveland to Franklin Roosevelt. In spring 1897, Cleveland was at the Waldorf with members of his former cabinet, who wanted him as Democratic candidate in the 1900 election. This was the first reported instance of “Waldorf democracy” – in this case, the term was used to identify this new group within (and in some respects differentiate it from) “the democracy”, that was the Democrats.
President Grover Cleveland (sitting on the far left) and his cabinet, between 1895 and 1896. Shutterstock/Everett Collection
This politics was not embraced by all. As reported in The Ohio Democrat, Congressman Edward W. Carmack of Tennessee dismissed it as “the walled-off Democracy, because they are by themselves, representing nobody, and unable to influence a vote”.
Nevertheless, political elites liked the luxury that the Waldorf offered. Presidential suites were established during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency (1913-21). In the Waldorf, this famous suite emulates the furniture of the White House and still contains several presidential souvenirs, (including John F. Kennedy’s rocking chair).
The hotel was also popular among the famous “Four Hundred of the Gilded Age” – the highest echelons of New York society. The group was originally led by Caroline Schermerhorn Astor. The Astors’ ancestral family home, the town of Walldorf, in western Germany, had even given the hotel its name. According to Tschirky’s book, the Waldorf’s grand ballroom was:
… where Teddy Roosevelt had dined, where presidents McKinley, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover had spoken historic words to the nation, where princes of royal blood had been welcomed, where the great people in every walk of life had been honored.
The Waldorf proved a suitable palace for US presidents and their entourages and Tschirky, a suitable “servant”. When interviewed by Washington DC’s Evening Star, Tschirky “wouldn’t talk about presidents except to say that Franklin D. Roosevelt calls him, ‘my neighbor across the Hudson’”.
But Tschirky, “for all his celebrity acquaintances, never forgot that he was, in the end, a servant”, as Freeland wrote. The Waldorf likewise applied the term to its staff.
Exclusivity, exclusion and ‘democracy’
The world famous hotelier Conrad Hilton, who acquired the Waldorf in 1949, recalled in his autobiography, Be My Guest:
Originally the Waldorf was said to purvey exclusiveness to the exclusive. Later [the writer and artist] Oliver Herford announced that it ‘brought exclusiveness to the masses’. But that exclusiveness remained whether the hotel catered to a convention of three thousand or a tête-à-tête between crowned heads.
The Waldorf ethos projected “taste” and imbued it in others. Tschirky “subtly schooled Americans in fine European dining”. In 1956 – six years after Tschirky’s death – the New York Times recalled that, alongside Boldt, he undertook to teach people how to spend their money. The Waldorf embodied good taste by enforcing it, for example in its expectation of “proper conduct”.
But with exclusivity comes exclusion. Hence, the hotel’s introduction of the velvet rope. According to the Waldorf’s luxury suite specialists, this was done “to create order … the fact that it created a sense of stature and separation was secondary”.
Tschirky’s statement that “all who pay their bills are on an equal footing” reflects one of his “rules for success”:
… be as courteous to the man in a five dollar room as to the occupant of the royal suite. It is an old rule, but it never changes.
We can see from this mindset how the hotel was seen to possess, as American Studies scholar Annabella Fick put it, “a democratic quality … even though it is also elitist. In that, it invokes the democratic understanding of early America, which also differentiated between land-owning gentry and the mob”.
This was not the only differentiation. Just two years after the Waldorf opened, the 1895 New York State Equal Rights Law (commonly known as the Malby Law) – which aimed to abolish racial discrimination in public places – had aroused Boldt’s indignation. According to Freeland, Boldt described the law to reporters as “an outrage, as it prevents us from making any selection of our patrons. A man who runs a first-class hotel must respect the wishes of his guests as to the sort of people that he entertains, and the law should not dictate to him.”
In his paradoxical desire for the freedom to discriminate and persecute as he wished – and on behalf of his customers, real or imagined – Boldt illustrated the exclusion inherent in exclusivity. Boldt’s statement also presaged a system of informal segregation, in which Black Americans were allowed in the Waldorf (and elsewhere), but were certainly not welcome.
Despite this the Waldorf was at the heart of a fundamental shift in American culture which “invited” ordinary Americans access beyond the velvet rope – as long as they could afford it. As James McCarthy and John Rutherford said in their 1931 book, Peacock Alley: “The average man and woman … frowned upon grand display – chiefly because the average person knew it was beyond his or her own horizon of enjoyment. The arrival of the Waldorf, however, was an invitation to the public to taste of this grandeur.”
And it wasn’t just the paying customers. During its 30th anniversary in 1923, the Waldorf elevated its staff – its servants – to the level of guests. Reporters for the Birmingham Age-Herald noted: “Practically the entire staff of the hotel were guests … the affair reached the topnotch of Waldorf democracy, for the waiters and financiers, telephone girls and captains of industry, coat-room clerks and merchant princes sat side by side and swapped reminiscences with each other.” The article continues:
Oscar sat [at] the head of his own table as guest of honor. For a brief time Oscar was no longer the solicitous host … For an hour or two Oscar was himself the guest, and the entire kitchen menage of the Waldorf-Astoria was kept hopping filling his wants and those of his fellow guests.
Oscar and his wife Louise, in the Birmingham Age-Herald above ‘Father Knickerbocker’ – a personification of New York City (hence The Knicks) – celebrating the Waldorf at 30. Library of Congress
But being a guest was a temporary experience.
The “Waldorf democracy” described during this event – of people from every walk of life and status mixing and socialising – was very different to that of the Cleveland entourage. It was not party-political, but institutional.
Democracy meant different things, at different times, within the Waldorf; just like in the broader US. The Waldorf, in turn, began to change, and perhaps even lose its meaning within the US by the time of Obama’s presidency.
Chinese ownership
The Waldorf lost its status as presidential palace in 2014. It was bought for $1.95bn by a Chinese company that was later seized by the Chinese government. Security concerns a year later prompted President Obama to stay at the Lotte New York Palace Hotel instead.
Obama’s choice of where to stay – and where not to stay – was widely discussed in the media. The decision was seen to “break with decades of tradition”. ABC News recognised and portrayed it as the end of an era, bidding “Goodbye to the Waldorf Astoria, welcome to the Lotte New York Palace Hotel”. This new era was also framed in geopolitical terms, for example by the New York Times:
With Chinese spies rummaging through White House emails, President Obama has decided not to risk making their spying any easier: He will break with tradition and abandon the Waldorf Astoria … Mr. Obama and other officials will instead take up residence a few blocks away at the Lotte New York Palace.
The same article also pointed out that “hotels have long represented a weak link in security for travelling officials and others”. In fact, Nikita Khrushchev had once got stuck in an elevator at the Waldorf, and “probably thought it was an attempt to assassinate him”.
Covering up an assassination as an “elevator accident” is probably not what Hilton had in mind when he envisaged his hotels as “a means of combating communism”. On the contrary – as Professor Mairi Maclean, a researcher of business elites, put it – Hilton envisaged hotels as a means of “facilitating world peace through international trade and travel”.
Women’s suffrage
It may not have brought about world peace, but the Waldorf did play a part in certain moments of US history because it was always seen as a key arena to lobby rulers, most notably in 1916. Women’s suffrage in America was still four years away. On one side of the debate (and the Waldorf itself) were two hundred suffragists, occupying the East Room. On the other was Woodrow Wilson, occupying the Presidential Suite.
Tschirky recalled being “appointed diplomatic courier … and delegated to carry the first communiqué of the morning … In the midst of it all I stood my ground, swearing myself an ice cold neutral”.
Though neutral on the question of suffrage, Tschirky was willing to reduce boundaries within the hotel, especially if it was good for business. Even as the hotel was being built, Tschirky remembered that “there was not, in all America, such a thing as a motor car, a radio … Nor were cocktails ever seen in private homes; or divorces tolerated in society; nor did women smoke, or wear dresses above their ankles”.
Then in 1907 a notice was put up in the Waldorf: “Women would be served in the hotel restaurants at any time, with or without male escorts.” Freeland noted Tschirky’s simple confirmation that: “We will serve women. What else can you do in a hotel?”
Crowd of women’s suffrage supporters demonstrating with signs reading, ‘Wilson Against Women’, in Chicago on October 20, 1916. Wilson withheld his support for Votes of Women until 1918. Shutterstock/Everett Collection
A few years later, discussing women’s right to smoke in the dining rooms, Tschirky said: “We do not regulate the public taste. Public taste does and should regulate us.”
During the Waldorf’s 30th anniversary in 1923, newspapers such as El Imparcial celebrated it as “a civic asset of unique importance. And to its other accolades must be added that of contributing effectively to the progress of feminism. It was a memorable day in the women’s rights movement when The Waldorf Astoria granted female access to the Peacock Alley.”
Nevertheless, even the naming of Peacock Alley – a corridor in the hotel that became an important place of congregation, especially for women – was a recognition of exclusivity. It was where people gathered to parade themselves. As the recollection goes in Tschirky’s memoirs: “The Waldorf Hotel was a triumphant picture of the Best People at their best”.
Trump
With their ostentatious decor and gilded interiors, Trump’s hotels could be seen as the modern incarnation of Peacock Alley.
But the tenets of politeness, respect and decorum that Tschirky set down seem like echoes from another age when compared to a recent AI video showing Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sitting shirtless at a pool with drinks at an imaginary “Trump Gaza hotel”. The video appears to have been a spoof, but that didn’t stop the president from sharing it on Truth Social, his own social media platform, and Instagram.
Like Hilton (who was immortalised in Mad Men, demanding a Hilton on the moon) hotels have always been a part of Trump’s brand. Trump recalled, in How to Get Rich, that his “first big deal, in 1974, involved the old Commodore Hotel site near Grand Central Station” on 42nd Street.
The former Trump International Hotel in Washington DC, opened in 2016, was described as “the epicenter of the president’s business interests in [the capital]”. It was also “a popular choice for lobbyists and Republican Congress members during Trump’s presidency”.
“The Trump Organization sold the hotel’s lease to CGI in 2022, when the hotel was reflagged as a Waldorf Astoria”, though Trump’s firm is rumoured to be in talks to reacquire it.
Another similarity between Hilton and Trump is their use of hotels as symbols for the nation. Each hotel of Hilton’s was envisaged as a “Little America”, “to show the countries most exposed to communism the other side of the coin”.
It had all of the ingredients of greatness, but it had been neglected and left to deteriorate for many many decades … It had the foundation of success. All of the elements were here. Our job is to restore our former glory, honor its heritage, but also imagine a brand new and exciting vision for the future.
Forbes commented that this event “could’ve easily been mistaken for a Trump rally”, for example in his statement that “my theme today is five words: ‘under budget and ahead of schedule’ … We don’t hear those words too often in government – but you will!”
Similarly, in an interview with the New York Post, Trump’s son Eric Trump used familiar Maga rhetoric: “Our family has saved the hotel once. If asked, we would save it again”.
What would Tschirky have made of all this? As a political neutral he would have decried Trump’s frequent hotel plugs during political campaigns. No doubt his behaviour would have seemed crass.
Perhaps this reflects two different eras of hotels and their intended functions. Grand hotels such as the Waldorf were shaped by European colonialism, by immigrants like Tschirky and Boldt. But as historian Annabel Wharton describes, the Hiltons “were constructed not, as in the nineteenth century, to meet an established need, but to create one. They suggest that this pressure was not produced simply by the desire for profit, but from a remarkable political commitment to the system that promoted profit-making”. I think we can read Trump’s hotels, and now his politics, in the same way.
The hotel spirit has entered a new phase with Trump’s proposals to “own, level, and develop” the Gaza Strip and create a “Riviera of the Middle East” – riding roughshod over the democratic will of Palestinians in Gaza who dismissed Trump’s vision.
Less than two decades after opening, Tschirky remarked that “many of the great events, financial, diplomatic, political, had had their inception within [the Waldorf’s] stone walls”. For him, it was “an international crossroad where men from all lands came to exchange goods and ideas” and to plan the changes in the world which he would later see come to pass.
Tschirky saw hotels as the most democratic places on Earth. But the “hotel spirit” he espoused – that uniquely American narrative within which he “became a citizen almost overnight” (a feat that seems vanishingly unlikely today) – seems to have been consigned to the past.
“I know that better times will come again”, he says in the preface to his book, “but in terms of the past, I think I have seen the best. New York has changed. America has changed.”
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.
Alex Prior 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.
Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month.
The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilise, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the US-Israeli dyad.
The good news for my region is that Iran’s resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the US pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China.
There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth. Iran is the weakest. If Iran falls, war in our region — intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely.
Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs.
“Tomorrow”, people in this part of the world naively think, “will always be like yesterday”.
That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here’s why.
US chooses war to re-shape Middle East Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn’t supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries.
In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi’s Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all — the Islamic Republic of Iran.
One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success — if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of.
With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years. A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft.
Now — with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered (“We came, we saw, he died”, Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine — the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns — or, rather, bombs — on the great prize: Iran.
Iran’s missiles have checked US-Israel for time being Things did not go to plan. Former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours.
Iran’s missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the US will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over — a serious pivot to Asia.
Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into powderkeg? For us in Asia-Pacific a major US pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric — all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg.
Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world — bellum Americanum — as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask?
Back in the days of George W Bush, radical American thinkers like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld created the Project for a New American Century and developed the policy, adopted by succeeding presidents, that promotes “the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of US military forces”.
It reconfirmed the neoconservative American dogma that no power should be allowed to rise in any region to become a regional hegemon; anything and everything necessary should be done to ensure continued American primacy, including the resort to war.
What has changed since those days are two crucial, epoch-making events: the re-emergence of Russia as a great power, albeit the weakest of the three, and the emergence of China as a genuine peer competitor to the USA. Professor John Mearsheimer’s insights are well worth studying on this topic.
The three pillars of multipolarity A new world order really is being born. As geopolitical thinkers like Professor Glenn Diesen point out, it will, if it is not killed in the cradle, replace the US unipolar world order that has existed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Many countries are involved in its birthing, including major players like India and Brazil and all the countries that are part of BRICS. Three countries, however, are central to the project: Iran, Russia and, most importantly, China. All three are in the crosshairs of the Western empire.
If Iran, Russia and China survive as independent entities, they will partially fulfill Halford MacKinder’s early 20th century heartland theory that whoever dominates Eurasia will rule the world. I don’t think MacKinder, however, foresaw cooperative multipolarity on the Eurasian landmass — which is one of the goals of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) – as an option.
That, increasingly, appears to be the most likely trajectory with multiple powerful states that will not accept domination, be that from China or the US. That alone should give us cause for hope.
Drunk on power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has launched war after war and brought us to the current abandonment of economic sanity (the sanctions-and-tariff global pandemic) and diplomatic normalcy (kill any peace negotiators you see) — and an anything-goes foreign policy (including massive crimes against humanity).
We have also reached — thanks in large part to these same policies — what a former US national security advisor warned must be avoided at all costs. Back in the 1990s, Zbigniew Brzezinski said, “The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran.”
Belligerent and devoid of sound strategy, the Biden and Trump administrations have achieved just that.
Can Asia-Pacific avoid being dragged into an American war on China? Turning to our region, New Zealand and Australia’s governments cleave to yesterday: a white-dominated world led by the USA. We have shown ourselves indifferent to massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression launched by our team.
To avoid war — or a permanent fear of looming war — in our own backyards, we need to encourage sanity and diplomacy; we need to stay close to the US but step away from the military alliances they are forming, such as AUKUS which is aimed squarely at China.
Above all, our defence and foreign affairs elites need to grow new neural pathways and start to think with vision and not place ourselves on the losing side of history. Independent foreign policy settings based around peace, defence not aggression, diplomacy not militarisation, would take us in the right direction.
Personally I look forward to the day the US and its increasingly belligerent vassals are pushed back into the ranks of ordinary humanity. I fear the US far more than I do China.
Despite the reflexive adherence to the US that our leaders are stuck on, we should not, if we value our lives and our cultures, allow ourselves to be part of this mad, doomed project.
The US empire is heading into a blood-drenched sunset; their project will fail and the 500-year empire of the White West will end — starting and finishing with genocide.
Every day I atheistically pray that leaders or a movement will emerge to guide our antipodean countries out of the clutches of a violent and increasingly incoherent USA.
America is not our friend. China is not our enemy. Tomorrow gives birth to a world that we should look forward to and do the little we can to help shape.
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz
From 2015 to 2018, I spent 15 months doing researchwork in Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city. As an anthropologist, I was interested in everyday life in Iran outside the capital Tehran. I was also interested in understanding whether the ambitions of the 1979 Revolution lived on among “ordinary” Iranians, not just political elites.
I first lived on a university campus, where I learned Persian, and later with Iranian families. I conducted hundreds of interviews with people who had a broad spectrum of political, social and religious views. They included opponents of the Islamic Republic, supporters, and many who were in between.
What these interviews revealed to me was both the diversity of opinion and experience in Iran, and the difficulty of making uniform statements about what Iranians believe.
Measuring the depth of antipathy for the regime
When Israel’s strikes on Iran began on June 13, killing many top military commanders, many news outlets – both international and those run by the Iranian diaspora – featured images of Iranians cheering the deaths of these hated regime figures.
Friends from my fieldwork also pointed to these celebrations, while not always agreeing with them. Many feared the impact of a larger conflict between Iran and Israel.
Trying to put these sentiments in context, many analysts have pointed to a 2019 survey by the GAMAAN Institute, an independent organisation based in the Netherlands that tracks Iranian public opinion. This survey showed 79% of Iranians living in the country would vote against the Islamic Republic if a free referendum were held on its rule.
Viewing these examples as an indicator of the lack of support for the Islamic Republic is not wrong. But when used as factoids in news reports, they become detached from the complexities of life in Iran. This can discourage us from asking deeper questions about the relationships between ideology and pragmatism, support and opposition to the regime, and state and society.
A more nuanced view
The news reporting on Iran has encouraged a tendency to see the Iranian state as homogeneous, highly ideological and radically separate from the population.
But where do we draw the line between the state and the people? There is no easy answer to this.
When I lived in Iran, many of the people who took part in my research were state employees – teachers at state institutions, university lecturers, administrative workers. Many of them had strong and diverse views about the legacy of the revolution and the future of the country.
They sometimes pointed to state discourse they agreed with, for example Iran’s right to national self-determination, free from foreign influence. They also disagreed with much, such as the slogans of “death to America”.
This ambivalence was evident in one of my Persian teachers. An employee of the state, she refused to attend the annual parades celebrating the anniversary of the revolution. “We have warm feelings towards America,” she said. On the other hand, she happily attended protests, also organised by the government, in favour of Palestinian liberation.
Or take the young government worker I met in Mashhad: “We want to be independent of other countries, but not like this.”
In a narrower sense, discussions about the “state” may refer more to organisations like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij, the paramilitary force within the IRGC that has cracked down harshly on dissent in recent decades. Both are often understood as being deeply ideologically committed.
Said Golkar, a US-based Iranian academic and author, for instance, calls Iran a “captive society”. Rather than having a civil society, he believes Iranians are trapped by the feared Basij, who maintain control through their presence in many institutions like universities and schools.
Again, this view is not wrong. But even among the Basij and Revolutionary Guard, it can be difficult to gauge just how ideological and homogeneous these organisations truly are.
For a start, the IRGC relies on both ideologically selected supporters, as well as conscripts, to fill its ranks. They are also not always ideologically uniform, as the US-based anthropologist Narges Bajoghli, who worked with pro-state filmmakers in Tehran, has noted.
As part of my research, I also interviewed members of the Basij, which, unlike the IRGC proper, is a wholly volunteer organisation.
Even though ideological commitment was certainly an important factor for some of the Basij members I met, there were also pragmatic reasons to join. These included access to better jobs, scholarships and social mobility. Sometimes, factors overlapped. But participation did not always equate to a singular or sustained commitment to revolutionary values.
For example, Sāsān, a friend I made attending discussion groups in Mashhad, was quick to note that time spent in the Basij “reduced your [compulsory] military service”.
This isn’t to suggest there are not ideologically committed people in Iran. They clearly exist, and many are ready to use violence. Some of those who join these institutions for pragmatic reasons use violence, too.
Looking in between
In addition, Iran is an ethnically diverse country. It has a population of 92 million people, a bare majority of whom are Persians. Other minorities include Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baloch, Turkmen and others.
It is also religiously diverse. While there is a sizeable, nominally Shi’a majority, there are also large Sunni communities (about 10-15% of the population) and smaller communities of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Baha’is and other religions.
Often overlooked, there are also important differences in class and social strata in Iran, too.
One of the things I noticed about state propaganda was that it flattened this diversity. James Barry, an Australian scholar of Iran, noticed a similar phenomenon.
State propaganda made it seem like there was one voice in the country. Protests could be dismissed out of hand because they did not represent the “authentic” view of Iranians. Foreign agitators supported protests. Iranians supported the Islamic Republic.
Since leaving Iran, I have followed many voices of Iranians in the diaspora. Opposition groups are loud on social media, especially the monarchists who support Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed Shah.
In following these groups, I have noticed a similar tendency to speak as though they represent the voice of all Iranians. Iranians support the shah. Or Iranians support Maryam Rajavi, leader of a Paris-based opposition group.
Both within Iran, and in the diaspora, the regime, too, is sometimes held to be the imposition of a foreign conspiracy. This allows the Islamic Republic and the complex relations it has created to be dismissed out of hand. Once again, such a view flattens diversity.
Over the past few years, political identities and societal divisions seem to have become harder and clearer. This means there is an increasing perception among many Iranians of a gulf between the state and Iranian society. This is the case both inside Iran, and especially in the Iranian diaspora.
Decades of intermittent protests and civil disobedience across the country also show that for many, the current system no longer represents the hopes and aspirations of many people. This is especially the case for the youth, who make up a large percentage of the population.
I am not an Iranian, and I strongly believe it is up to Iranians to determine their own futures. I also do not aim to excuse the Islamic Republic – it is brutal and tyrannical. But its brutality should not let us shy away from asking complex questions.
If the regime did fall tomorrow, Iran’s diversity means there is little unanimity of opinion as to what should come next. And if a more pluralist form of politics is to emerge, it must encompass the whole of Iran’s diversity, without assuming a uniform position.
It, too, will have to wrestle with the difficult questions and sometimes ambivalent relations the Islamic Republic has created.
Simon Theobald received funding from the Australian National University during his research.
Israeli soldiers have said that they were ordered to open fire at unarmed Palestinian civilians desperately seeking aid at designated distribution sites in Gaza, a report in the Ha’aretz newspaper has revealed.
The report came as 70 Palestinians were killed across the Gaza Strip — mostly at aid sites belonging to the widely condemned Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) — in the last 24 hours.
Soldiers said that instead of using crowd control measures, they shot at crowds of civilians to prevent them from approaching certain areas.
One soldier, who was not named in the report, described the distribution site as a “killing field,” adding that “where I was, between one and five people were killed every day”.
The soldier said that they targeted the crowds as if they were “an attacking force,” instead of using other non-lethal weapons to organise and disperse crowds.
“We communicate with them through fire,” he continued, noting that heavy machine guns, grenade launchers and mortars were used on people, including the elderly, women and children.
The increased attacks, particularly those targeting aid-seekers, come as Gaza’s government Media Office said at least 549 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli forces while trying to get their hands on emergency aid in the last four weeks.
‘Evil of moral army’ Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara described what was happening in Gaza was more than the genocode.
“It is the evil of the most moral army in the world,” he said.
Israeli forces continued their attacks across the Gaza Strip on Friday, killing at least three Palestinians in an attack on Khan Younis, in the south, while also heavily bombing residential buildings east of Jabalia in the north.
Medical sources also said a Palestinian fisherman was killed, and others wounded, by Israeli naval gunfire off the al-Shati refugee camp, while he was working.
Gaza’s Ministry of Interior responded to the attacks with a statement, accusing Israel of “seeking to spread chaos and destabilise the Gaza Strip”.
Malnutrition soars Gazans have continued to desperately seek aid provided by the US and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, despite the hundreds of people killed at its sites, as malnutrition soars in the territory.
Two infants have died this week due to malnutrition and the ongoing blockade on Gaza.
“It’s a killing field” claims a headline in Ha’aretz newspaper. Image: Ha’aretz screenshot APR
For weeks now, health officials in the enclave have raised the alarm over the critical shortage of baby formula, but aid continued to be obstructed.
The two infants were buried on Thursday evening, after they were pronounced dead at the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis. Medical staff said the cause of death was a lack of basic nutrition and access to essential medical care.
One of the infants, identified as Nidal, was only five months old, while the other, Kinda, was only 10 days old.
Mohammed al-Hams, Kinda’s father, told local media that children are dying due to severe malnutrition, sarcastically labelling them “the achievements of Netanyahu and his war”.
“Not a second goes by without a funeral prayer being held in the Gaza Strip,” he continued.
Malnutrition ‘catastrophic’ On Wednesday, Gaza’s Ministry of Health said the humanitarian situation in Gaza had reached “catastrophic” levels, noting that there had been a sharp increase in malnutrition among children, particularly in infants.
According to Palestinian official figures, at least 242 people have died in Gaza due to food and medicine shortages, with the majority of them being elderly and children.
Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 61,700 Palestinians since October 2023. The war has levelled entire neighbourhoods, and has been called a genocide by leading rights groups, including Amnesty International.
In Auckland last night, visiting Palestinian journalist, author, academic and community advocate Dr Yousef Aljamal spoke about “The unheard voices of Palestinian child prisoners”.
Dr Aljamal, who edited If I Must Die, a compilation of poetry and prose by Refaat Alareer, the poet who was assassinated by the Israelis in 6 December 2023, also described the humanitarian crisis as a “catastrophe” and called for urgent sanctions and political pressure on Israel by governments, including New Zealand.
Soldiers admit Israeli army is targeting aid seekers Video: Al Jazeera
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University
The Supreme Court greenlights states’ efforts to block kids from online porn by requiring age verification.AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.
The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.
The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.
The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.
More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.
The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.
Implications for other laws
This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.
Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.
The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.
Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.
What comes next?
But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.
Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.
The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.
For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.
Meg Leta Jones 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 Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University
The Supreme Court greenlights states’ efforts to block kids from online porn by requiring age verification.AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.
The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.
The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.
The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.
More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.
The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.
Implications for other laws
This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.
Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.
The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.
Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.
What comes next?
But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.
Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.
The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.
For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.
Meg Leta Jones 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 Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University
The Supreme Court greenlights states’ efforts to block kids from online porn by requiring age verification.AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.
The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.
The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.
The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.
More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.
The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.
Implications for other laws
This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.
Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.
The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.
Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.
What comes next?
But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.
Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.
The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.
For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.
Meg Leta Jones 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 Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University
The Supreme Court greenlights states’ efforts to block kids from online porn by requiring age verification.AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.
The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.
The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.
The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.
More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.
The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.
Implications for other laws
This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.
Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.
The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.
Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.
What comes next?
But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.
Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.
The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.
For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.
Meg Leta Jones 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.
