After more than three years of war, the prospects of peace for Ukraine remain slim. There is no obvious credible pathway even to a ceasefire, given Russia’s refusal to extend a brief and shaky truce over Easter. This, despite the US, UK and Ukraine all signalling their support for this idea.
And even if the considerable hurdles impeding a ceasefire deal could be overcome, a more fundamental problem would remain. None of the key players in the conflict appear to have a plan for an agreement that is likely to be acceptable to Kyiv and Moscow.
Previous plans, such as a joint proposal by China and Brazil in May last year which was supported by a Chinese-led “Friends of Peace” group were primarily focused on a ceasefire as a stepping stone to negotiations about an actual peace agreement.
This and other plans were all light on detail of what a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine would entail but were nonetheless roundly rejected by Ukraine and its western allies as favouring Russia. Given that a ceasefire would simply freeze the front lines and very likely make them permanent with or without a subsequent peace agreement, this was not an unreasonable position.
What Ukraine proposed instead, however – and what its western allies backed, at least rhetorically – was hardly more viable. The peace plan proposed by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in December 2022 was already on life support at the time of the first “Summit on Peace in Ukraine” in Switzerland in June 2024.
Only 84 of the 100 delegations attending the summit (out of 160 invited) supported a watered-down version of Zelensky’s plan in their final communique – and there was no agreement on a follow-up meeting. Ukraine’s peace plan was clearly dead in the water.
Ukraine then proposed an “internal resilience plan”. With its its focus on ensuring that the country can survive a long war of attrition with Russia, this is anything but a peace plan.
But it serves Kyiv’s needs to avoid an unconditional surrender to Moscow. This is also high on the agenda for Ukraine’s European allies who remain committed to supporting Kyiv.
For the emerging European coalition of the willing, it is important to keep Ukraine in the fight while they build up their own defences. They face the possibility of a new international order in which the world might well be carved up into US, Russian and Chinese spheres of influence.
Where the White House stands
Such a carve-up is at the heart of efforts by the US president, Donald Trump. Trump is trying to secure a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine as well as a deal that would give the US privileged access to Ukrainian resources.
The ceasefire deal Trump appears to envisage would divide Ukraine itself into spheres of influence according to a plan recently suggested by Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg. Yet even such a pro-Moscow arrangement that would offer Putin control of 20% of Ukraine continues to elude negotiators.
At present, the Russian president has few incentives to settle for less than his maximum demands and stop a war that he thinks he is still able to win on the battlefield – particularly given Trump’s unwillingness to exert any meaningful pressure on Russia.
At times, it now appears more likely that Trump will simply abandon his efforts to end the fighting in Ukraine. From a Russian perspective, this would be preferable to a ceasefire that freezes the conflict but doesn’t lead to a peace deal reflecting Moscow’s demands.
The likely calculation in the Kremlin is that even if the 2026 mid-term elections in the US water down Trump’s power, that still leaves two more years to conquer more Ukrainian territory. Should Washington then make another push for a ceasefire, Moscow could claim any additional conquests as a price for Ukraine to pay for a settlement.
The simple reason for this is that Russia’s and Ukraine’s positions on an acceptable outcome have not shifted. Putin remains committed to the full annexation of four complete Ukrainian regions as well as retaining Crimea. Zelensky has repeatedly ruled out territorial concessions and is broadly supported by Ukrainians in this stance.
For the west, the reality that a peace agreement is close to impossible on terms satisfying all sides has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the extent that there are any joint efforts by Ukraine, the US and the European coalition of the willing, they are completely centred on a workable ceasefire.
At a meeting of foreign ministers and high-level officials in Paris on April 17, discussions were focused on making such a ceasefire sustainable.
While details of how this can be achieved remain unclear, the fact that there now appears to be a more inclusive negotiations track signals progress, at least on the process of negotiations. Whether this will lead to an actual breakthrough towards a sustainable ceasefire, however, will depend on their substance and whether Ukraine and Russia can ultimately agree on terms about disengagement of forces, monitoring, and guarantees and enforcement mechanisms.
This is an already incredibly high bar, and the bar for a subsequent peace agreement is higher yet. In the current stage of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, a ceasefire is clearly a precondition for a peace agreement. But the sole focus on the former will not make the latter any more likely.
What’s more, given Russia’s track record of reneging on the Minsk ceasefire agreements of September 2014 and February 2015, investing everything in a ceasefire deal might turn out not just a self-fulfilling but a self-defeating prophecy for Ukraine and its supporters.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
Tetyana Malyarenko does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
And while more recent attempts, such as the Spread Campaign in Australia, have tended to be less overtly graphic, they still focus exclusively on harms associated with drinking, such as cancer. They use fear to try and scare people into changing their drinking behaviour.
But despite their popularity with policymakers, psychological research has generally shown that campaigns based on fear do not change behaviour. What’s more, our researchhas found that even when young people thought they would regret what they did when drunk and made plans to drink less, they still ended up drinking the same amount.
Over a number of research studies, we’ve tried to figure out why regret doesn’t change drinking behaviour. What we’ve found is that for many young people, the fear of missing out on the good things they might experience while drinking outweighs the fear that they might do something they regret.
When young people in a focus group talked about their binge drinking, several downplayed the severity of the things they’d done while drunk – which included taking their clothes off in a nightclub and dancing naked on a table, and getting a tattoo of a footballer on their bum. They explained that the social benefits they got out of drinking, such as making shared memories, bonding and meeting new people, outweighed any negative consequences that followed.
This helps to explain why health campaigns can be ineffective. If you can justify naked dancing or getting a tattoo on your bum, you’re not going be too bothered about feeling a bit sick the morning after.
In a second, ongoing study, we talked to young adults about their fears of missing social events. Many told us that not attending these events meant exclusion from in-jokes based on shared experiences, leaving them feeling isolated. One of our interviewees even admitted an event would be “rubbish” but went anyway so as to not miss out.
So, it seemed to us that regret might work differently for things you do – “action regret” – versus things you do not do: “inaction regret”.
Applied to alcohol, this makes sense. Memories of hangovers fade, but you hold on to those shared experiences that mean so much. Conversely, not sharing experiences means you are left out of conversations, wondering what might have been.
This means that Fomo – the fear of missing out – might be a better predictor of young adults’ drinking behaviour than anticipating regret.
For our most recently published research study, we recruited over 100 young adults aged 18-30 and asked them to report the Fomo they felt and how much they planned to drink. They did this three times a day on three consecutive weekends. We also asked them how much they had gone on to drink each time.
Measuring Fomo and drinking plans multiple times over a short period helped us understand fluctuations in feelings and drinking plans. Our results show that experiencing higher levels of Fomo increased how much young adults planned to drink, and led to them drinking more.
This suggests one reason young adults drink more after experiencing Fomo is that they believe drinking more makes it more likely something memorable will happen. This supports what we found in our qualitative studies.
In contrast, experiencing Fomo did not make young adults drink more frequently. In another study one of us (Richard) conducted, young adults’ drinking frequency was best predicted by social factors, such as how often young adults contacted their friends about drinking, and their drinking habits.
As drinking often happens in social settings with friends, its frequency is likely to depend more on these social and contextual factors, rather than individual differences in Fomo or drinking plans.
Overall, our research shows that Fomo – an entirely psychological phenomenon – influences young adults’ drinking plans and how much they drink. Such results can help explain why hard-hitting health campaigns that highlight regret following binge-drinking are ineffective at reducing binge-drinking. Young adults are more worried about missing out socially than about the hangover the next day.
Richard Cooke has received funding from NIHR, the Wellcome Trust, European Union, and the European Foundation for Alcohol Research (ERAB) who were funded by the Brewers of Europe. ERAB had no role in study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of data, writing of manuscripts or decisions to submit papers for the projects they supported.
Joel Crawford 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 Isle of Man government has said it is “fully committed to environmental protection and transparency” regarding its Unesco biosphere status – despite admitting that legacy landfill sites are discharging hazardous chemical contaminants into the sea.
The Isle of Man is a self-governing island in the Irish Sea between the UK and and Ireland. It is not part of the UK or the European Union, but has the status of “crown dependency” with an independent administration. Its population of about 84,000 people are British citizens.
But polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) – synthetic industrial chemicals once used to make electricals and other materials – continue to be released into the waterways and the sea.
Although the production of PCBs was banned globally in the 1980s, they still exist in many products, like electrical equipment, much of which lingers in landfills and so they continue to pose a risk to ocean health. Research has shown how legacy contaminants such as PCBs can be released from hundreds of thousands of coastal landfills across Europe – and the Isle of Man is no different.
Evidence has been accumulating for years about PCB discharges on the Isle of Man and much of it is on the government’s own website.
For example, 4,000 tonnes of toxic silt from harbour dredging – which included PCBs and heavy metals was dumped in the Irish sea in 2014. This “trial dump” was despite environmental and legal advice from its marine monitoring officer that this would be ignoring international agreements and would be damaging to the environment.
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.
Then in 2015 – a time when it would have been putting together its Unesco application – the island government compiled a document, titled “the Peel Marina silt questions and answers” in which it discussed further toxic waste dumping options. It states:
Disposing of 18,000 tonnes of contaminated sediments from the marina directly to the sea bed would have had a negative impact on the species involved. Testing carried out by Defa [Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture] officers had already identified the likelihood that earlier disposal of 4,000 tonnes into the sea had contributed to rises in contaminants within commercial fisheries species to levels approaching EU food safety standards.
That batch of 18,000 tonnes of contaminated silt, collected after harbour dredging in Peel harbour, was eventually moved to a sealed pit.
But it is the ongoing situation with legacy landfills which is seeing PCBs continuing to leach into the sea – a situation that the island government admits will not be entirely solved until the construction of a wastewater treatment plant (building is due to start on the plant in April 2025).
But despite its pledges of being a destination with a “fantastic seascape…and coastline”, contaminated leachate from decommissioned landfill continues to drain into the marine environment.
The Isle of Man applied for the biosphere reserve status in 2013, which was awarded in 2016 based on the submission of a comprehensive 250-page nomination document. But there was no mention of toxic landfill leachate or the dumping of thousands of tonnes of contaminated harbour silt which later came to light.
The Isle of Man government told The Conversation that Unesco was aware of the discharges and that “biosphere status is not a hallmark of perfection”. It said its PCB discharges are in line with those of the UK.
But it raises the question of whether such pollution can be in line with the spirit of the biosphere status.
It is important to be clear that the Isle of Man is not unique in the British Islands in having managed disposal or unintentional discharges of legacy industrial wastes to the sea.
My team’s research (Patrick Byrne’s) documents thousands of coastal landfills in England and Wales, many of which discharge hazardous materials to the sea through leachates or erosion.
A Unesco biosphere reserve is not supposed to be perfect – almost nowhere is. But it should be a model for how we protect and sustainably manage our environment, including how we address legacy pollution. Why not highlight the issue of legacy industrial wastes as a challenge to be met?
The Isle of Man government rejects the idea that it misrepresented any of the facts around its environmental credentials.
But when The Conversation put the details to Unesco, it said it had not been made aware of previous dumping of toxic silt containing PCBs in 2014 and added that the first time the issue was raised with them was “in late 2023”.
A spokesperson said: “At the time of the nomination, the International Committee of the Unesco Biosphere Programme was not aware of this issue.”
The government told The Conversation it included “all information relevant for consideration by Unesco” when it made its application, but said certain discharges were not in the “zonation area” and that “nowhere is perfect”.
The major concern is about being open and honest with the public and Unesco about the environmental challenges and potential human health concerns associated with legacy pollutants like PCBs. It is entirely possible that the Isle of Man’s Unesco status would still have been granted if Unesco had been fully aware about the dumping at sea.
Landfills
The Conversation spoke to Calum MacNeil, a freshwater scientist who worked for the Isle of Man government for 13 years. He now works for a research institute in New Zealand but has been flagging concerns about contamination from toxic silt. Together with his help, we spent months gathering all of the evidence, checking the facts and joining the dots between silt dredged from a harbour, landfills and sealed pits aimed at temporarily dealing with this legacy pollution.
On the Isle of Man, historic landfills dating back to the 1940s are unlined so they are not sealed. After heavy rain, pollutants can wash away and leach out into the surrounding environment.
According to a 2017 news report, the government stated that the leachate “does not pose a risk to people swimming in Peel Bay” because it’s diluted by seawater. MacNeil insists that this is “a crucial admission” because he believes that the government cannot scientifically prove that any public exposure to PCB contamination is ever safe.
MacNeil said: “I feel there needs to be international scientific and legal scrutiny of all of this. I believe both Unesco and the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have a responsibility here as well given the international agreements involved and the biosphere designation. Given the biosphere status, surely the Isle of Man government should be acting not just to the letter of the law but in the spirit of the law.”
Regulations
While various international regulations govern levels of chemical contamination in leachate in and immediately around old landfills, the same rules do not apply to anything that is deliberately dumped or discharged directly into rivers or the sea.
Isle of Man legislation called the Water Pollution Act 1993 outlines that any discharge or dumping must abide by any and all relevant international agreements that apply to the Isle of Man.
MacNeil argues that the onus should be on the Isle of Man government to prove that any discharge of PCBs is legal under international agreements.
Tourists and local residents swim all year round in bathing waters such as Peel Bay, and praise for this nation’s marine conservation achievements is vast. Last summer, the Isle of Man was even nominated for the “most desirable island in Europe” travel award hosted by magazine Wanderlust.
With goals to grow annual visitor numbers to 500,000, a thriving ecotourism industry could contribute an estimated £520 million by 2032. According to the island’s tourism agency, Visit Isle of Man, it aims to be “a leading British ecotourism destination that provides a range of opportunities for visitors to connect with our unique nature and wildlife”.
Contaminated silt was allegedly dredged from Peel harbour and dumped out at sea. Daniel Sztork/Shutterstock
As one 2022 study explains, biosphere reserves are “learning sites for sustainable development”. Researchers point out that a coherent and holistic approach on the Isle of Man is not necessarily easy to achieve, in part because the biosphere is managed by one government department (Defa) with a remit for environment, food and agriculture, resulting in “age-old tensions between farming and conservation”.
The Isle of Man government’s website states: “Our biosphere status encourages us to learn about and cherish what we have in the Isle of Man and safeguard it for the future by making good decisions, as individuals, as organisations and as an island. It tells potential new residents and visitors that we are a special place for people and nature and have a conscience.”
But without openly acknowledging the legacy pollution challenges, they are literally being buried for future generations. This ultimately undermines local, national, and international efforts to learn and move forward in a sustainable way, which is at the heart of the Unesco biosphere philosophy.
A spokesperson for the Isle of Man government said:
“The Isle of Man government remains fully committed to environmental protection and transparency regarding its Unesco Biosphere status. We reject any assertion that the government has acted to misrepresent environmental matters in its Unesco application.
“All relevant data and policies have been developed in line with scientific evidence and regulatory frameworks. The Isle of Man government conducts rigorous environmental monitoring, including assessments of water quality and potential contaminants, to ensure compliance with established safety standards.
“The Isle of Man has legacy landfill sites similar to those found in the UK, Europe and around the world which leach contaminants, including PCBs, into the marine environment. Details of PCB discharges from UK landfills can be found on the UK Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) data sets where the pollutant threshold below which data is not required to be submitted for PCBs in water is stated as 0.1kg.
“The level of PCBs entering the marine environment in the Isle of Man is slightly lower than the average throughout the Irish Sea as determined by sediment and biota samples.
“The leachate discharge from the historic Raggatt landfill, which closed in 1990, is planned to be discharged to Peel Wastewater Treatment Plant which has recently received planning permission and construction expected to commence by April 2025.
“As stated on the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture’s pollution control monitoring webpage: ‘Independent advice from Phoenix Engineering is that this would represent the best available technology to manage and control emissions of PCBs present in Raggatt landfill leachate to the marine environment in Peel.’
“Due to historic mining, heavy metals such as lead are known to flow down the river and accumulate in silt at Peel Marina, which has previously exceeded Cefas action level 2 where sediments are considered unacceptable for uncontrolled disposal at sea without special handling and containment. No further deposits to sea of Peel dredging silt have been made since 2014, and a catchment management plan is currently being developed to reduce this contamination at Peel Marina.
“The aim for all Unesco Biospheres is to improve our environment; something which the Isle of Man has consistently strived to achieve since accreditation in 2016.”
A spokesperson for Unesco said:
“Unesco first received information on this issue in late 2023, which was then relayed to the relevant government authorities for comments. Unesco was informed that the situation appeared to stem from the presence of a UK historic landfill which is being followed through a comprehensive monitoring programme.
“Following Unesco’s request, the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs confirmed that ‘it is in line with the UK government’s responsibilities under the Ospar convention, and are satisfied the Isle of Man government is taking all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution of PCBs from land-based sources entering the marine environment in line with Article 3 of the Ospar convention’.
“In the original application dossier, the Isle of Man committed to ‘take responsibility for overseeing salvage and pollution counter-measures in order to comply with international conventions’. It also committed to observing a range of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).
“As the Isle of Man Biosphere Reserve was designated in 2016, its periodic review is scheduled for 2026. Unesco will make all information available to the Intergovernmental Committee in charge of examining the renewal of the status.”
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.
Patrick Byrne receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council.
Anna Turns 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.
I first spoke to freshwater scientist Calum MacNeil in February 2022. He explained to me that The Isle of Man – a self-governing island in the Irish Sea between the UK and and Ireland – was being cast as world’s only “all-nation” Unesco biosphere reserve.
He explained how, in 2014, before its Unesco designation, contaminated silt was deliberately dumped in the Irish Sea. While designated as a biosphere, contaminated silt dredged from a marine harbour has been contained in a sealed pit but leachate from that has discharged into Peel Bay, where people regularly swim from the sandy beaches.
As an environmental journalist, the story stood out to me and the more we spoke, the more the plot thickened.
I spent hours of my spare time digesting the evidence he sent me – all of it in the public domain. Government reports, online pollution policies, local news coverage, the biosphere nomination documents.
MacNeil, who worked for the Isle of Man government between 2004 and 2017, knew what he was talking about.
But the more I looked into this, the more I felt up against smoke and mirrors. Beautiful beaches, clean seas and a thriving ecotourism destination (according to the government’s tourism marketing). Contrast that with contaminated waste ending up in the ocean.
Three years on, and The Conversation’s Insights team and I have been working closely with Professor of Water Science at Liverpool John Moores University, Patrick Byrne. He has analysed and interpreted the consequences of this pollution.
While pollution is rife around the world to a certain extent, this instance is particularly shocking, he explains.
Now, The Conversation is proud to present our exclusive Insights investigation, Leaked, in two key parts. An introductory news article written Byrne explains the backstory and highlights the prominence of Isle of Man’s Unesco biosphere status.
Further analysis unfolds in an in-depth Q&A between Byrne and MacNeil. Byrne explains the gravity of legacy contamination from synthetic toxic chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and why transparency is so key.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Periods can be painful, unpredictable and disruptive. And for autistic people, they can present additional challenges. From sensory sensitivities to barriers accessing healthcare, the experience of autistic menstruation remains under-explored in research.
Our new review highlights just how little we know about autistic experiences of periods – and why more inclusive research from autistic people themselves is needed.
Menstruation – the biological process in which blood is discharged through the vagina from the inner lining of the uterus – is often described as a negative experience. Periods can be irregular, heavy and painful. They may also affect a person socially and emotionally.
Despite 1.8 billion people across the world menstruating every month, period stigma still exists. For many, this leads to social isolation and negatively affects their access to appropriate menstrual education and products. And, while menstrual products and awareness have improved over the last few decades, many people across the globe are still unable to afford the products they need.
Incidences of structural sexism within education, the workplace and healthcare can negatively affect those who aren’t cisgender men. People assigned female at birth – including girls, women, transgender men and some non-binary people – who experience menstruation are affected by the historical focus on the male body in healthcare. For example, gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis are only now receiving attention within research, having previously been largely ignored.
Autism research has historically focused on cisgender men and boys. The experiences of autistic people assigned female at birth have only recently started to be researched, especially in relation to their reproductive care. What limited research does exist has shown poorer physical, mental and social wellbeing outcomes relating to their experiences of menstruation.
We reviewed existing studies that detail experiences of periods both from the point of view of autistic people and those who support them. We focused on research that had interviewed autistic people directly, and those within their social circle, about periods. Twelve sources, including research papers, articles and blogs, fitted our criteria, from which we identified the important themes.
Our sources included contributions from autistic people who were mostly teenagers and young adults, alongside parents, siblings, and medical and educational professionals. While the themes discussed depended on who was being spoken to, many autistic reflections focused on the need for information and practical support ahead of periods starting.
Some interviewees described having autism-specific experiences during menstruation, such as increased sensory sensitivities and burnout (a state of exhaustion and personal withdrawal). These were often unseen by the people around them.
Parental and professional comments typically focused on the need for tailored support for their autistic children who were menstruating, with the end-goal of independence. Often, their comments set the child against neurotypical standards, the social norms of the majority.
Menstruation was described as a predominantly negative experience by everyone who was spoken to. But mentions of period stigma affected how comfortable autistic people were discussing this topic with others.
They were also less likely to access social networks and peer support in social environments such as schools. Very often because of this, autistic people weren’t provided with the knowledge they needed to compare their experiences with those of other people.
Pain
The dismissal of pain emerged as a significant issue. Many autistic people reported that their pain was normalised by those around them, including parents, siblings and school staff, regardless of its severity. They were told their level of pain was something everyone else also experienced and dealt with. Autistic people were also likely to internalise these messages until they became their own opinions and beliefs.
Since autistic people often perceive and communicate pain differently, this can lead to delays in seeking help – and being rejected when they do so.
The lack of autistic voices in research influences the kind of support that is developed. If resources are designed based on the priorities of parents or professionals rather than autistic people themselves, these resources may fail to meet the needs of the people having periods.
There are specific autism-related experiences of menstruation that we know less about because of the lack of research. Our review suggests autistic people are often held to neurotypical standards of menstrual management – without recognition of autism-specific factors such as sensory sensitivities, communication differences and the ways in which information is best conveyed.
We argue that future research on menstruation should include autistic voices, speaking to people of different ages and backgrounds about their experiences.
By prioritising autistic perspectives, we can develop more accessible resources and communication strategies that ensure this knowledge is transferred in ways that make sense for those who need it most. Tailored support could also help parents, carers and professionals better understand and respond to autistic experiences of menstruation.
If we want to create meaningful change, we need to start by listening to autistic people themselves.
Aimee Grant receives funding from the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council and the Morgan Advanced Studies Institute. She is a non-executive director of Disability Wales.
Monique Craine owns & runs Neurodivergent Matters. They are a member of Welsh Labour. They are part of the Independent Advisory Group for Dyfed Powys Police. Monique is also a community councillor for Tawe Uchaf Community Council.
Rebecca Ellis 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 – USA – By Detris Honora Adelabu, Clinical Professor of Applied Human Development, Boston University
More than 440 anti-DEI bills have been introduced in 42 states since the 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-conscious college admissions.J Studios/Getty Images
Where people are born and how they live shape their access to health care, education, nutritious food, stable housing and fair treatment within the justice system. This inequity, Ansell argues, creates a “death gap” where systemic barriers to opportunity and well-being shorten lives.
As professors focused on human development and education, we are committed to building fair and equitable living and learning opportunities for all students. We believe reducing diversity, equity and inclusion to a catchphrase or acronym undermines its importance and purpose to tackle the racism and biases that contribute to unfairness and injustice.
More than a single concept
DEI is more than an acronym or catchphrase. When diversity, equity and inclusion is reduced to a buzzword, it undermines its importance and the depth of work required to create inclusive spaces.
Each component of DEI represents unique aims and challenges.
Equity is the practice of being fair and just, especially in a way that seeks to address existing inequalities.
Equity means providing fair access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded. This includes those who have been underrepresented due to historical and contemporary biases.
This inequity is illustrated by education funding disparities where public schools attended by majority Black and Latino students receive less funding than majority white, affluent schools.
Inclusion is the state of being included within a group in a way that establishes a feeling of being welcomed and respected.
Broad benefits
Consider the racial diversity in your neighborhood. To what extent is it racially diverse?
Imagine going to the local grocery store and the doors open automatically as you approach. Upon exiting, you push your shopping cart toward the sloped sidewalk designed to provide easy access to the road surface. Although the automatic doors and sloped sidewalk were designed for individuals with physical disabilities, these examples of DEI initiatives make everyday life better for everyone.
The danger of oversimplification
Reducing diversity, equity and inclusion to a catchphrase can lead to a superficial understanding and application of the concepts.
States such as Florida, Texas and Kentucky have introduced policies to dismantle programs aimed at promoting racial and gender equity in education. designer491/Getty Images
Additionally, some organizations hire chief diversity officers without allocating resources or power to enact meaningful policy changes. Such superficial steps toward DEI squander its potential to transform higher education to truly advance diversity, equity and inclusion.
Backlash against DEI
DEI is also susceptible to political manipulation and dismantling.
States such as Florida, Texas and Kentucky have recently introduced policies to dismantle programs aimed at promoting racial and gender equity in education and the workplace.
Meanwhile, in recent years DEI officers and advocates have lost jobs in higher education and other organizations.
DEI has become a scapegoat for political and systemic failures.
Diversity, equity and inclusion is not about individual prejudice or emotions. It’s about addressing the systemic historical exclusions of people of color and other underrepresented groups – people who have not had fair and equitable access to resources and opportunities in America.
Linda Banks-Santilli is a member of the board of Horizons@LMS, a summer enrichment program focused on improving math and literacy for low-income students.
Detris Honora Adelabu and Felicity Crawford do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Over the past few years, support for Welsh independence has grown in ways not seen before. A recent poll commissioned by YesCymru, a pro-independence campaign group, found that 41% of people who’ve made up their minds on the issue would now vote in favour of independence.
The striking finding is that the number jumps to 72% among 25-to-34 year olds. Meanwhile older generations, particularly those aged 65 and up, remain firmly in the “no” camp, with 80% opposed.
This does seem a big shift in public mood. But does it mean Wales is becoming more nationalist? Not exactly.
The relationship between constitutional attitudes and nationalism is complicated, as research by myself and colleagues shows. Many people back independence for reasons that have less to do with feeling strongly Welsh or waving flags, and more to do with wanting better decision-making closer to home.
During 2021, as part of a broader research project on Welsh people’s views on the COVID pandemic and vaccination, we spoke to people from different ages, backgrounds and locations. Some were vaccinated, others weren’t. Some had voted in elections while others hadn’t voted in years, if ever.
Many people we talked to felt the Welsh government had done a better job than Westminster at handling the pandemic. They saw the decisions made in Wales – like keeping stricter rules in place when England relaxed theirs – as more sensible, more caring, and more in line with what they personally wanted from a government. And with that came a confidence that Wales could handle even more control over its own affairs.
Historically, Welsh nationalism was tightly linked to the Welsh language and culture. Self-government was always a part of the conversation, but not necessarily the main driver. That started changing in the late 20th century.
In 1979, Wales voted against devolution. In 1997, it narrowly voted in favour. After that, things slowly began to shift. And now, more than 25 years into devolution, support for some form of self-government is the mainstream view. Independence is no longer such a fringe idea.
Interestingly, younger generations are far more open to it – and many of them aren’t what you’d typically think of as nationalists. They may not speak Welsh or see themselves as “political” in the traditional sense. Their support often comes from practical concerns about the economy, democracy and how decisions are made.
External events like Brexit have clearly played a role. In fact, the YesCymru campaign was formed just before the EU referendum in 2016. Independence support surged afterwards, especially among Remain voters.
Many saw the Brexit fallout, as well as austerity, as proof that Westminster didn’t reflect their values or priorities. This showed how disruptive events can reshape the way people see their place within the UK.
Independence without nationalism?
One of the more surprising findings in our research – echoed in the 2025 polling – is that support for independence doesn’t always come from people who are politically engaged or pro-devolution. In fact, some support came from people who hadn’t voted in years, or felt completely disillusioned with the political system.
They expressed their support for independence through statements like: “They [the Welsh government] all need to go, but if I pay tax in Wales I want it to stay in Wales and be spent here.”
We also found a lot of people sitting on the fence. They weren’t against independence, but they had big questions about it. Would it mean isolation? Would it lead to more division?
One person told us: “I’m a little bit nationalistic, but I didn’t want the UK to leave the EU. So why would I want Wales to leave the UK?” Another said: “I don’t believe in borders, but I do think the Welsh government should run things.”
These aren’t black-and-white views. People’s feelings about independence – and nationalism – are often full of contradictions. And this reflects the wider truth that ordinary political views are often messy. Most of us don’t live in the extremes, and this is a good thing.
What’s also worth noting is that nationalism takes many forms. Some people who strongly oppose Welsh independence do so from a very rightwing populist-nationalist perspective, where calls to abolish the Senedd (Welsh parliament) sit alongside demands for hard borders and less immigration. So, the assumption that “independence equals nationalism” isn’t always true – and nor is the reverse.
Could independence really happen?
Wales isn’t alone in debating big questions about its future. In places such as Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders, political and economic crises can fuel movements for independence. In all these cases, trust in central government and a desire for more local fiscal control have played a major role.
For Wales, the question often comes back to the economy. While faith in Wales’s ability to govern is growing, many still worry whether an independent Wales could stand on its own financially. And for a lot of undecided voters, that remains the sticking point. For this reason, granting Wales more powers through devolution might do more to stave off demands for independence than anything else.
But the conversation is shifting. Support for independence is no longer just about nationalist grievances. It’s about how people want to be governed, and about trust and responsiveness.
So, does supporting Welsh independence make you a nationalist? Not necessarily. For many, it’s not about nationalism at all.
Robin Mann receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the British Academy. He is a Reader in Sociology at Bangor University and also Co-director of the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research and Data (WISERD).
A Des Moines Water Works employee takes samples from a nearby river for analysis. The regional water utility delivers drinking water to more than 500,000 Iowans.AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall
Before Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, U.S. factories and cities could pipe their pollution directly into waterways. Rivers, including the Potomac in Washington, smelled of raw sewage and contained toxic chemicals. Ohio’s Cuyahoga River was so contaminated, its oil slicks erupted in flames.
That unchecked pollution didn’t just harm the rivers and their ecosystems; it harmed the humans who relied on their water.
The Clean Water Act established a federal framework “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
As an attorney and law professor, I’ve spent my career upholding these protections and teaching students about their legal and historical significance. That’s why I’m deeply concerned about the federal government’s new efforts to roll back those safeguards and the impact they’ll have on human lives.
A fire of an oil slick on the Cuyahoga River swept through docks at the Great Lakes Towing Company site in Cleveland in 1952, one of several times that pollution in the river caught fire. Bettman/Getty Images
Amid all the changes out of Washington, it can be easy to lose sight of not only which environmental policies and regulations are being rolled back, but also of who is affected. The reality is that communities already facing pollution and failing infrastructure can become even more vulnerable when federal protections are stripped away. Those laws are ultimately meant to protect the quality of the tap water people drink and the rivers they fish in, and in the long-term health of their neighborhoods.
A few of the most pressing concerns in my view include the government’s moves to narrow federal water protections, pause water infrastructure investments and retreat from environmental enforcement.
Diminishing protection for US wetlands
In 2023, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of “waters of the United States.” In its decision in Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency, the court determined that only wetlands that maintained a physical surface connection to other federally protected waters qualified for protection under the Clean Water Act.
Wetlands are important for water quality in many areas. They naturally filter pollution from water, reduce flooding in communities and help ensure that millions of Americans enjoy cleaner drinking water. The Clean Water Act limits what industries and farms can discharge or dump into those waterways considered “waters of the U.S.” However, mapping by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that upward of 84%, or 70 million acres, of the nation’s wetlands lacked protection after the ruling.
The Sackett ruling also called into question the definition of “waters of the U.S.”
The Trump EPA, in announcing its plans to rewrite the definition in 2025, said it would make accelerating economic opportunity a priority by reducing “red tape” and costs for businesses. Statements from the administration suggest that officials want to loosen restrictions on industries discharging pollution and construction debris into wetlands.
Toxic algae blooms fueled by farm, urban and industrial runoff can trigger fish kills and shut down beaches for days, harming tourism businesses. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
This marks a shift away from the federal government protecting wetlands for the role they play in public health and resilience. Instead, it prioritizes development and industry – even if that means more pollution.
Pausing investment for rebuilding crumbling infrastructure
Public water systems across the country have been falling into disrepair in recent decades due to aging and sometimes dangerous infrastructure, as cities with lead water pipes have discovered.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s drinking water, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure grades of a C-minus, D and D-plus, respectively, in its 2025 Infrastructure Report Card. The group estimates that America’s drinking water systems alone need more than $625 billion in investment over the next 20 years to reach a state of good repair.
Jackson, Miss., volunteers distributed bottled water to residents in 2022 after the aging water system failed. AP Photo/Steve Helber
Congress passed the Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act to help pay for updating drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems. That included replacing lead pipes and tackling water contamination, especially in the most vulnerable communities. Many of the same communities also have high poverty and unemployment rates and histories of racial segregation rooted in government discrimination.
These aren’t abstract problems; they’re happening right now, in real communities, to real people.
Dropping lawsuits meant to stop pollution
The Trump administration’s decision to drop from some environmental enforcement lawsuits filed by previous administrations is adding to the risks that communities face.
The administration argues that these decisions are about reducing regulatory burdens – dropping these lawsuits reduces costs for companies.
However, stepping back from these lawsuits leaves the communities without a meaningful way to put an end to the long-standing harms of environmental pollution. Few communities have the resources to litigate against private polluters and must rely on regulatory agencies to sue on their behalf.
Real lives are affected by these changes
What America is seeing now is more than a change in regulatory approach. It’s a step back from decades of progress that made the nation’s water safer and communities healthier.
President Donald Trump talked repeatedly on the campaign trail about wanting clean air and clean water. However, the administration’s moves to reduce protection for wetlands, freeze infrastructure investments and abandon environmental enforcement can have real consequences for both.
At a time when so many systems are already under strain, it raises the question: What kind of commitment is the federal government really making to the future of clean water in America?
Jeremy Orr works for Michigan State University College of Law and Earthjustice.
What happens when politicians post false or toxic messages online? My team and I found evidence that suggests U.S. state legislators can increase or decrease their public visibility by sharing unverified claims or using uncivil language during times of high political tension. This raises questions about how social media platforms shape public opinion and, intentionally or not, reward certain behaviors.
I’m a computational social scientist, and my team builds tools to study political communication on social media. In our latest study we looked at what types of messages made U.S. state legislators stand out online during 2020 and 2021 – a time marked by the pandemic, the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. We focused on two types of harmful content: low-credibility information and uncivil language such as insults or extreme statements. We measured their impact based on how widely a post was liked, shared or commented on on Facebook and X, at the time Twitter.
Our study found that this harmful content is linked to increased visibility for posters. However, the effects vary. For example, Republican legislators who posted low-credibility information were more likely to receive greater online attention, a pattern not observed among Democrats. In contrast, posting uncivil content generally reduced visibility, particularly for lawmakers at ideological extremes.
Why it matters
Social media platforms such as Facebook and X have become one of the main stages for political debate and persuasion. Politicians use them to reach voters, promote their agendas, rally supporters and attack rivals. But some of their posts get far more attention than others.
When platforms reward harmful content with increased visibility, politicians have an incentive to post such messages, because increased visibility can lead directly to greater media attention and potentially more voter support. Our findings raise concerns that platform algorithms may unintentionally reward divisive or misleading behavior.
Political misinformation has burgeoned in recent years.
When harmful content becomes a winning strategy for politicians to stand out, it can distort public debates, deepen polarization and make it harder for voters to find trustworthy information.
How we did our work
We gathered nearly 4 million tweets and half a million Facebook posts from over 6,500 U.S. state legislators during 2020 and 2021. We used machine learning techniques to determine causal relationships between content and visibility.
The techniques allowed us to compare posts that were similar in almost every aspect except that one had harmful content and the other didn’t. By measuring the difference in how widely those posts were seen or shared, we could estimate how much visibility was gained or lost due solely to that harmful content.
What other research is being done
Most research on harmful content has focused on national figures or social media influencers. Our study instead examined state legislators, who significantly shape state-level laws on issues such as education, health and public safety but typically receive less media coverage and fact-checking.
State legislators often escape broad scrutiny, which creates opportunities for misinformation and toxic content to spread unchecked. This makes their online activities especially important to understand.
What’s next
We plan on conducting ongoing analyses to determine whether the patterns we found during the intense years of 2020 and 2021 persist over time. Do platforms and audiences continue rewarding low-credibility information, or is that effect temporary?
We also plan to examine how changes in moderation policies such as X’s shift to less oversight or Facebook’s end of human fact-checking affect what gets seen and shared. Finally, we want to better understand how people react to harmful posts: Are they liking them, sharing them in outrage, or trying to correct them?
Building on our current findings, this line of research can help shape smarter platform design, more effective digital literacy efforts and stronger protections for healthy political conversation.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Yu-Ru Lin receives funding from external funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jay Rickabaugh, Assistant Professor of Public Administration, North Carolina State University
Last year was a record year for disasters in the United States. A new report from the British charity International Institute for Environment and Development finds that 90 disasters were declared nationwide in 2024, from wildfires in California to Hurricane Helene in North Carolina.
The average number of annual disasters in the U.S. is about 55.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency provides funding and recovery assistance to states after disasters. President Donald Trump criticized the agency in January 2025 when he visited hurricane-stricken western North Carolina. Though 41% of Americans lived in an area affected by disaster in 2024, according to the institute’s report, the Trump administration is reportedly working to abolish or dramatically diminish FEMA’s operations.
But I believe the current discussion about FEMA handling U.S. disasters puts the emphasis in the wrong place.
As a scholar who researches how small and rural local governments cooperate, I believe this public debate demonstrates that many people fundamentally misunderstand how disaster recovery actually works, especially in rural areas, where locally directed efforts are particularly key to that recovery.
I know this from personal experience, too: I am a resident of Watauga County, in western North Carolina, and I evacuated during Hurricane Helene after landslides severely impaired the roads around my home.
When disaster strikes
Here, in short, is what happens after a disaster.
Federal legislation from 1988 called the Stafford Act gives governors the power to declare disasters. If the president agrees and also declares the region a disaster, that puts federal programs and activities in motion.
Yet local officials are generally involved from the very start of this process. Governors usually seek input from state and local emergency managers and other municipal officials before making a disaster declaration, and it is local officials who begin the disaster response.
That’s because small and rural local governments actually have the most local knowledge to lead recovery efforts in their area after a disaster.
Local officials determine conditions on the ground, coordinate search and rescue, and help bring utilities and other infrastructure back online. They have relationships with community members that can inform decision-making. For example, a county senior center will know which residents receive Meals on Wheels and might need a wellness check after disaster.
However, small towns cannot do all this alone. They need FEMA’s money and resources, and that can present a problem. The process of applying and complying with the requirements of the grants is incredibly complex and burdensome. According to FEMA’s website, there are eight phases in the disaster aid process, composed of 28 steps that range from “preliminary damage assesment” to “recovery scoping video” to “compliance reviews” and “reconciliation.” Getting through these eight phases takes years.
Larger cities and counties frequently have dedicated staff that apply for disaster aid and ensure compliance with regulations. But smaller governments can struggle to apply for and administer state or federal grants on their own – especially after a disaster, when demands are so high.
That’s where regional intergovernmental organizations come in. Every region has its own name for these entities. They’re often called councils of government, regional planning commissions or area development districts. My colleagues and I call them RIGOs, for their initials.
What is a RIGO?
No matter the name, RIGOs are collaborative bodies that allow local governments to cooperate for services and programs they might not otherwise be able to afford. Bringing together local elected officials from usually about three to five counties, RIGOs help local officials cooperate to address the shared needs of everyone in their area. They do this in normal times; they also do this when disasters strike.
RIGOs operate throughout most of the U.S., in big cities and rural areas, in turbulent times and in calm. They serve different needs in different regions, but in all cases, RIGOs bring together local elected officials to solve common problems.
One example of this in western North Carolina is the Digital Seniors project, launched during COVID-19. Here, the local RIGO is called the Southwestern Commission. In 2021, the RIGO area agency on aging coordinated with the Fontana Regional Library to help dozens of elders who had never been connected to the internet get online during the pandemic. The Southwestern Commission used its relationships with the local senior centers to identify people who needed the service, and the library had access to hot spots and laptops through a grant from the state of North Carolina.
In rural areas, RIGOs work alongside regional business and nonprofits to allow local governments to offer regular services and programs they might not otherwise be able to afford, such as public transportation, senior citizen services or economic development.
Part of that work is helping member governments navigate the maze of federal and state funding opportunities for the projects they hope to get done, often by employing a specialized grant administrator. Each small local government may not have enough work or revenue to justify such a staff member, but many together have the workload and funding to hire someone specially trained to abide by the rules of funding from states and the federal government.
This system helps small local governments receive their fair share in federal grant money and report back on how the money was spent.
Transparency, technical compliance and action
Disasters rarely respect borders. That’s why governments generally work together to distribute grant money for rebuilding communities.
Similarly, after disastrous flooding hit Vermont in 2023 and 2024, another RIGO, the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, jumped into action. It quickly provided emergency communication to the 23 small villages and towns in its region and has since supported local governments applying for grants and reimbursements.
Rebuilding after a disaster is a long, arduous process. It begins after national journalists and politicians have left the area and continues for years. That would be true no matter how Trump restructures emergency aid: The damage is massive, and so is the repair.
For example, here’s how western North Carolina looks six months after Helene: Most businesses have reopened, most folks have running water again, and people can drive in and out of the area.
But many roads are still full of broken pavement. Mud from landslides presses up against the sides of the highway, and condemned housing teeters on the edge of ravaged creek beds.
It is, in other words, too soon to see the full impact of local government efforts to rebuild my region. But RIGOs across the region are hiring additional temporary staff to help local governments get federal money and comply with complex guidelines. Their support ensures that decisions affecting North Carolinians are voted on by the city and county leaders they elected – not decreed by governors or handed down from Washington, D.C.
Locally led rebuilding is slow and difficult work, yes. But it is, in my opinion, the most community-responsive way to deal with disaster.
Jaylen Peacox, a graduate student in public administration at North Carolina State University, contributed to this story.
Jay Rickabaugh receives grant funding from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller administers the oath of office to William McKinley during his presidential inauguration in 1897, as outgoing President Grover Cleveland looks on.AP Photo/Library of Congress
More than five months after President Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris, Democrats are still trying to understand why they lost the election and the Senate majority – and how the party can regroup.
These concerns have only increased in the wake of Trump’s sustained activity at the start of his second term. The American public has witnessed a Democratic Party struggling to craft a coherent strategy.
As a political scientist focused on electoral politics, I believe the Gilded Age provides a warning for the Democrats’ current situation, as the party’s internal struggles hampered its ability to wage successful national campaigns.
The party period
Scholars of U.S. political history often refer to the bulk of the 19th century as the party period due to the degree to which party politics permeated society. Parties framed political discourse through the creation of “brands” centered on distinct ideologies.
These ideologies offered coherent ideas of what it meant to be a Democrat or a Republican.
Democrats opposed a strong national government in favor of states’ rights. They resisted vesting too much economic authority in the national government. And they used their states’ rights position to justify human enslavement and racially discriminatory policies.
Republicans embraced national authority over states’ rights. It was a vision centered on a national political economy that fostered manufacturing and industrialization. This economic approach was accompanied at times by opposition to immigration in often nativist and racist rhetoric.
The Gilded Age
The Gilded Age has been compared with the present. That’s due, in part, to the period’s rapid industrialization, increased immigration and prominent debates over economic policy.
And like today, these Gilded Age years, roughly from 1870 to 1900, witnessed intense competition between Democrats and Republicans, during which only about seven states were contested in any given election due to the regional basis of support for each party.
The 1880s and 1890s were characterized by debates over economic policies, primarily the protective tariff. That tariff was supported by Northern industrialists to protect domestic industry and opposed by Southern agrarians. The U.S. monetary standard, which determines how value is measured, also dominated discussions.
The 1888 election revealed tensions among Democrats, primarily over the tariff, that became a harbinger of the party’s struggles in 1896. The party’s inability to reconcile competing constituencies in its coalition and offer a coherent message on the tariff ultimately cost them the White House.
After winning reelection in 1892, Democrat Cleveland faced an economic depression that impeded the goals of his second term. The Democrats lost both chambers of Congress in the ensuing midterm election.
The battle over the monetary standard consumed the 1896 election.
From the 1870s-1890s, debates over whether greenbacks, or paper currency, should be redeemable in gold or silver ebbed and flowed.
Republicans, buoyed by wealthy financiers, tended to support maintaining the gold standard only. Democrats, who courted laborers and farmers, usually supported the increased circulation of greenbacks redeemable in both gold and silver.
The economic depression in 1893 heightened tensions on this issue, as many Americans sought to pay off their debts with cheaper currency.
At their national convention, Democrats adopted the pro-silver position and nominated a populist firebrand for president, William Jennings Bryan.
Republicans also faced internal divisions on the issue. But, as in 1888, they were able to overcome these tensions to maintain their coalition and supported the gold standard in their platform.
The Republican candidate, William McKinley, defeated Bryan. The outcome solidified Republican primacy for 30 years.
William Jennings Bryan campaigns in 1896. AP Photo
The legacy of 1896
Internal strife in the late 19th century hindered Democrats’ ability to advance a unified voice, mobilize their voters and attract new ones. In 1888 and 1896, these divisions harmed Democrats’ electoral prospects. Their organizational problems and intense internal discord proved too much for Bryan to overcome.
Scholar James Reichley contends that the Republicans’ more effective organizing after Reconstruction may have resulted in a coherent message compared with the Democrats.
And a lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democratic voters contributed to Republican success in 1894 and 1896, according to historian Richard White. Republicans mobilized their base and attracted new voters, while Democrats did not.
These elections solidified voter alignments until 1932.
Although Democrat Woodrow Wilson held the presidency from 1913 to 1921, Republicans dictated national policy and controlled Congress for most of those years. It took a massive economic depression to return the Democrats to the majority on the national level.
Adam M. Silver 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.
In some parts of the world, a person may be secreted away or imprisoned by the government without any advanced notification of wrongdoing or chance to make a defense. This has not been lawful in the United States from its very inception, or in many other countries where the rule of law and respect for individual civil rights are paramount.
In an April 7, 2025, decision in a habeas corpus case brought by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union representing Venezuelans who faced deportation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government must give those it aims to deport the opportunity to legally challenge their removal from the U.S. This chance for due process when deprived of liberty is what habeas corpus is and does.
The Magna Carta itself was, as the U.K. parliament describes it, “the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.”
Although the writ originally was a means of enforcing the king’s power over his subjects, as noted by the Supreme Court in reviewing the writ’s long history, English judges over time issued habeas corpus “to enforce the King’s prerogative to inquire into the authority of a jailer to hold a prisoner.”
The idea crossed the ocean to play an important part in the formation of the U.S. constitutional form of democracy. As the Supreme Court emphasized in a 2008 case holding that the habeas corpus privilege existed even for “aliens” designated as enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay: “Protection for the privilege of habeas corpus was one of the few safeguards of liberty specified in a Constitution that, at the outset, had no Bill of Rights.”
In the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, which created lower federal courts following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress gave immediate power to the federal courts to issue habeas corpus relief.
States and some tribes also have their own habeas corpus statutes. Congress also extended habeas to allow federal challenges to detention by tribal officials via the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which made many of the constitutional rights held by individuals applicable to official action by federally recognized Native American tribes. In fact, habeas corpus is the sole remedy under the Indian Civil Rights Act for challenging any of the enumerated rights in that act.
When is habeas corpus used?
The principal use of habeas corpus, historically and in more modern times, has been “to seek release of persons held in actual, physical custody in prison or jail,” as Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1962 Supreme Court opinion.
Its scope extends well beyond imprisonment, however. Habeas has been the vehicle for challenging interference with child custodial rights, involuntary commitment to inpatient treatment or psychiatric care, military induction, restrictive conditions of pretrial release, probation or parole, and banishment from tribal lands, to name a few examples.
Besides securing the physical release of imprisoned persons, habeas corpus may result in dismissal of criminal charges, new trials or appeals, the appointment of legal counsel, and court orders directing remediation of cruel or inhumane conditions of confinement.
The idea that no person shall be deprived unjustly of liberty formally dates back to the 39th Clause of this document, the Magna Carta, signed by England’s King John in 1215. The National Archives
Critical safeguard of liberty
Detained individuals have been blocked from using habeas corpus less than a handful of times in American history.
In the words of the Constitution’s Article I, which governs congressional power: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
For example, it was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War; in Hawaii after the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor; during rebellions in 11 South Carolina counties overtaken by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction in the years just after the Civil War; and in certain provinces of the U.S.-controlled Philippines in 1905.
Significantly, however, habeas relief has remained vital to challenges to presidential orders and congressional enactments even during times of war and other national security concerns.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of using habeas corpus in many efforts to suspend or limit the writ in cases stemming from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In November 2001, President George W. Bush issued a military order authorizing the indefinite detention of noncitizens suspected of being connected to terrorism. Under that order, Yaser Hamdi, who was an American citizen, was detained in U.S. military facilities without being charged, without legal counsel or the possibility of court hearings after being accused of fighting for the Taliban against the United States.
In a 2004 ruling on Hamdi’s case against the government, the Supreme Court upheld the right of every American citizen to use habeas corpus, even when declared to be an enemy combatant.
In the 2004 landmark case of Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court reaffirmed limits on when habeas corpus can be suspended – and when it cannot. The justices said that even foreign detainees captured in countries around the world and brought to Guantanamo Bay on suspected ties to terrorism had the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
Habeas corpus is a critical safeguard of liberty. In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall in the seminal 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, the “very essence” of civil liberty is “the right to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.”
Andrea Seielstad 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 – Canada – By Shiva S. Mohan, Research Fellow, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration & Integration program, Toronto Metropolitan University
Migrant workers have long been recognized as essential to Canada’s economy. But that recognition rarely translates into meaningful inclusion. As Canada embarks on new immigration reforms, persistent inequalities continue to define who truly belongs, and who remains excluded.
Although framed as a recognition of essential labour, the new program highlights a deeper reality: Canada’s immigration reforms continue to prioritize business and industry needs. In this instance, those needs are in housing and construction.
This selective approach reveals deeper patterns in Canada’s immigration system, often described as a hierarchy of deservingness. This framework assigns greater value to certain types of labour, while sidelining others. This sidelining is often based on race, gender and class and limits access to recognition and rights for all essential workers.
With a federal election on the horizon, the construction worker pathway is as much a political move as a policy reform.
The program expands on a pilot that granted permanent residence to approximately 1,365 people and their families in the Greater Toronto Area before closing in December 2024.
The current national rollout of the program reflects public and industry pressure to address Canada’s housing crisis. Housing has become a top priority for governments across the country.
Developers and industry groups, such as the Canadian Home Builders’ Association, have long lobbied for faster housing construction and more skilled trades workers. Their advocacy, combined with widespread concern over affordability, made it politically attractive to prioritize construction labour rather than implement broader regularization efforts.
But this approach exposes who is left out. Sectors like caregiving, domestic work and agriculture, largely dominated by racialized and feminized labour continue to be excluded from clear and inclusive pathways to status.
But these programs remain narrowly targeted, restricted and quickly capped, with application limits often reached on the same day they open. They also provide little relief for the many out-of-status caregivers already living and working in Canada.
Other countries have demonstrated that large-scale, inclusive reforms are possible, offering Canada a model to follow.
Spain’s 2005 regularization program successfully granted legal status to 700,000 people. The Spanish assessment recognized employment records, community ties and long-term residence. This model shows that broad, fair regularization strategies can balance administrative efficiency with political feasibility.
Meanwhile, Canada’s fragmented reforms exclude most out-of-status critical workers. And it leaves them without any sustainable pathway to status, prolonging their vulnerability and insecurity.
Canada urgently needs a transparent, fair and scaleable immigration strategy. It must be one that values people’s contributions, not just the immediate needs of businesses.
Cleaners, caregivers, farm labourers, food service workers and others deserve the same recognition and opportunity as those in construction.
A comprehensive regularization strategy would not only uphold dignity and fairness. It would also strengthen Canada’s economy, improve labour protections and promote social inclusion.
As Canadians prepare to head to the polls, the incoming government faces a critical choice.
It can continue with piecemeal, politically convenient reforms that leave most out-of-status workers behind. Or it can commit to a broad, rights-based regularization strategy that recognizes the full social fabric of those who sustain this country.
Shiva S. Mohan 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 Trevor Swerdfager, Practitioner-In-Residence, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, University of Waterloo
Canada’s biodiversity is in decline. Globally, climate change, urbanization, overexploitation of resources and habitat loss are combining to drive biodiversity loss across all ecosystems.
Laws matter. They codify societal values and priorities, define acceptable behaviours and establish the government programs and institutions needed to tackle complex problems. Canadian biodiversity law is neither meeting today’s challenges nor positioning us for the future.
Over the years, important additions to these acts include habitat and sustainability provisions to the Fisheries Act in 1977 and 2019 respectively, and a 2011 amendment to the CNPA, requiring that National Parks be managed to ensure their “ecological integrity.”
Nevertheless, several of the laws are pre-date the Second World War and all pre-date the internet, climate change and current biodiversity science.
Whooping cranes are considered endangered, and are protected under the Species at Risk Act. (Shutterstock)
Disconnected approach
Canadian biodiversity laws evolved through multiple unconnected legislative events over 150 years. They legislatively fragment the environment into separate components and fracture accountability into multiple agencies. They entrench program silos fostering conflicting departmental priorities and operational inefficiencies.
They establish no biodiversity goals, reporting mechanisms or mandates for biodiversity science. Their structures impedes public data sharing and transparency, dissuades Indigenous engagement and consistently sparks federal-provincial tensions.
Nothing on the horizon suggests that these shortcomings will be addressed through new leadership, new policy or plain old good luck. On the contrary, these laws seem destined to yield the same sub-optimal outcomes.
The Jefferson salamander is listed as endangered by both federal and provincial legislation. (iNaturalist/evangrimes), CC BY
Meeting the challenge
If we are to meet current and future biodiversity conservation challenges, we must develop a new legislative approach. This approach should support the creation of modern biodiversity programs and institutions and drive integrated, transparent and inclusive decision-making.
Our work suggests that we need a single unified law for biodiversity: a Canadian Biodiversity Conservation and Protection Act (CBCPA). A new act of this kind would replace the existing nine laws and could usefully include:
Principles requiring — not just encouraging — nature-positive programs emphasizing biodiversity, science, ecosystems, transparency, accountability and inclusivity.
Mandated biodiversity target and objective setting, including those of the Global Biodiversity Framework. This should also include reporting measures that offer actionable insights into program effectiveness and delivery improvement opportunities.
Requirements for the use and public documentation of science in decision-making, including the requirement that all government biodiversity data should be made available to the public.
Establishment of governance arrangements embracing Indigenous rights and interests, as well as mechanisms to bring conservation communities together around collective actions, facilitated by a new Biodiversity Conservation Fund.
Creation of a Biodiversity Conservation Agency to fuse the existing four agencies into one, and establish clear ministerial accountability and a stronger voice for biodiversity in Cabinet.
Operational elements governing the establishment and operation of protected areas, the management of fish and migratory birds, and the protection and recovery of species at risk in a cohesive and mutually reinforcing manner.
A CBCPA would dramatically improve policy and regulatory certainty for industry. It would drive program cohesion and efficiency, build trust in government decision-making and facilitate intra- and inter-governmental collaboration. It would remove key obstacles to biodiversity conservation success and create the societal conditions so urgently needed to reverse biodiversity decline in Canada.
This would obviously be an ambitious legislative project replete with substantive policy and political challenges. But the importance of biodiversity to Canada’s ecological, economic and social well-being is difficult to overstate. Maintaining the legislative status quo or adopting minimalist incrementalism is unwise.
As we transform our economic and trade systems in Canada to grapple with climate change, a fundamental shift in how we conserve and protect biodiversity is equally vital. This is a time for ambition, not apathy.
Derek Armitage has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Trevor Swerdfager 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 day was still alive when a group of Abui people danced in a circle around the ‘maasang’ – the central altar of their village – alternating coordinated movements with rhythmic pauses. The drums were played, marking each step with their sounds, believed to connect the world of the gods with the world of humans.
They were performing the ‘lego-lego’ dance, an integral part of ancestral rituals. The dance was directed by the cadenced rhythm produced by the ‘Moko’ drums, distinctive musical instruments that are also prestigious heirlooms and sacred tools, mostly found in the Alor-Pantar archipelago, in East Nusa Tenggara.
Recently, with Shiyue Wu, my Research Assistant at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (Suzhou, Jiangsu, China), I developed and published research about the names of the ‘Moko’ drums and bronze gongs from Alor in three representative Papuan languages spoken in the island: Abui (Central Alor), Sawila (Eastern Alor), and Kula (Eastern Alor).
This research aims to increase our knowledge on the ‘Moko’ drums and their significance and sanctity for the cultural identity and heritage of the peoples living in the Alor-Pantar archipelago.
Among the many ancestral traditions and ritual objects attested in Southeastern Indonesia, the ‘Moko’ drums represent a unique blend of symbolic and religious values and practical functions in the social life of the local Papuan communities. Technically, they are bronze kettle-drums, specifically membranophones, instruments that produce their sounds by being hit on their vibrating skins, or membranes.
Despite their widespread use and cultural significance among indigenous communities in Alor, Pantar and beyond — like in Timor and among the Austronesian and Papuan groups of Flores —, the history and origins of these musical instruments are still relatively obscure and seem to fade into the mists of time.
The ‘bronze gongs’ from the Alor-Pantar archipelago vary in size and are typically round, flat metal discs played with a mallet. They are equivalent to the ‘Moko’ drums, at the level of musical and social functions.
The indigenous peoples believe that the drums and gongs have no local origins from the islands, but their possible place of production is unknown. We recently confirmed this through fieldwork conversations with our Abui local consultant.
‘Moko’ drums’ unique attributes
Each ‘Moko’ drum (and bronze gong) is characterised by physical (size, shape, and the produced sounds) and aesthetic (iconography and decorations) features, which make it unique. The uniqueness of the drums and gongs is strengthened by the fact that each type of these membranophones has an ‘individual’ name, which indicates a specific category, with its dedicated musical and iconographic attributes.
For example, there are ‘fiyaai futal’ (in Abui), the “candlenut-flower” drum, and ‘bileeqwea / bileeq-wea‘ (in Abui), the “lizard-blood” drum.
All the ethnic groups in Alor, Pantar and surrounding areas use their own local variants for the names of the different drums. This nomenclature reflects specific ritual and trading features of each musical instrument.
Despite this, the native speakers cannot explain the name ‘Moko’ in itself, with its etymological and semantic origins. They agree upon the likely foreign origin of the instruments, but no one can pinpoint a possible location for their production (some say Java, Makassar, India, Vietnam, or even China, but without any conclusive evidence) or the trade routes across which they were likely imported to the islands.
Some local myths and origin stories) tell about the unexpected discovery, by local people, of ‘Moko’ drums buried in the ground, adding a veil of mystery to their enigmatic roots. Being treasured items, the drums were actually buried under the ground by locals, to avoid the risk to fall into the hands of colonisers or to be taken away by outsiders.
The term ‘Moko’ is universally attested and used in everyday conversations by the Alor-Pantar speakers, independently of their languages and villages. However, nobody, among the locals, can explain the roots of the name or propose an interpretation for its possible meaning. The ‘Moko’ drums are, therefore, an unsolved puzzle in the context of the material culture and linguistic landscape of the Alor-Pantar archipelago.
It is possible that the name ‘Moko’ was coined ‘internally’, in Alor and Pantar, perhaps in the ‘Alor Malay’ language, which is commonly spoken in the archipelago since the 14th century. The denomination would have, then, spread towards external areas.
However, this hypothesis cannot be proven with incontrovertible evidence, and the direction of the naming process could have also been the opposite, from outside into Alor and Pantar.
Our paper presents systematic lists of the names of drums and gongs, with the original denominations in the three different above-mentioned languages, the related translations, name-by-name, synthetic notes on the possible origins of their nomenclature, a catalogue of the instruments by categories (based on fieldwork and direct observation), and a set of pictures reproducing a small selection of drums according to their cultural significance.
Beyond musical functions
The ‘Moko‘ drums are relatively ancient ritual objects commonly used, in the past, in generally pre-Christian worship ceremonies performed by the indigenous communities. The traditions survived until today, through local folklore and public celebrations.
The path towards a full understanding of the historical dynamics of the production and spread of the ‘Moko’ drums and gongs — as well as their provenance and the etymologies of their names — might still be long. However, this does not diminish their cultural and material significance among the Alor-Pantar peoples.
Despite their obscure origins, ‘Moko’ drums and bronze gongs are meticulously catalogued, described and rated by the local communities in the islands. Periodically, a multi-ethnic council gathers to assess, update and validate the different values and levels of social prestige and rarity of every single instrument.
This safeguarding effort, combined with the collection and systematisation of ‘first hand’ data, which we are currently developing, may considerably help in shedding light on the nature and origins of these enigmatic instruments.
Francesco Perono Cacciafoco received funding from Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU): Research Development Fund (RDF) Grant, “Place Names and Cultural Identity: Toponyms and Their Diachronic Evolution among the Kula People from Alor Island”, Grant Number: RDF-23-01-014, School of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU), Suzhou (Jiangsu), China, 2024-2025.
Brazil’s federal police recently pulled back the curtain on a criminal web that had infiltrated the country’s fuel distribution chains. What looked like ordinary gas stations were, in fact, outposts of a vast laundering machine, washing dirty money with diesel and ethanol. According to Justice Minister Ricardo Lewandowski, more than 1,000 service stations across the country were overseen by organised crime syndicates.
The plot thickened when Rio de Janeiro’s state police launched raids against the so-called “fuel mafia”, dismantling a racket that sold millions of liters of adulterated fuel. In the process, they revealed a network of ghost companies churning out fake invoices.
Crime moves into the fuel sector
Across Brazil organised crime is diversifying beyond narcotics, arms trafficking into the biofuel and fossil fuel sectors. Criminal factions with names such as the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), Comando Vermelho (CV), and militia groups made-up of retired and active duty police are expanding into fuel theft, smuggling, tax evasion, and money laundering. The pivot by Brazil’s criminal underworld underscores their adaptability in exploiting legitimate markets.
Fuel theft is hardly new to Brazil. The country’s top fuel distributors – Ale, BR, Ipiranga, and Raizen – have warned of criminal infiltration. But the costs of these illegal activities are significant. According to ICL, an industry group, illegal profits generated by gas stations amounted to $23 billion reais($3.89 billion) in 2021.
A 2022 study by the Brazilian Public Security Forum (FBSP) revealed that criminal organisations generated approximately 146.8 billion reais (around $25.4 billion) from sectors including fuel, gold, cigarettes, and beverages far surpassing the revenues from cocaine trafficking.
Meanwhile, a 2024 assessment found that the costs of cargo-theft, fuel-related robberies and fraud generated annual losses of $29 billion reais. Vibra Energia estimated that roughly 13 billion liters of fuel were being traded through “irregular” means a year.
Fake gas stations, adulterated fuel, and tax fraud
Organised criminal groups employ multiple strategies to exploit the fuel sector. The most common involves the use of “pirate” gas stations — outlets that flout safety standards and sell adulterated and stolen fuel. Police have exposed hundreds of gas stations linked to individuals indicted or convicted for fuel-related offenses since 2015. In 2019, for example, BR purged its retail network of 730 stations nationwide suspected of involvement in “irregularities”.
By 2023, the PCC reportedly extended its influence to five ethanol plants and approximately 1,100 of São Paulo’s 9,000 gas stations. And in 2024, police claimed that as many as 30 gas stations in Rio de Janeiro were under PCC control. Meanwhile, the National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) reported that violations related to the use of methanol — a toxic substance commonly used to adulterate fuels—increased by over 73 percent compared to the previous year.
Fraud and tax evasion are also common in the fuel sector. In Brazil, fuel taxes on ethanol vary from state to state. These discrepancies create incentives for enterprising criminals to purchase fuel from low-tax jurisdictions and resell in high-tax states to station owners who charge higher tax and pocket the difference.
A 2019 study by FGV estimated that fuel-related tax evasion generated 7.2 billion reais ($1.3 billion), with major rewards for petrol station owners that laundered funds. There are also schemes that involve tax fraud in fuel production and illegal diesel imports. One prominent case involved Copape, a company that sold fuel below market price by evading import taxes and manipulating its product. The company was later shut down amid allegations of ties to the PCC.
Another common strategy involves outright theft by installing clandestine taps and siphoning fuel from pipelines. This practice often leads to significant economic losses and poses environmental hazards and public safety risks. The process usually involves precise “insider” knowledge of pipeline networks. In 2019, for example, Petrobras identified over 261 such incidents in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo alone.
The direct targeting of personnel and infrastructure has also occurred. In 2019, for example, more than 40 people were arrested in Rio de Janeiro in 2019 suspected of extorting and murdering Petrobras contactors. The group was described as highly organised with separate divisions for intimidating targets, tapping pipelines, transporting stolen fuel, and monitoring police movements. Stolen fuel can be sold on to asphalt companies, underground gas owners, and others.
The entrenchment of organised crime in biofuels such as sugar and palm oil has resulted in confrontations with state authorities. In August 2024, 59,000 hectares of São Paulo’s sugarcane plantations were ravaged by fires resulting in losses of over 1 billion reais. Authorities suspect that the PCC orchestrated arson attacks as retaliation against government measures targeting their involvement in the adulterated fuel trade.
And in February 2025, police in Rio de Janeiro revealed that operators of an illegal gambling (jogo do bicho) network were financing the criminal extraction of oil from underground pipelines. Proceeds were used to acquire equipment, rent fuel transport vehicles, and pay off personnel. In Rio, and elsewhere in Brazil, such activities undermine the rule of law, distort markets, and erode public trust.
Technology-enabled solutions to disrupt fuel theft
Preventing and disrupting infiltration of organised crime into the fuel sectors is challenging. Legal proceedings are often protracted. Efforts by fuel distributors to terminate franchise agreements with non-compliant operators are often stymied by prolonged court battles. The sophistication of Brazil’s criminal organisations also complicates enforcement efforts including their blending of illicit activities with legitimate business.
At a minimum, federal and state authorities need to track gas stations and pipelines that are implicated in crime. Advanced tracking technologies that improve transparency in the fuel supply chain. And these solutions need to be bolstered by intelligence sharing across jurisdictions. One promising response comes from Brazil’s National Institute of Metrology (Inmetro) which has expanded its inspections of fuel pumps and product quality.
Companies like Petrobras have ramped up their security measures to protect pipelines, refineries, transportation systems, and petrol stations. Advanced surveillance systems, including drones and sensor-based technology, are now being used by its subsidiary, TransPetro, to monitor pipeline integrity.
Specialised response teams have also been established to detect and contain illegal taps. Petrobras and Transpetro have also increased collaboration with federal and state security forces to target organised crime cells involved in fuel theft and trafficking.
In especially high-risk areas, particularly near major refineries such as Duque de Caxias in Rio de Janeiro, joint operations with law enforcement have resulted in arrests and the seizure of illegal equipment used to tap pipelines.
Petrobras has invested in internal compliance, audit mechanisms, and fuel traceability systems to track product movement and prevent insider threats and diversion to illicit markets. The company has also partnered with regulatory agencies like the (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels, or ANP) to tighten oversight over gas stations and transport companies suspected of facilitating the resale of adulterated or stolen fuel.
Legislation and regulation is also needed to increase penalties for criminality in the fuel sector. Legal reforms, including a new bill approved in April 2025 targets companies that systematically evade taxes. Another bill is being explored that would mandate real-time electronic reporting of fuel sales and storage to ANP in order to increase traceability.
A new Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry focusing on the relationship between organised crime and fuel is also about to be launched. Federal police, together with the financial intelligence unit (COAF) and tax authorities are also preparing a broad investigation into related activities.
Addressing the infiltration of organised crime into Brazil’s biofuel and fossil fuel sectors requires more than enforcement — it demands a coordinated national strategy backed by industry cooperation. Enforced compliance, empowered regulators, transparent supply chains, and worker protections are essential. Without urgent and sustained action, organised crime will continue siphoning off Brazil’s future, weakening one of its most vital sectors.
*Katherine Aguirre, senior researcher at Igarape Institute, contributed to this article
Dr. Robert Muggah is the co-founder of the Igarapé Institute, an independent “think and do tank” that develops research, solutions and partnerships to address global public, digital and climate security challenges. Dr. Muggah is also a principal of the SecDev Group, and an advisor to the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank. An advisor to AI start-ups and a climate tech venture firms, Dr. Muggah has experience developing new technologies and testing AI systems for security and governance.
Credit rating agencies like S&P Global and Fitch have an outsized influence on the economic fortunes of developing countries. Their assessments shape investor perceptions, influence borrowing costs, and ultimately shape a country’s development path. With many African countries now issuing bonds in global markets amid falling levels of official development assistance (ODA), their role is coming under increasing scrutiny.
The major credit rating agencies exist to opine on the likelihood that a debtor (say, a country) will repay their creditors on time and in full. They are rated on a sliding scale. Whenever a rating agency believes that a debtor will not meet their obligations, they are obliged to put that debtor into a ‘default’ rating. This means that the debtor can no longer access private financing.
The negative role of rating agencies has been felt in other ways too. For example, threats of downgrades have also led to developing countries steering away from seeking debt relief under a recently introduced G20-initiated debt treatment programme. The reason is that getting help would mean that sovereign debtors have to restructure their debts. But credit rating agencies have warned that doing this will likely lead countries being given a ‘default’ rating.
As a result, no rated country has applied for debt relief through the G20. This has been called a ‘credit rating impasse’.
Change needs to happen on two fronts: the building of credit rating capability in the Global South, combined with shoring up capacity in countries in an effort to rebalance existing relationships with rating agencies.
As a researcher who has looked closely at the working of rating agencies, I would argue that South Africa’s 2024–25 G20 Presidency presents a rare opportunity to push for more equitable reforms. It also provides a platform to spotlight African-led initiatives that are already making progress.
The aim is not to ensure every country receives a top-tier credit rating. Rather, it is to ensure that all countries have the capacity, knowledge, and tools to engage in the rating process on fair terms.
Alternatives
Among the boldest reform efforts so far is the establishment of the African Credit Rating Agency spearheaded by the African Union. The agency aims to deliver fairer, more contextually grounded credit assessments of African sovereigns.
Structured as a specialised agency owned by AU member states and funded through a mix of regional support and service revenue, the agency is a tangible step toward rating independence. Naturally, there are challenges. These include legitimacy, credibility with global investors, generating the necessary capital to appropriately invest in research and credit analysis, and blowback if and when it will have to downgrade.
Its creation is rooted in dissatisfaction with the big three agencies. But it’s also inspired by parallel developments in other regions, such as China’s own domestic rating ecosystem.
Though still in development, the proposed African agency represents the most advanced reform effort in the credit rating space from a Global South perspective.
But building this institutional capacity is only one piece of a larger puzzle. For many countries, support is urgently needed to engage more effectively with the existing system.
Expertise mismatch
The lag in expertise and experience on the part of countries in the global south is understandable: sovereign debt trading has been around since the 19th Century. The first Eurobond was issued in 1963. In contrast, many African nations only began issuing Eurobonds in the late 1990s, with Tunisia being the first in 1997.
At present, that expertise is often provided by ‘credit rating advisory’ teams embedded within the Investment Banks arranging a country’s bond sale – typically offered at no cost. There is a valid perception that this advice is not independent.
One way to close the gap is through independent credit rating-related capacity building. Done well, it can empower developing countries to engage with credit rating agencies on a more equal footing, improve the quality of credit interactions, and make informed decisions in a market that often prioritises investor interests over national development goals.
A few initiatives are well underway.
The African Union’s Africa Peer Review Mechanism , in partnership with the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, has been offering tailored, hands-on support. This includes technical workshops, advocacy against problematic ratings, and the publication of the ‘Africa Sovereign Credit Rating Review’, a regular report that helps member states track trends and identify areas for improvement.
Building on this, the UNDP Africa and AfriCatalyst recently launched the ‘Credit Ratings Initiative’. This includes an innovative web platform, a panel of former rating analysts known as the ‘Concilium’, and a community of practice to share knowledge.
Early pilots with East African countries have already made an impact, showing how independent, neutral advice can boost sovereigns’ technical understanding and strategic engagement with rating agencies.
These efforts underscore an important lesson: while long-term reform is crucial, short-term, practical tools can have an immediate and meaningful effect.
This is a promising start. But there is room to go further. South Africa could use its leadership role to champion the establishment of a global credit rating capacity building initiative. Such a move would align with its development priorities, position Africa as a leader in financial reform, and create a blueprint for global action.
Crucially, this would not be just another technical fix. It would be a shift in the power dynamics of global finance – from crisis response to structural empowerment. As the U.S. prepares to take over the G20 Presidency next, South Africa’s advocacy could lay the groundwork for a broader coalition committed to fairer financing systems.
Daniel Cash 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.
Depending on who becomes prime minister, parents now paying $10 a day for child care could continue to do so and many additional parents could access affordable day care in the future due to plans to expand. Or, the cap on child-care fees could be eliminated in a return to market provision of child-care services, in at least some provinces.
Both leaders have said they want to preserve affordable child care but have presented their proposals in significantly different ways.
As an economist with specialization in the economics of child care and early childhood education, I believe looking beneath surface statements reveals major differences that would affect parents, children and their families.
Strengthening the $10-a-day policy
The Liberal Party’s newly released platform highlights the protection and strengthening of the $10-a-day early learning and child care system. The platform promises the building of 100,000 new child-care spaces by 2031, better compensation for child-care educators, the expansion of child care in public institutions and a stronger link between housing development and child care when housing is supported by federal funds.
In the Liberal leadership debate, Carney said we “absolutely have to keep in place the progress that the government has made on crucial things such as child care….” The Liberal platform affirms this, takes credit for introducing the existing system and notes: “In just a few short years, this program has become a core part of Canada’s social infrastructure.”
Since January, among the provinces and territories, all but Alberta and Saskatchewan have approved or tentatively approved five-year extensions to early learning and child-care funding agreements with the federal government.
Those extensions are key, as they represent commitments from 11 provinces and territories to use the federal government’s additional $37 billion to continue building the $10 a day program through 2031.
However, he did discuss ideas and major criticisms in a March 25 campaign stop in Vaughan, Ont.
He said: “We all believe that there should be more affordable child care in this country.” But then he criticized the current system as “bureaucratic” and “top down,” saying that “provinces can decide how to deliver those services on the front line with more flexibility and freedom for parents, provinces, and providers….”
Clearly his “affordable child care” will not look anything like the burgeoning $10-a-day system.
Poilievre’s wording is very similar to that of a new lobby organization of for-profit child care operators.
The group calls for a shift from “federally controlled funding to no-strings-attached childcare funding for the provinces …” It also calls for a “funding-follows-the-family approach” which they believe will encourage parental and operator choice and minimize bureaucratic administrative costs and red tape.
The Poilievre position, then, is an update from former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole’s policy proposals during the 2021 federal election.
It harkens back to the cash-for-care approach Stephen Harper’s Conservative government had in place from 2006 to 2015. Conservatives prefer and encourage the provision of cash, a tax credit or voucher that parents can spend on child care.
Such a Conservative approach is known as demand-side funding rather than supply-side funding — giving parents money to pay some of their child-care costs instead of funding child-care providers to ensure the services are available for families.
Examining Conservative criticisms
The “flexibility and freedom” that come with demand-side funding would mean removing conditions such as a guaranteed parent fee of $10 a day, targets for expansion of licensed child care, growth primarily by public and non-profit provision, and requirements for public financial accountability, from the federal funding agreements with the provinces and territories.
There are substantial problems with Poilievre’s suggestion of overhauling the $10-a-day program. First, his March 25 criticisms are flawed:
He said “120,000 fewer children have daycare spaces than when the program was created,” but Statistics Canada surveys show a growth in attendance at child-care centres of an additional 177,900 children from late 2020 to the first half of 2023.
Poilievre said “child care now is worse than when the Liberals took office.” In fact, the main indicators of availability and affordability of child care are much better. Between 2015, when the Liberals took office, and 2023, the number of child care spaces grew by 426,203 to a total of 1,627,211 total licensed spaces. Child-care affordability is also greatly improved. By 2023, child-care fees had dropped by between 40 per cent and 75 per cent nearly everywhere across Canada, varying by geography and child age. As a proportion of after-tax family income, parents’ average spending on child care in January 2025 was less than one third of what it was before 2021, declining from just under 16 per cent to five per cent.
Poilievre said “most of the money has been consumed by bureaucracy.” In fact, child-care fees have dropped to an average of $10 a day (or less) in
Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Québec, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland/Labrador, and all the remaining provinces have lowered parent fees substantially.
This would not have been possible if “most of the money was consumed by bureaucracy,” something easily seen in readily available public data on how child-care funds are spent.
Demand-side funding solutions
Demand-side funding solutions with no cap on fees would be a dream for private corporations looking to enter a Canadian child-care market rich with public funds but a nightmare for cash-strapped parents who are desperate for child care.
Australia is the poster child for generous demand-side funding of child care.
In the Australian model, parents spend funds however they like, and there is no restriction on the fees providers can charge and no requirement for financial reporting. Funds are paid directly to child-care providers from the government on behalf of parents and corporate child-care thrives. Under this funding model, Australia has seen a sixfold increase in child-care fees since the early 1990s, twice as much as the increase in consumer prices.
It’s time to redouble efforts to provide affordable, quality child care for all who need it rather than to abandon these major combined efforts of federal, provincial and territorial governments to build a dependable and affordable child-care system.
Gordon Cleveland receives funding for expenses from an SSHRC project “Re-imagining care/work policies/Réinventer les politiques soins/travail”. He is a member of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. He volunteers for Building Blocks for Child Care. He is a research associate with L’Équipe de recherche Qualité contextes éducatifs de la petite enfance.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Horen Greenford, Lecturer and postdoctoral researcher in Ecological Economics and Climate Policy, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University
With a federal election on the horizon, economic policy is once again taking centre stage. Yet missing from the national debate is a serious reckoning with the failures of neoliberalism and the urgent need for alternatives.
Liberal Leader Mark Carney, with his experience across banking and global finance, is one figure who could potentially steer that shift. Carney’s career, spanning Morgan Stanley, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England and Brookfield Asset Management, has exemplified his competence within the bounds of economic orthodoxy.
As the Bank of Canada’s governor, Carney pre-emptively cut interest rates to cushion the blow of the 2008 financial crisis. Standard measures like interest rate cuts and quantitative easing are meant to keep economies afloat during downturns. While necessary, these steps remained squarely within the bounds of conventional economic thinking.
Today, however, those old tricks aren’t enough. The twin crises of climate collapse and socioeconomic inequality demand bolder policy and braver leadership from policymakers.
MMT scholars argue that countries that issue their own currency, like Canada, have monetary sovereignty. These governments don’t need to rely on bond markets for funding; instead, they can create money directly through public spending. And, when they do sell debt, there’s never a shortage of demand for it.
From this perspective, the real constraint isn’t money, but productive capacity: materials, energy and labour. Public debt is neither inherently dangerous, nor is it “owed” to anyone.
MMT also argues the “tax and spend” perspective is backwards — taxes are not needed to fund public spending. In its view, governments spend first, then tax to remove money from circulation to keep inflation under control.
Inflation risk stems not from government spending, but from economic over-demand or supply constraints. During periods of low growth, spending is not just safe — it’s essential, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inflation during the pandemic was driven predominantly by supply chain disruptions and gas price spikes, not overspending. Strategic taxation can be used to curb demand and reduce inequality when inflation emerges.
MMT’s job guarantee
The hallmark policy of MMT is a job guarantee — a public option for employment that would employ anyone wanting to work. This would effectively end structural unemployment while improving conditions for those employed in the private sector through competition.
Such an initiative would help unlock productivity needed to revitalize and decarbonize housing, transport, energy and other critical infrastructure.
Yet instead of embracing such ideas, centrist parties like the Canadian Liberal Party and United Kingdom’s Labour Party cling to outdated concerns over “fiscal responsibility,” echoing debates that have been outdated since the end of the gold standard in the 1970s.
The cost of playing it safe
Carney appears to have retreated into political caution and has avoided challenging fiscal conservatism in any substantive way. Immediately upon taking office, he capitulated to misleading narratives promoted by politicians like Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, and cut the consumer carbon price.
According to the government’s own analysis, only the top 0.13 per cent of Canadians stood to lose from a modest increase in the inclusion rate for taxing unearned income.
During the Liberal leadership race, Carney advocated for using public investment to attract private capital during a CBC News interview. Sidestepping a direct answer about whether he’d balance the overall budget, he instead committed to balancing “operational spending.” When pressed, he said he would run deficits when necessary to “invest [in] and grow Canada’s economy.”
Carney’s approach frames public spending as a way to mobilize private capital, rather than as a driver of public-led economic transformation. True to his background, his language casts the government as a shrewd investor, not a driver of structural change.
Carney also framed public investment as “borrowing,” which MMT clarifies is a misnomer: unlike a household or a business, a currency-issuing government doesn’t need to borrow in the traditional sense and faces no risk of running out of its own currency.
A bolder path forward is needed
Canada needs more than cautious tweaks to the status quo. A climate jobs program, like a Youth Climate Corps, could guarantee well-paid, meaningful work in communities across the country for anyone ready to contribute. Public opinion is already there: more than half of Canadians support a climate corps.
Public-sector competition in industries like housing and renewable energy could keep private firms efficient and accountable. During World War II, engineer and businessman C.D. Howe became Minister of the Department of Munitions and Supply and oversaw the creation of 28 Crown corporations that drove wartime production.
Canada already has a Crown corporation mandated to support affordable housing: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This agency could be expanded to not only finance, but also tender contracts and build housing. It could be a federal landlord, with long-term goals of community management and ownership.
The more affordable units kept out of an increasingly profit-driven market, the more accessible housing will be. This would stabilize the market and provide a floor (and roof) for affordability.
Some MMT scholars and social movements have even called for a homes guarantee — a federally-funded program to guarantee a place to live for anyone squeezed out of the housing market.
Critics might say bold investment is politically infeasible. But is it? Or could one of Canada’s federal parties champion policies that inspire instead of capitulate? Traditionally, the NDP would pick up this mantle, but they ceded their place as the progressive vanguard after former NDP Leader Tom Mulcair promised to balance the budget in 2015.
The real risk isn’t ambitious reform, but relying on outdated tricks in a world that demands new solutions.
Daniel Horen Greenford receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Canadians watched the two leaders’ debates unfold last week in Montréal. The debates, and this election, occur at a pivotal moment in history. Canadians go to the polls as the future of global democracy and governance, and in fact the very independence of the country, is in the balance.
In crucial ways, the debates failed to meet the moment — and therefore will likely be forgotten as Canadians vote cast their ballots in a week. Unlike a past debate that focused on Canadian sovereignty between John Turner and Brian Mulroney in 1988, this one featured few knockout punches or memorable moments.
Shadows of the past
In the weeks prior to the debates, observers drew comparisons to that momentous English-language leaders’ showdown 37 years ago. That debate laid out a clear question for voters: Are you in favour of entering a free-trade agreement with the United States?
Prime Minister Mulroney was supportive of the agreement, while Liberal Leader Turner was sharply opposed, fearing for the country’s independence.
In the end, both Mulroney and Turner had a point. In the ensuing decades, free trade with the U.S. has brought both prosperity and dependence on the country as the Canadian economy became ever more deeply intertwined with that of the United States.
A hinge point in history
In 2025, we face an even more pivotal moment. The global order is shifting.
Given the gravity of the moment however, we heard comparatively little during the debates about how Canada must respond at this hinge point in history as Canadians adapt to a predictably unpredictable future.
There was some talk during the debate of Canada trying to reach the (Trump-demanded) NATO military target for military spending, but nothing about the fact that the future of the alliance is uncertain. European states are openly questioning the credibility of American support in the event of an attack and European leaders discussing defence strategies without American involvement for the first time since the Second World War.
It’s clear from such silences on the debate stage that Canadian voters, journalists, debate moderators and politicians alike are all still coming to terms with the depth of change in the world around them.
The debate was filled with talk of pipelines, housing strategies and domestic law and order. In fact, neither debate was much different from those of the past 20 years.
That’s not to suggest domestic challenges don’t require substantive discussion and policy proposals. As I and others have argued, the populist anti-incumbent wave that we saw sweeping Canadian and global politics in recent years can be traced to the sense that a portion of the population — younger voters in particular — feel left behind and ignored.
Nonetheless, in focusing so heavily on domestic and not global threats, the debate verged at times on the parochial.
Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet, for instance, tried to keep provincial jurisdiction and Québec’s interests top of mind. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s message, at its most effective, was that as the country turns to face new challenges, it cannot forget about the marginalized in Canadian society and abroad. Worthy points, but secondary to the larger moment.
Ultimately, the debate was dominated by the other two men on the stage with a real chance to govern the country next week: Liberal Leader Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
The two appeared united in their passion for the country and pipelines, and share some other priorities, notably facilitating interprovincial economic integration.
Conservative base is divided
In other respects, the two leaders diverged significantly in their views. Of all the leaders, Carney was the most willing to discuss the Trump threat, including when he suggested in his closing English remarks that Trump is “trying to break us so the U.S. can own us.”
For the majority of the debates, however, the Liberal leader focused primarily on the economic threat. He argued that the country must look away from the U.S., and instead build inward with investment in housing and energy at home, and build outward by identifying more reliable markets and allies abroad.
Poilievre’s messaging was more nuanced, moving in different directions to suit different audiences. No doubt this is because the country’s Conservative voting base is itself deeply divided between mainstream conservatives who share their fellow Canadians’ concerns about Trump and a populist faction that tends to identify with the MAGA movement in numerous ways.
In attempting to square that circle, Poilievre has signalled strong opposition to Trump and his tariffs — a point he repeatedly discussed during the debate — and called for measures to enhance Canadian productivity, notably in the energy sector.
At the same time, however, he endorsed other policies that evoke aspects of Trump’s own political agenda, something he largely avoided mentioning during the debates. Notable among are Poilievre’s promised war on “woke” culture. While not discussed in detail during the debates, disruptive questions from right-wing media outlets following the French debate illustrated just how close to the surface such issues remain.
The ‘new abnormal’
In the absence of a significant gaffe, knockout blow or other dramatic twist, the debates are unlikely to change many minds, and seem likely to soon fade from memory.
Initial post-debate polling suggests as much. Anyone leaning one way or another heard enough to affirm their views as they tuned into the debates, and nothing to make them question their choice.
Answers to larger questions about how Canada should move forward in this emergent new global order, amid daunting new threats to peace and democracy, remain only hinted at. Whoever wins the election, those questions will continue to be asked with increased urgency in the coming years.
Stewart Prest does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bronagh Ann McShane, Research Fellow, VOICES, School of Histories and Humanities, Trinity College Dublin
Pope Francis appointed more women to leadership roles in the Vatican than any pope before him. He challenged entrenched traditions within the Roman Catholic church to bring women into positions once deemed categorically off limits by an institution historically dominated by men.
A prime example is Sister Raffaella Petrini, who became the first woman to serve as secretary general of the Governorate of Vatican City State – the executive of Vatican City State. This is the highest ranking role ever held by a woman in the Catholic church.
Christianity’s early years tell a more complex story about women’s roles than one might expect. Women within early Christian communities held leadership positions. They were deacons, prophets and patrons of religious communities. However, as the church became more institutionalised, male leadership solidified its authority, marginalising women. By the medieval period, women wielded spiritual influence as mystics, abbesses, and theologians, but their power was largely confined to religious devotion rather than governance. This division reinforced the patriarchal structures of the church. Women could influence faith but not church administration or doctrine.
By the early modern period, the exclusion of women from church leadership became even more pronounced. The counter-reformation reinforced clerical patriarchy, centralising power in male clergy. Once powerful abbesses saw their authority curtailed as the Vatican tightened control. During the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, women were active in education, missionary work, and social justice efforts but were systematically excluded from shaping church policies or theological debates.
The second Vatican council (1962–1965) acknowledged the importance of women in the church and expanded their roles in lay ministries. Yet, despite recognising their contributions, the council stopped short of granting women real authority. They remained on the margins of power in the church despite the broader social changes of the time. While secular institutions responded to calls for reform in response to second-wave feminism, the Catholic church remained largely resistant.
Pope Francis’s reforms
Against this historical backdrop, Francis’s reforms were both a step forward and a reminder of the church’s persistent structural barriers. His first major initiative to explore greater female inclusion came in 2016, when he established a commission to study the historical role of female deacons and the possibility of reinstating the role of deacon for women. However, the commission faced internal divisions and, in 2019, Francis acknowledged it had been unable to reach a consensus.
A new commission was established in 2020 with a broader international and theological representation. Although the issue remains under consideration, and the Vatican announced in 2024 that the commission would resume its work, Francis repeatedly reaffirmed that priestly ordination is “reserved for men”.
Francis did, however, expand opportunities for women’s participation in church governance in other ways. In 2021, he issued Spiritus Domini, formally changing canon law to allow women to serve as lectors and acolytes (liturgical roles traditionally reserved for men). While this did not grant them clerical status, it acknowledged women’s long-standing contributions in these roles.
Francis also increased women’s visibility in Vatican leadership. In an unprecedented move, he appointed Sister Nathalie Becquart as an under-secretary of the Synod of Bishops, making her the first woman to hold voting rights in the Synod. Similarly, in 2022, he named several women to the Dicastery for Bishops, granting them a role in selecting new bishops. This is traditionally an exclusively male domain.
Before his death, Francis made further appointments demonstrating his commitment to integrating women into Church governance. In January 2025, he appointed Sister Simona Brambilla as the prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. She is the first woman to lead a major Vatican department.
This was followed by Sister Raffaella Petrini’s appointment as the highest-ranking woman in Vatican administration. As governor, she oversees the city’s infrastructure, institutions, and daily operations, a role traditionally held by male clergy. These appointments, once unthinkable, signal a cautious but notable shift in the church’s approach to female leadership.
Progress or symbolism?
While these reforms represent progress, the church’s core patriarchal structure is still intact and the issue of women’s ordination remains off the table. No matter how influential individual women become, they are still excluded from the highest echelons of clerical authority. The papacy, the College of Cardinals, and the priesthood remain exclusively male domains.
Pope Francis’s reforms followed a well-established pattern of slow, incremental change in the church’s approach to women’s leadership. The struggle over power, patriarchy, and women’s place in the Catholic church is far from over.
Francis led a period of reform, gradually opening doors once believed to be firmly shut. But following his death, the lasting impact of these changes is uncertain. It’s possible that his work marked the beginning of a transformative era. However, it’s also possible that his death concludes a chapter in church history that supported women’s leadership. It is up to Francis’s predecessor to decide which is true.
Bronagh Ann McShane 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 Liberals want to cement policies implemented by Justin Trudeau’s government, particularly the ban on assault-style weapons.
The Conservative Party of Canada, on the other hand, seems intent on avoiding the gun control issue, although Leader Pierre Poilievre has suggested he might weaken Canada’s firearm laws.
Since 2015, the Liberal Party has substantially strengthened Canada’s gun control laws.
In 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-71, which enhanced background checks for purchasers. It also required retailers to keep records of firearm transactions. Following the April 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting, the federal government prohibited several models of assault-style firearms.
Bill C-21, passed in 2024, codified a freeze on the sale and transfer of handguns. In addition, it increased penalties for firearms smuggling and trafficking, and added offences concerning what are known as “ghost guns,” untraceable firearms assembled with components purchased either as a kit or as separate pieces. Bill C-21 also included new measures aimed at reducing intimate partner violence.
The Liberal Party’s 2025 platform does not propose introducing significant new gun control measures. Rather, the party pledges to defend and cement existing firearm laws. Carney accuses Poilievre of wanting to “import irresponsible, American-style gun laws” into Canada.
The Liberal platform promises “to keep assault-style firearms out of our communities,” while “respecting the longstanding traditions of hunting, including among Indigenous Peoples, and sport shooting.”
The Liberals will implement “an efficient gun buyback program for assault-style firearms.” They also promise that new models of firearms entering the Canadian market are classified “by the RCMP and not the gun industry.”
In addition, the Liberals promise to automatically revoke gun licences “for individuals convicted of violent offences, particularly those convicted of intimate partner violence offences, and those subject to protection orders.”
Other Liberal commitments include toughening oversight of the firearms licensing system and strongly enforcing measures aimed at reducing intimate partner violence.
Opposition party positions
The NDP says nothing about firearms in its platform, while the Bloc Québécois vaguely commits to continuing to demand better control of illegal and prohibited firearms.
The Conservative Party also largely avoids mentioning gun control. For example, on April 9, the party announced part of its criminal justice policy. It urges the adoption of a “three-strikes-and-you’re out” law. There was, however, no mention of the Conservatives’ proposed gun control platform.
The lack of a clear position seems designed to avoid entangling Poilievre in the thorny gun control issue. The Conservatives learned the dangers of promising to repeal popular gun control measures in the 2021 election. Erin O’Toole had secured the Conservative Party leadership by appealing to gun owners, and the party’s 2021 election platform promised to repeal the Liberal ban on assault-style firearms.
The Liberals drew attention to O’Toole’s promise, badly knocking the Conservatives off message for several days. O’Toole was forced to retreat from his commitment to repeal the ban. He instead promised the Conservatives would retain the ban until an independent “classification review” of firearms was completed.
Opponents of gun control responded by expressing a sense of betrayal.
In his review of the 2021 election, Canadian political scientist Faron Ellis found that O’Toole “compounded the damage when he had no definitive answers, appearing evasive or even deceitful, as the Liberals would repeatedly charge through to the end of the campaign.”
Liberals believe that the controversy over O’Toole’s gun control position helped them turn the tide and win the 2021 election. For Conservatives, the lesson of the 2021 election seems to be that they should avoid making clear promises about firearm policy.
Poilievre’s agenda
Poilievre has not been completely silent on the gun control issue. Prior to the election, he told a prominent gun control critic that he will repeal Liberal gun laws.
However, he has been less explicit during the election campaign. He has mentioned gun control at his rallies, but does not detail what a Conservative government would do. For example, at an event in Woolwich, Ont., on April 10, he promised to “reverse the wasteful multi-billion dollar gun grab that targets our hunters and our sports shooters.”
It is unclear what exactly Poilievre means by his promise to “reverse the wasteful multi-billion dollar gun grab.” Would the Conservatives again allow the purchase and transfer handguns? Would they eliminate the ban on assault-style rifles, thereby making firearms like the AR-15 widely available?
Being frank about his position would help avoid suggestions that Poilievre has an agenda to substantially alter Canada’s gun control laws.
R. Blake Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A mourner holds a portrait of Pope Francis at the Basílica de San José de Flores in Buenos Aires, a church where the pope worshipped in his youth.AP Photo/Gustavo Garello
Pope Francis, whose papacy blended tradition with pushes for inclusion and reform, died on April, 21, 2025 – Easter Monday – at the age of 88.
Here we spotlight five stories from The Conversation’s archive about his roots, faith, leadership and legacy.
1. A Jesuit pope
Jorge Mario Bergoglio became a pope of many firsts: the first modern pope from outside Europe, the first whose papal name honors St. Francis of Assisi, and the first Jesuit – a Catholic religious order founded in the 16th century.
Those Jesuit roots shed light on Pope Francis’ approach to some of the world’s most pressing problems, argues Timothy Gabrielli, a theologian at the University of Dayton.
Gabrielli highlights the Jesuits’ “Spiritual Exercises,” which prompt Catholics to deepen their relationship with God and carefully discern how to respond to problems. He argues that this spiritual pattern of looking beyond “presenting problems” to the deeper roots comes through in Francis’ writings, shaping the pope’s response to everything from climate change and inequality to clerical sex abuse.
Early on in his papacy, Francis famously told an interviewer, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Over the years, he has repeatedly called on Catholics to love LGBTQ+ people and spoken against laws that target them.
An LGBTQ couple embrace after a pastoral worker blesses them at a Catholic church in Germany, in defiance of practices approved by Rome. Andreas Rentz/Getty Images
But “Francis’ inclusiveness is not actually radical,” explains Steven Millies, a scholar at the Catholic Theological Union. “His remarks generally correspond to what the church teaches and calls on Catholics to do,” without changing doctrine – such as that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Rather, Francis’ comments “express what the Catholic Church says about human dignity,” Millies writes. “Francis is calling on Catholics to take note that they should be concerned about justice for all people.”
At times, Francis did something that was once unthinkable for a pope: He apologized.
He was not the first pontiff to do so, however. Pope John Paul II declared a sweeping “Day of Pardon” in 2000, asking forgiveness for the church’s sins, and Pope Benedict XVI apologized to victims of sexual abuse. During Francis’ papacy, he acknowledged the church’s historic role in Canada’s residential school system for Indigenous children and apologized for abuses in the system.
But what does it mean for a pope to say, “I’m sorry”?
Members of the Assembly of First Nations perform in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican on March 31, 2022, ahead of an Indigenous delegation’s meeting with Pope Francis. AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino
Annie Selak, a theologian at Georgetown University, unpacks the history and significance of papal apologies, which can speak for the entire church, past and present. Often, she notes, statements skirt an actual admission of wrongdoing.
Still, apologies “do say something important,” Selak writes. A pope “apologizes both to the church and on behalf of the church to the world. These apologies are necessary starting points on the path to forgiveness and healing.”
Many popes convene meetings of the Synod of Bishops to advise the Vatican on church governance. But under Francis, these gatherings took on special meaning.
The Synod on Synodality was a multiyear, worldwide conversation where Catholics could share concerns and challenges with local church leaders, informing the topics synod participants would eventually discuss in Rome. What’s more, the synod’s voting members included not only bishops but lay Catholics – a first for the church.
The process “pictures the Catholic Church not as a top-down hierarchy but rather as an open conversation,” writes University of Dayton religious studies scholar Daniel Speed Thompson – one in which everyone in the church has a voice and listens to others’ voices.
In 2024, University of Notre Dame professor David Lantigua had a cup of maté tea with some “porteños,” as people from Buenos Aires are known. They shared a surprising take on the Argentine pope: “a theologian of the tango.”
Pope Francis drinks maté, the national beverage of Argentina, in St. Peter’s Square on his birthday on Dec. 17, 2014. Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images
Francis does love the dance – in 2014, thousands of Catholics tangoed in St. Peter’s Square to honor his birthday. But there’s more to it, Lantigua explains. Francis’ vision for the church was “based on relationships of trust and solidarity,” like a pair of dance partners. And part of his task as pope was to “tango” with all the world’s Catholics, carefully navigating culture wars and an increasingly diverse church.
Francis was “less interested in ivory tower theology than the faith of people on the streets,” where Argentina’s beloved dance was born.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Erin Corcoran, Professor of immigration, refguee and asylum law, University of Notre Dame
The detention of noncitizen university students after their Palestinian rights activism raises questions about the limits of free speech. Rob Dobi/Moment/Getty Images
In early March, the federal government arrested, detained and began deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident born in Syria to Palestinian parents. Khalil participated in Palestinian rights protests at Columbia University in 2024.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in an April 9 memo that allowing Khalil to stay in the country would create a “hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”
“The foreign policy of the United States champions core American interests and American citizens and condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective,” Rubio wrote.
Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish-born student at Tufts University, was detained by immigration authorities on March 25 near her Massachusetts home and is currently being held in Louisiana. She co-authored a 2024 op-ed in the campus newspaper calling for Tufts to recognize a genocide in the Gaza Strip.
And Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian man who is a lawful permanent resident and a Columbia University student active in the Palestinian rights protests, was detained and arrested on April 25. This happened when Mahdawi showed up at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office for a citizenship interview in Vermont.
“If you apply for a student visa to come to the United States and you say you’re coming not just to study, but to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos, we’re not giving you that visa,” Rubio said on March 23, when asked by a journalist about revoking student visas and arresting Öztürk.
These cases raise important questions: Do lawful permanent residents have the right to protected free speech? Or are there limitations – among them, a determination by the U.S. government that permanent residents’ speech or political activity makes them a threat to national security?
Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil speaks to reporters at Columbia University on June 1, 2024, during a media briefing organized by protesters who were objecting to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images
Noncitizens’ First Amendment rights
Arresting and detaining nonviolent, foreign protesters and the authors of opinion pieces is usually not legally permissible. That’s because these actions are protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression.
Still, the First Amendment does not apply to noncitizens physically outside the U.S. The Supreme Court, for example, ruled in 1972 that the government may deny visas and bar entry to noncitizens who were seeking admission to the U.S. to engage in constitutionally protected speech.
The Trump administration rests its argument that it can legally detain and deport noncitizens who have participated in Palestinian rights protests – but have not been charged with any crimes – on broad language in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.
This law articulates important immigration rules, like who can enter the country and how someone can become a citizen. It also includes vague language that gives the secretary of state power to deport noncitizens in certain cases.
“An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable,” the law reads.
As foreign-born students Mahdawi, Öztürk and Khalil fight in court for their right to legally stay in the U.S., Rubio and other Trump administration leaders claim that this law gives them the power to determine whether Khalil and other noncitizens are creating “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security also wrote on the social platform X on March 9 that “Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”
But the Trump administration has not provided any further specific details about how the views and actions of Khalil and other detained foreign students create serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the U.S. Nor has the government alleged that Khalil and other noncitizen students committed crimes or broke the law.
Khalil’s attorneys have challenged the government’s use of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a basis to deport him in federal court. The lawyers assert that the U.S. government is attempting to deport Khalil for protected speech.
Legal precedent and steps forward
The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect lawful permanent residents from being deported if their political affiliation violates the laws.
But the court has not yet decided if lawful permanent residents participating in protests or expressing political views are protected against deportation, when the only evident ground for their deportation is political speech.
A federal judge in New Jersey, where Khalil was first briefly detained, has ordered the government not to deport him until all his different court cases are resolved.
On April 11, a different immigration judge in Louisiana – where Khalil is currently detained – ruled that he could be deported for being a national security risk. Khalil’s attorneys are appealing this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Department of Justice.
Regardless of the outcome at the district court level, Khalil’s case will be appealed and most likely end up before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will then have to determine the appropriate balance between the executive branch’s authority to deport noncitizens it classifies as posing a threat to the country, and the right to freedom of expression that all people residing in the U.S. have.
If the Supreme Court holds that the federal government can say that someone’s political speech can be a threat to U.S. national security interests, I believe the core of the First Amendment is at risk, for citizens as well as noncitizens.
Erin Corcoran 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 – Canada – By Jonathan Hamilton-Diabo, Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream; June Callwood Professor of Social Justice; Special Advisor on Indigenous Initiatives, Victoria University, University of Toronto
Pope Francis reads his statement of apology during a visit with Indigenous peoples at Maskwaci, the former Ermineskin Residential School, July 25, 2022, in Maskwacis, Alberta. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
With the death of Pope Francis, his apology for residential schools in Canada and its impacts needs to be explored nearly three years after it was delivered.
On July 25, 2022, in Maskwacîs, Alta., Pope Francis apologized on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church for its role in the residential school system:
This formal apology, and other statements the Pope made in Canada, came seven years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 2015 Final Report. The TRC called for the Pope “to issue an apology to Survivors, their families, and communities for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children in Catholic-run residential schools.” This was to occur, in Canada, within one year.
It is important to understand circumstances leading to the Pope’s Maskwacîs apology, the reaction at the time and its significance for the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Catholic Church.
I previous explored these themes as the Pope arrived in Canada. I questioned whether the apology would contribute to healing or deepen the distrust in the church. As a Mohawk faculty member raised in Catholicism, who teaches in the fields of theology and education, and has family members who attended these schools, I seek to revisit this question nearly three year later.
Seven years after TRC final report
The Pope’s Maskwacîs apology wasn’t the first time a statement was issued by a member of the Catholic Church. The Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate (the Oblates) apologized in 1991 “for the part we played in the cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious imperialism” which “continually threatened the cultural, linguistic, and religious traditions of the Native peoples.”
The importance of who offers an apology cannot be overstated. In 1998, Jane Stewart, the minister of Indian Affairs of Canada, read a Statement of Reconciliation acknowledging the tragedies experienced by students that attended residential school. Indigenous leaders criticized the statement, sensing a lack of ownership or not taking responsibility. It came across as an expression of regret rather than an apology, and was further rejected, as Prime Minister Jean Chrétien didn’t offer it.
In July 2022, Pope Francis apologized before thousands of people: survivors, their families, community members and leaders. This was significant, considering the length of time for this to materialize.
From this pain, a great amount of anger was directed towards the Catholic Church.
Church buildings were vandalized or set on fire. As many were in First Nations territories, this created tensions, since there were still community members that were part of the Christian tradition.
This outcry reignited attention towards residential schools and the Church. The Vatican invited a delegation of survivors to meet the Pope in March 2022. This visit provided an opportunity for delegation members to share their stories, however its location is important to consider. The meeting took place at the Vatican, potentially escalating the power imbalance between the Church and First Nation, Inuit and Métis delegates.
Some of the impacts of the apology may not be felt instantaneously. It represents hope for a better relationship and a starting point for healing. Without any apology, any measures that the church offered would not gain traction. The lack of a papal apology over many years kept this as the focal point, further damaging the relationship between the Church and many Indigenous people and continuing to erode trust.
Since then, the Catholic Church has undertaken steps to address the harms of the residential schools and contribute to healing process. In 2023, the Vatican released a statement on the Doctrine of Discovery, indicating the Catholic Church was distancing itself from this concept and repudiating it, as it was not part of Church teachings.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and the Oblates committed to developing a process for the transparent access to records. Barriers to church records prevented access to documents that could help locate family members who never came home.
In a July 2024 statement, the CCCB said it has “established structures … to support dialogues and foster greater understanding of Indigenous cultural, linguistic and spiritual traditions and values,” and wishes to deepen academic collaborations to understand of the Doctrine of Discovery.
While small advancements in reconciliation activities stemming from Pope Francis’ apology have occurred, the healing journey is long. Distrust is evident as the Church’s sincerity in this process is questioned; however, the apology presents an opportunity to renew relationships and forge new paths together.
The criticisms of how and when it transpired and even what was said will always remain, however the apology was necessary.
It was necessary for many survivors, who felt recognized. It was necessary for the Church to formally acknowledge its responsibility. It was necessary for Pope Francis to offer the apology directly to Indigenous people.
Jonathan Hamilton-Diabo 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.
In my view, each moment represented a move toward reconciliation for Indigenous Peoples in Canada. My focus, for the most part, considers the healing dimension of his visit. At the same time, I understand and acknowledge the limitations of his apology and the deep pain caused because of what was not said.
Dene interpreter and survivor, Jessie Sylvestre, asked to translate Pope Francis’s apology during his visit, was critical and hurt that the Pope read his apology rather than speak it from the heart. She also named feeling “almost sick” and angry after seeing the “very patriarchal” sight of many priests and the Pope. The absence of women in visible leadership roles was noted as disturbing by other Indigenous women also.
Still, for many Indigenous survivors, Pope Francis’s apology was deeply meaningful and I wish to explore that phenomenon here.
I am particularly interested in why some survivors of Residential Schools in Canada are (and remain) Christian in the face of the horrendous treatment they endured at the hands of Christian churches’ representatives.
For perpetrators or those navigating moral responsibility for historic injustices and wrongs, it is much easier to avoid understanding what truly happened and rush to be reconciled. The long delay in the Pope coming to Canada and apologizing to Indigenous survivors after the TRC’s clear call for this in Call to Action No. 58 speaks to feet dragging with regard to the Catholic Church as an institution.
Yet, it is possible to say that by Pope Francis’s deeds and words he consciously and intentionally demonstrated he wanted to face the truth.
He acknowledged that his presence and his apology could trigger survivors but he understood why it was vitally important for many survivors to witness his apology. Many dared to share their burden with him despite the pain that was evoked.
Anishinaabe and Ukrainian writer Patty Krawec, from Lac Seul First Nation, uses the term “unforgetting” by which she means “excavating truth and bringing it to the surface.”
Such “unforgetting” was stirred up by Pope Francis’s presence and his words. For some, it was either consciously or intuitively an important step toward healing and reconciliation.
‘Incarnate’ meaning
Pope Francis, both because he represented the Catholic Church and because of who he is as a person, played a role in excavating deep memories and consoling the pain of “heavy burdens.”
He acknowledged the horrors of what Ojibwe author Richard Wagamese described as “an institution that tried to scrape the Indian off of their insides.” In Maskwacis, Pope Francis thanked Indigenous survivors for telling him “about the heavy burdens that you still bear, for sharing with me these bitter memories,” noting that even though costly, “it is right to remember, because forgetfulness leads to indifference.”
In his book, Method in Theology, Lonergan speaks about different “carriers of meaning.” One such carrier was what he termed “incarnate meaning,” the “meaning of a person, of their way of life, of their words or of their deeds.”
I believe that Pope Francis’ “incarnate meaning” was his most significant legacy in terms of what his visit meant for reconciliation. Certainly, he understood and acknowledged that words are not enough, “firm action and irreversible commitment” are required.
Continued spiritual violence
In the article “The Papal Apology and Seeds of an Action Plan,” Don Bolen, Archbishop of Regina, spells out four areas that witness to where action is taking place: truth telling (in the form of research and archival work), solidarity with Indigenous Peoples, supporting recovery of “Indigenous language and culture” and recognizing the intrinsic value of Indigenous Peoples’ “relationship with the land and environment.”
Yet, in a soon-to-be published paper (titled Spiritual Violence against Indigenous Peoples in Canada: Ethical Guidelines and Calls to Healing), with colleagues, I describe the ongoing “spiritual violence” against Indigenous traditions by Christian churches.
Pope Francis understood the privilege of encounter with the beauty of Indigenous Peoples’ traditions as he so clearly stated in his encyclical letter, Laudato Si’: On Care for our Common Home.
In that letter, he recognizes the deeply rooted values of Indigenous Peoples in relationship with land (which includes water, vegetation, animals — all that lives on and because of the land).
Several times during his visit to Canada, Pope Francis spoke of that special relationship, a relationship that is so foreign to a western perspective which tends to view land merely as a commodity and not as a living being with which one is in relationship.
As was witnessed in many encounters — Maskwacis, Edmonton, Québec and Iqaluit — perhaps Pope Francis’s most important legacy for truth and reconciliation in Canada is his willingness and humility to acknowledge the suffering, to be present to those who suffer, and in face of that suffering to have the audacity to say, “What are you going through?”
Christine Jamieson 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.
People are more likely to believe an explanation when they see direct evidence of it. In the U.S., the percentage of people who recognize that global warming is happening is higher in counties that experienced record high temperatures in the previous decade. But understanding what’s happening and why also matters. That’s because people’s existing knowledge shapes how they interpret the evidence they see.
We found that in many southern states − such as Alabama, Mississippi and Texas − the correlation between the percentage of bachelor’s degrees at the county level and climate concern was weak. Higher education levels didn’t seem to make much of a difference in how concerned people were about climate change.
However, in northern states − such as Maine, Vermont and Michigan − the education effect was stronger. We believe this difference is in part because climate change is more perceptible in colder states. A 1-degree temperature rise in Florida may not feel significant, whereas in Maine or Wisconsin, it would be more noticeable as winters became shorter and signs of spring came earlier.
We believe the results suggest that higher education helps people who are exposed to perceptible warming shifts better understand the changes they are experiencing; it’s the pairing of both that makes the difference.
We wondered whether political ideology might be driving the trends we were finding. Southern states also tend to be more politically conservative.
When we controlled for political leanings, however, our analysis found that the education effect appeared to be mostly influenced by whether people had experienced perceptible warming in recent years.
There were two outliers: Despite being cold states that have experienced the effects of climate change, North and South Dakota had low education effects when it came to climate concern. One possible explanation is that fossil fuels are central to their economies, shaping local attitudes toward climate change.
Nationally, our study suggests that higher education leverages people’s experience with climate change to increase their climate concern. It isn’t just having a college education alone, as the different results from warmer and colder parts of the country show. It is experiencing rising temperatures that makes the difference. The more perceptible the warming, the greater the effect.
Young people are growing up with climate change
A generation ago, climate change seemed to be more theoretical prediction than common experience for most people in the U.S.
This may be part of the reason why a sense of urgency has been slow to develop, even though three-quarters of Americans recognize that global warming is happening. Generations that grew up in the mid-20th century, when seasons and climate seemed constant, had little reason to expect change.
Younger generations may see the world differently. For them, climate change has been a reality in their developing years. Given their personal experiences and interest in science, we believe higher education will have a powerful effect.
R. Alexander Bentley 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 Ellen P. Aprill, Senior Scholar in Residence at the UCLA Law School’s Lowell Milken Center For Philanthropy And Nonprofit Law, University of California, Los Angeles
The Trump administration is demanding that at least 60 U.S. colleges and universities change their policies or lose out on billions of dollars in federal funding.
In Harvard University’s case, the government has accused the Ivy league school – so far without providing any specific evidence – of violating some students’ civil rights by allowing other students to engage in what the authorities characterize as antisemitic speech. The government has demanded broad oversight of Harvard’s admissions policies, along with changes in its hiring processes and campus culture.
Harvard stands to lose out on more than US$2.2 billion. It may seem to be better insulated from this pressure than many other schools because it has the nation’s largest educational endowment – a reservoir of stocks, bonds and other financial assets that helps fund its operations, research and scholarships. Harvard’s endowment totaled more than $53 billion in 2024.
As a nonprofit law scholar, who served in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy in the 1980s, I study and write about both state and federal law as it applies to nonprofit organizations. I believe that the law permits most colleges and universities to increase spending from their endowments in light of the financial pressures so many of them are facing.
Precedents for boosting endowment spending
Not all endowments are alike.
They tend to be composed of an array of smaller funds, some of which are subject to legal restrictions that make it impossible for the schools they support to freely use those assets.
Universities must respect the limits donors put on their gifts, such as tying them to specific scholarships, funding jobs held by certain kinds of professors or supporting the construction or maintenance of a particular building.
It’s up to a university’s governing board to decide how much of the school’s endowment will be spent in a given year.
As Harvard’s financial report for its 2024 fiscal year puts it: “There is a common misconception that endowments, including Harvard’s, can easily be accessed like checking accounts.” That is definitely not the case.
While it’s always important to proceed with care when spending money reserved for use on a rainy day or to ensure the long-term existence of a revered institution, most colleges and universities are freer to dip into their endowments than they may realize when conditions get stormy.
Under this law, managing and investing an endowment requires the university to consider its charitable purposes and financial needs, while respecting the intentions of the donors who provided its assets. These are state laws, not federal statutes. In most states, a university may spend as much of an endowment fund as it deems “prudent.”
Exercising that prudence requires the consideration of several factors.
They include the purposes of the institution as a whole and the particular endowment fund, prevailing economic conditions, and what other financial resources the institution can tap. However, in almost one-third of states, including California and New York, annually spending more than 7% of an endowment’s fair market value, measured by a three-year average, is presumed to be imprudent.
But that isn’t a legal maximum because the model law’s drafters noted that “circumstances in a particular year” could easily void that presumption. Based on my study of nonprofit law, including the laws that apply to higher education, I’m confident that this caveat could easily apply to the Trump administration’s education-related spending cuts in 2025, just as it did during the pandemic and the Great Recession.
What’s more, endowment spending rate by universities in 2024 was 4.8%. As a result, many universities, including those in states with a 7% cap on prudent spending, will likely be able to increase their use of endowment funds to maintain their budgets at prior levels.
In addition, living donors can release any restriction they placed on the funds they gave universities that are still held in their endowments. Even when those funds are from donors who have died, a university can ask a court to release restrictions that have become impractical or wasteful.
The Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act also permits institutions to lift restrictions on all endowment funds that are more than 20 years old and relatively small. This amount varies from state to state and typically ranges between $25,000and $100,000
Archon Fung, a John F. Kennedy School of Government professor, addresses students, faculty and other members of the Harvard University community on April 17, 2025. AP Photo/Charles Krupa
Why do the boards of even these universities tend to hesitate to dip deeply into their endowments when their revenue declines?
One explanation is that because endowments can enhance a university’s prestige, its leaders and endowment donors have a bias toward accumulating rather than spending. Another is that board members have an obligation to protect their institutions’ long-term viability. Boards also bear a responsibility to preserve funds for a future rainy day, no matter how severe the current turbulence may be, how large the endowment has become or how successful the school’s current fundraising efforts are.
At the same time, the Trump administration’s trade, fiscal and other policies may continue to roil financial markets, reducing the value of university endowments, for months or years to come.
In my view, it’s reasonable for colleges and universities to consider stepping up their endowment spending due to the Trump administration’s actions that could interfere with higher education revenue. Increasing endowment payouts now could ease, although not fully solve, the mounting crises that colleges and universities of all kinds now face.
The John F. Kennedy School of Government, commonly referred to as Harvard Kennedy School, is a member of The Conversation U.S.
Ellen P. Aprill 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 Stan Meiburg, Executive Director, Sabin Center for Environment and Sustainability, Wake Forest University
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has announced plans to review or reverse dozens of environmental protection regulations.Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin have announced their intent to reconsider dozens of current regulations in an effort to loosen standards originally imposed to protect the environment and public health. But it’s not as simple as Trump and Zeldin just saying so.
There are some explicit restrictions that prevent loosening of existing environmental standards for clean air and water. In general, though, if the administration has evidence to support its claims that the protections should be reduced and the administration follows the process required by law, it is possible to loosen the restrictions. But as a former longtime senior leader at EPA and student of environmental policy, I know that process is not easy – and it’s not meant to be.
As examples of how the process of changing the rules and standards works, let’s look at the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Similar provisions exist in the nation’s wide range of environmental protection laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and others.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announces plans to review several environmental regulations on March 12, 2025.
Keeping the air clean
The Clean Air Act sets uniform national standards for air quality, and it created the rules by which states create plans to meet those standards.
One section of the law, Part C of Title I of the act, is titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.” Its provisions are meant to prevent states that meet the national standards from allowing air quality to get worse in the future.
Its basic effect is to require that new sources of pollution, or existing ones that make significant equipment changes, use the best available technology that meets or exceeds the minimum federal standards for pollution control. Additional protections apply to sensitive areas like national parks.
For areas that did not yet meet the standards, a set of amendments passed in 1990 included one that prevented air quality from getting worse. That provision, known as the “anti-backsliding rule,” says that no state whose air did not meet the standards before Nov. 15, 1990, can change its plan “unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions.” And once a state’s air quality improves to meet the standards, the state must follow maintenance plans to make sure the air quality doesn’t get worse.
Protecting the water
Under the Clean Water Act, states set water quality standards to protect drinking water and water for recreation, as well as to protect wildlife.
The Environmental Protection Agency has interpreted key sections of the law to require that states ensure that whatever companies discharge into the water from factories or other operations don’t degrade downstream water quality – even if the existing conditions are better than the minimum standards. Known as “anti-degradation provisions,” these rules mean water that is currently far cleaner than the standards require can’t legally be made more dirty, even if only a little bit.
Many federal standards can be weakened, so long as the EPA follows the Administrative Procedure Act’s process.
Since the 1970 passage of the Clean Air Act, the national air quality standards have not been weakened. Technology standards for air and water pollution controls have tightened over time because of advances that improved performance while reducing costs.
To change the rules under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must first provide evidence that the existing rules are no longer appropriate. Without that evidence, any changes may be overturned by the courts as not founded in facts – in legal terms, “arbitrary and capricious.” The first Trump administration’s efforts to change the rules failed in many court cases on this basis.
This review process is also required of the EPA’s intended effort to revoke the so-called “endangerment finding,” which establishes the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. If successful, that revocation would undo the legal grounds for carbon dioxide and methane pollution standards for motor vehicles, electric utilities, oil and gas production, and large industrial sources.
Such an effort will certainly end up in court. The endangerment finding began with a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to assess whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. In 2009, the agency found that they did. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that finding, and the Supreme Court declined to reconsider the case.
Algae floats on Lake Erie. Algae blooms can be caused by water pollution. AP Photo/Paul Sancya
Other ways to reduce environmental protections
The Trump administration’s stated plans for amending water pollution rules illustrate that rolling back protections can also mean undoing efforts to strengthen restrictions, if those efforts did not get finalized before 2025.
For instance, in June 2024, the Biden administration’s EPA notified the public that it intended to tighten restrictions on manufacturing plants’ discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, into surface water or public sewage-treatment systems. Those are a large category of human-made chemicals, used to make products resistant to water, stains and heat, which can be harmful to human health at some levels. These chemicals don’t break down easily and therefore are often called “forever chemicals.”
But the changes were never finalized, and on the second day of Trump’s second term, the new administration announced that the proposal had been withdrawn.
In general, U.S. environmental laws do not prevent the EPA from weakening protection standards. But merely announcing the agency’s intention to do something doesn’t make it so.
In a recent executive order, Trump claimed he could take an action without public notice and comment “because I am ordering the repeal.” But federal law specifies that the process of change requires explicit descriptions of scientific and technical reasons and evidence that justify any proposed actions, and a notice-and-comment process that involves the public.
In the meantime, the existing standards remain in place, enforceable by citizen lawsuits even if the federal government decides not to enforce them. Agencies require technical and legal expertise to craft rules that can survive inevitable challenges in the courts. Many of those experts have been fired or laid off by the Trump administration, making the job of changing regulations more difficult.
Stan Meiburg is a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network, a non-partisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. He is also a 39 year alumnus of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He is a professional colleague with Sid Shapiro, whose Conversation article is cited in this piece.
Why don’t humans have hair all over their bodies like other animals? – Murilo, age 5, Brazil
Have you ever wondered why you don’t have thick hair covering your whole body like a dog, cat or gorilla does?
Humans aren’t the only mammals with sparse hair. Elephants, rhinos and naked mole rats also have very little hair. It’s true for some marine mammals, such as whales and dolphins, too.
Scientists think the earliest mammals, which lived at the time of the dinosaurs, were quite hairy. But over hundreds of millions of years, a small handful of mammals, including humans, evolved to have less hair. What’s the advantage of not growing your own fur coat?
I’m a biologist who studies the genes that control hairiness in mammals. Why humans and a small number of other mammals are relatively hairless is an interesting question. It all comes down to whether certain genes are turned on or off.
Hair benefits
Hair and fur have many important jobs. They keep animals warm, protect their skin from the sun and injuries and help them blend into their surroundings.
They even assist animals in sensing their environment. Ever felt a tickle when something almost touches you? That’s your hair helping you detect things nearby.
Humans do have hair all over their bodies, but it is generally sparser and finer than that of our hairier relatives. A notable exception is the hair on our heads, which likely serves to protect the scalp from the sun. In human adults, the thicker hair that develops under the arms and between the legs likely reduces skin friction and aids in cooling by dispersing sweat.
So hair can be pretty beneficial. There must have been a strong evolutionary reason for people to lose so much of it.
Why humans lost their hair
The story begins about 7 million years ago, when humans and chimpanzees took different evolutionary paths. Although scientists can’t be sure why humans became less hairy, we have some strong theories that involve sweat.
Humans have far more sweat glands than chimps and other mammals do. Sweating keeps you cool. As sweat evaporates from your skin, heat energy is carried away from your body. This cooling system was likely crucial for early human ancestors, who lived in the hot African savanna.
Of course, there are plenty of mammals living in hot climates right now that are covered with fur. Early humans were able to hunt those kinds of animals by tiring them out over long chases in the heat – a strategy known as persistence hunting.
Humans didn’t need to be faster than the animals they hunted. They just needed to keep going until their prey got too hot and tired to flee. Being able to sweat a lot, without a thick coat of hair, made this endurance possible.
Genes that control hairiness
To better understand hairiness in mammals, my research team compared the genetic information of 62 different mammals, from humans to armadillos to dogs and squirrels. By lining up the DNA of all these different species, we were able to zero in on the genes linked to keeping or losing body hair.
Among the many discoveries we made, we learned humans still carry all the genes needed for a full coat of hair – they are just muted or switched off.
In the story of “Beauty and the Beast,” the Beast is covered in thick fur, which might seem like pure fantasy. But in real life some rare conditions can cause people to grow a lot of hair all over their bodies. This condition, called hypertrichosis, is very unusual and has been called “werewolf syndrome” because of how people who have it look.
Petrus Gonsalvus and his wife, Catherine, painted by Joris Hoefnagel, circa 1575. National Gallery of Art
In the 1500s, a Spanish man named Petrus Gonsalvus was born with hypertrichosis. As a child he was sent in an iron cage like an animal to Henry II of France as a gift. It wasn’t long before the king realized Petrus was like any other person and could be educated. In time, he married a lady, forming the inspiration for the “Beauty and the Beast” story.
While you will probably never meet someone with this rare trait, it shows how genes can lead to unique and surprising changes in hair growth.
Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.
And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.
