Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Press release
Appointment of the next Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Paula Sussex CBE has been confirmed as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), from 26 June 2025.
Paula Sussex CBE has been confirmed as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), from 26 June 2025.
Sussex is moving from her role as the Chief Executive of digital identity services provider, OneID and has previously held high-profile roles as Chief Executive at the Student Loans Company and the Charity Commission.
In accordance with Section 1 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and Section 1 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, the appointment will be for a fixed term of five years, with the possibility of a two-year extension.
Preliminary works are due to start on the second phase of the Our City, Our River flood defence scheme, one of the city’s biggest infrastructure projects.
Known as Derby Riverside, this package of works will provide significant flood resilience protection to many properties and highways along the left (east) bank of the Derwent from Causey Bridge to Derwent Bridge.
The initial works will mainly consist of land clearance, making way for a new flood wall, floodgates and a riverside green area that will provide a controlled corridor for flood waters to pass through the city safely.
This will include the demolition of selected buildings, as well as some tree removal. Unfortunately, this is unavoidable where trees would obstruct the flow of water in a flood event, or where roots would be damaged due to the location of the wall.
Derby City Council has worked extensively with its arboriculturalists to keep the number of trees removed to a minimum. While the plans approved by committee give permission for a total of around 205 trees to be removed, this is the worst-case scenario, and the aim is to keep as many as possible. Some will be pollarded where this is a better solution, meaning their top branches will be removed to the trunk, which will encourage regrowth.
Due to the bird nesting season, we will only be removing trees that are essential for this first stage of work, with further work to take place over the winter. Throughout the nesting season, an ecologist will be onsite to check each tree before it is removed.
OCOR includes a scheme to replant more trees in the city than have been lost. Already, 583 new trees have been planted around the city, exceeding the 574 that will have been removed throughout the whole scheme by the time Derby Riverside is completed. A further 971 new trees are proposed for other sites, taking the total for OCOR to well over 1,400.
Councillor Camel Swan, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Transport and Sustainability, said:
As our climate continues to change, river flooding remains a risk to many homes and businesses in the city centre. In just five years we have seen the five highest recorded river levels in the city.
We saw the damage caused by Storm Babet on the left bank of the river, and the need for action is clear. With these works, we will continue to protect properties and future proof our city.
Sisk regional director Robin Metcalf said:
We’re proud to be delivering this important project for Derby and are committed to making a positive local impact. We’ll be employing people from the local area wherever possible and working closely with Derby City Council to ensure our social value commitments align with the Derby Promise. That includes creating opportunities for those who are often furthest from the job market, helping to ensure the benefits of this scheme are felt right across the community.
These works will be carried out by John Sisk & Son on behalf of Derby City Council, who were formally awarded the contract for the scheme in May 2025. The completion of Derby Riverside will then unlock the regeneration potential on the left bank of the river, with opportunities for developing new homes and businesses thanks to enhanced flood resilience.
The Our City, Our River programme is one of the Environment Agency’s largest local authority-led projects and has already delivered enhanced flood protection to over 2000 properties. Derby Riverside will extend this protection to the east bank of the Derwent and unlock the potential for regeneration in this part of the city.
Building trust in justice: Reflections from the UK Supreme Court
Lord Reed’s address at the Supreme Court’s of Montenegro 80th anniversary and AIRE Centre’s conference
Copyright: Mirko Kuzman for AIRE Centre
Justice, transparency, and public trust – why it matters
Strengthening the independence, efficiency, and transparency of the judiciary is central to Montenegro’s reform process as it advances on its European path. It’s also at the heart of the UK’s partnership with Montenegro and our commitment to the wider Western Balkans.
Judicial independence is not only a legal principle, but it is the foundation of public trust in democratic institutions. The UK continues to support Montenegro’s efforts to strengthen the rule of law as part of a shared vision for a more stable, resilient, and prosperous region.
A shared commitment to the rule of law
On 21 June 2025, the British Embassy was proud to support a major conference hosted by the Supreme Court of Montenegro and the AIRE Centre, with the support of the European Union Delegation, marking the 80th anniversary of the Supreme Court of Montenegro.
The event brought together the judiciary, ministers, officials, Montenegrin and international experts, and partners to reflect on how courts can strengthen public confidence through greater transparency, openness, and effective communication.
The UK was honoured to be represented by Lord Reed of Allermuir, President of the UK Supreme Court, who shared the UK’s experience and reflections on judicial communication, media engagement, and public accessibility.
The UK’s ongoing support for judicial reform in Montenegro
The UK’s partnership with Montenegro’s judiciary builds on a long history of collaboration, supporting training, initiatives for judicial integrity and transparency, and practical cooperation between courts. These efforts complement Montenegro’s reform priorities.
We remain committed to supporting the development of strong, independent, and trusted institutions that are accountable to citizens and essential for democracy and stability.
Lord Reed’s Speech
I am honoured to have been invited to address you. I know that this year – indeed, this month – is the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Supreme Court of Montenegro. This is a time to celebrate its success and its achievements, and also a time to reflect on how our society has changed over that period and is continuing to develop, and on how the Montenegrin Supreme Court, and other courts, should respond to those changes. I have very much in mind the efforts being made to strengthen judicial independence, efficiency and public trust which I understand are being undertaken.
I have been asked to speak about transparency and communication. I want to begin with two fundamental questions. First, what do we mean when we talk about transparency in relation to courts? I would suggest that it means that the court and its work are open and visible to the public. In today’s society, that requires more than just allowing public access into court buildings, although that is a part of it. It also means making the work of the court accessible to the public, and having effective means of communication between the court and the public.
My second question is even more fundamental: why does transparency matter? There are a number of reasons, but I would emphasise one in particular. If you ask why the public accept decisions made by the judiciary, the answer, I would suggest, depends on confidence or trust. And trust depends on openness and effective communication with all parts of the community we serve. In the UK, a recent study found that public trust in the Supreme Court is closely connected to knowledge about its work; and public knowledge depends on transparency and communication.
So, considering transparency first, in the UK we normally have oral hearings in all cases, and they normally take place in public. Members of the public are encouraged to step inside the Supreme Court to watch our hearings and tour our court rooms. We are to some extent a visitor attraction. We have around 100,000 visitors a year, and our court rooms are usually busy with visitors. We have an exhibition area, where visitors can learn more about the court and its case law, and a public café. We also hold open days when more of the building is open to the public. We bear in mind that accessibility includes accessibility to children, and to people with special needs. For example, we hold tours for people with hearing problems, using sign language.
In addition, in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, hearings are live streamed online, subject to a short delay in case anything confidential is accidentally mentioned. They are also made available afterwards on the court’s website and on YouTube. The Supreme Court also live streams the delivery of judgments, when the judge who has written the lead judgment gives a short explanation to camera of the court’s decision in accessible language. During the last financial year, around 750,000 viewers watched our cases and judgments on our website, and footage was also used on television and on media websites, under contractual terms set by the court in order to prevent misuse.
This has been a great help in our most controversial cases. For example, in a case concerned with a challenge to the way the government was proceeding with the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, highlights of the hearing were shown on the television news, and were analysed by experts in much the same way as football matches, with replays of the most important moments. When we gave our judgment recently in a controversial case concerned with issues of gender, footage of the delivery of the judgment was shown on the television news. This helped to improve public understanding of what the court was deciding, and to raise the level of confidence that the judges were focused on issues of law and not on controversial political questions.
Televising hearings requires some thought where jurisdictions have a primarily written procedure. For example, in 2023 the French Cour de Cassation decided there was a need to be more transparent, and started to broadcast its hearings. However, the judges of that court were not accustomed to participating in the hearing and sat in silence during the advocates’ oral arguments. I have been told that the court then came under some criticism as members of the public gained the impression that the judges were not engaged in the issues that were the subject of the hearings. Careful consideration should therefore be given to how oral proceedings might be conducted if they are to be broadcast. One possibility is to follow the approach adopted by the European Court of Human Rights, where Grand Chamber hearings are live streamed. In those proceedings, the advocates present their arguments without interruption from the judges. However, at the end of their oral argument the judges then pose questions, after which the advocates are given time to consult with their legal team before providing responses.
We have also adopted the practice, in some controversial cases, of making the most important case papers available through our website, unless publication should be withheld for reasons such as commercial confidentiality or national security, so that they can be viewed alongside the live stream of the hearing.
Considering communication next, most people draw their knowledge of the judiciary and their opinions about the courts from the media, but media coverage of the judiciary is not always accurate or well-informed. To address that problem, the UK Supreme Court employs an expert communications team and uses a number of means to inform the public about our work. We recognise that the court operates in a media environment in which journalists and bloggers are expected to provide an instant response to our decisions. So members of the communications team work with the journalists who cover our work to help them to report it accurately. Where a judgment is likely to attract media interest, they allow journalists to see the judgment and the press summary an hour before they are made public, on a confidential basis. We do not do this in the most sensitive cases, or where prior knowledge of the judgment could be abused. But the confidentiality of the briefing is enforced by our law of contempt of court, and has never been breached.
The communications team also work with the judges to help them to communicate with the public, especially in the summaries that are delivered in court and live streamed on the internet when decisions are announced, excerpts from which may appear on the television news. They help us to ensure, for example, that the language we use in our summaries is understandable by members of the public and, in cases which will be reported in the media, that there is a short sentence or two in our summary which can be played or quoted in the reports and which explains the essence of our decision. They also maintain our social media accounts, with X, Instagram and LinkedIn, which have about 400,000 followers.
We also try to connect with the general public through our education and outreach work. For example, we have established a scheme which gives pupils at schools across the UK, aged about 16 or 17, the opportunity to take part in a live question and answer session with a judge of the Supreme Court from their classroom, via the internet. This has proved to be very popular with schools, and it enables the court to make direct contact with ordinary young people in a positive way. I also give occasional media interviews, including interviews for social media podcasts, when I try to explain our work in ways that the public can understand. We also organise an online course on the Supreme Court in partnership with one of our universities. About 5000 members of the public have enrolled.
In the context of the UK, it has also been important for the Supreme Court to try to improve understanding in Parliament and in the government of the constitutional role of the courts. With the support of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Supreme Court has engaged directly with all new Members of Parliament since our general election last year, providing each of them with materials explaining the rule of law and the constitutional role of the courts, taking part in question and answer sessions with Members of Parliament in private meetings, and encouraging them to visit the court and to meet justices and staff. We regard it as important to help politicians to understand the role of the courts, so that they support judicial independence and understand when we decide cases against the government, as sometimes happens.
In the context of the UK, it is also possible for the court to engage with the government in ways that encourage respect for judicial independence. There is generally a good understanding on both sides of the separation of powers. It has proved to be possible, in a context of mutual respect, to find ways of cooperating on projects of law reform and to encourage a sense that protecting the rule of law is a shared responsibility.
We also have an active programme to demonstrate that we are inclusive to all parts of our population, including ethnic and religious minorities. So we host visits from organisations supporting talented members of minority groups, and we offer internships at the court to young lawyers from disadvantaged backgrounds.
In conclusion, we all need to work to maintain public trust in the administration of justice. I am grateful that we can share ideas and learn from each other as we work to safeguard the rule of law, for the benefit of both our societies.
Dubai-based director who falsified VAT returns banned after his four companies owed HMRC more than £1 million
Director submitted falsified documentation to reclaim VAT
Hassan Waqar has been disqualified as a director for 11 years after his four companies reclaimed almost £400,000 in VAT they were not entitled to
The four companies – HN Restaurants Limited, Kiani Construction Limited, Moneemint Ventures Limited and Zoya Investments Limited – submitted falsified documents to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) or failed to provide supporting evidence for VAT repayment claims
All four companies were struck-off the Companies House register between February and June 2023, with total debts to HMRC of more than £1.1 million in VAT assessments, penalties and interest
The boss of four companies which owed HMRC more than £1 million, including £400,000 in VAT they falsely reclaimed, has been banned as a director.
Hassan Waqar was the director of HN Restaurants Limited, Kiani Construction Limited and Moneemint Ventures Limited when they submitted falsified documents to HMRC.
A fourth company, Zoya Investments Limited, failed to supply evidence to HMRC to support the repayment returns it had submitted.
The four companies owed HMRC more than £1.1 million in VAT and penalties when they were all struck-off the Companies House register during the first half of 2023.
Waqar, 30, who is now based in Dubai, has been disqualified as a company director for 11 years.
Victoria Edgar, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said:
Hassan Waqar submitted falsified documentation for VAT reclamations that his companies were not entitled to receive.
Our investigations found that he failed to provide supporting evidence for claims across multiple businesses, with over £1.1 million owed when these companies were struck off the Companies House register in 2023.
The Insolvency Service is committed to taking action against directors who fail to meet their legal and financial obligations, protecting the integrity of the business environment and the tax system.
HN Restaurants Limited was set up in May 2020 as a fast-food business. Kiani Construction Limited was a construction company incorporated in August 2021 which was involved in real estate sales.
Moneemint Ventures Limited, like HN Restaurants Limited, was established in May 2020, and was described by Waqar as a banking service platform. Zoya Investments Limited, incorporated in March 2021, traded in carrying out fitouts.
The four companies received a total of £396,982 in VAT repayments.
HN Restaurants Limited, Kiani Construction Limited and Moneemint Ventures Limited provided invoices to HMRC in support of their claims. HMRC contacted several of the suppliers who confirmed they had not issued the invoices to the companies.
Bank statements were provided by HN Restaurants Limited and Moneemint Ventures Limited to HMRC to support the repayment return, but they differed to the ones supplied by the banks.
Zoya Investments Limited did not provide any evidence to support its VAT repayment claims.
HMRC issued penalties to the four companies totalling £706,692.
The four companies were struck-off the Companies House register between February and June 2023.
Combined, the four companies owed £1,136,832 in VAT assessments, penalties and interest.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade accepted a disqualification undertaking from Waqar, and his ban started on Thursday 26 June.
It prevents him from being involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the permission of the court.
HMRC issued a joint and several liability notice to Waqar for HN Restaurants, making him personally responsible for paying the tax debts of the company.
Further information
Hassan Waqar is of 21A Street, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. His date of birth is 1 August 1994
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, June 26 (Xinhua) — China has always attached great importance to maintaining the stability and security of global industrial and supply chains, and has been continuously speeding up the review of rare earth export license applications in accordance with laws and regulations, the Ministry of Commerce said Thursday.
A certain number of applications that meet the requirements have already been approved in accordance with the law, department spokesman He Yadong said at a regular press briefing, adding that work to review and approve such applications will be continued and strengthened.
China is willing to strengthen communication and dialogue with relevant countries on export control issues and actively promote trade facilitation within the framework of regulatory requirements, He Yadong added. -0-
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, June 26 (Xinhua) — Chinese Premier Li Qiang said Thursday that China’s economy will remain an attractive destination for the global economy in the long term, and the expanding scale and quality of China’s huge market will continue to pay big dividends, offering more trade and investment opportunities to countries.
Speaking at the opening ceremony of the 10th annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Li Qiang reiterated China’s commitment to expanding high-level opening-up to the outside world and continuing deep integration into the global economy, which promises to provide new development opportunities for all countries in the world. -0-
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
URUMQI, June 26 (Xinhua) — The 2025 China Eurasian Commodity and Trade Expo opened Thursday in Urumqi, capital of northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, bringing together more than 2,800 enterprises and representatives from 50 countries and regions.
The current edition of the exhibition, which organisers say aims to deepen cooperation within Eurasia, is the largest in its history. Participants include government officials, diplomats, business associations and entrepreneurs from Central Asian countries, the African Union (AU), ASEAN and others. Notably, some AU member states, such as Ethiopia, Zambia, Comoros and Senegal, joined the event for the first time, signalling its growing global participation.
The event, with an indoor and outdoor exhibition area of 140,000 square meters, showcases key industries such as new energy, advanced manufacturing, textiles and food processing. The outdoor exhibition mainly features large-scale mechanical equipment, while the indoor exhibition halls showcase breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and low-altitude economy.
Fu Yunyan, head of Xinjiang’s International Expo Administration, said there were “many highlights,” including special areas to showcase cutting-edge technologies and more than 20 events to introduce new products. The five-day expo will feature more than 60 trade and investment sessions to find industry partners and promote projects.
As part of the China-Eurasia Expo, the event, which is being held for the fifth time, aims to expand Xinjiang’s high-level opening-up. -0-
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
KABUL, June 26 (Xinhua) — A total of 769 Afghan prisoners have been released from Pakistani jails and returned to Afghanistan in the past week, the Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation said on Thursday.
According to the department, the released persons, including women and children, were handed over to Afghan authorities at the Torkham checkpoint in Nangarhar province in the east of the country and at the Spin Boldak checkpoint in Kandahar province in the south of the country.
The former prisoners, having received assistance at border checkpoints, were taken to their home provinces, the department added. –0–
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
ROME, June 26 (Xinhua) — A documentary film titled “Xi Jinping: Guarding China’s Cultural Treasures” produced by China Media Group (CMG) was screened in Rome on Wednesday as part of the celebrations of the 55th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and Italy.
Starting from June 25, the program will be broadcast by more than 30 leading Italian media outlets, including Alma TV, Donna TV, Travel TV, Lazio TV, Lombardia City TV, Roma Corona TV, Milan Pavia TV and the Milano Finanza website, among others.
“Xi Jinping: Guarding China’s Cultural Heritage” features vivid stories that reflect Chinese President Xi Jinping’s deep concern for the inheritance and development of culture. It presents his profound reflection that “our country will only prosper if our culture prospers, and our nation will only be strong if our culture is strong,” as well as his deep attachment to cultural heritage and commitment to maintaining historical continuity. The program explains to an international audience the essence of Xi Jinping’s thoughts on culture and the solid cultural foundation that underpins his governance philosophy.
The documentary was filmed in places where Xi Jinping worked or inspected, such as Zhengding in Hebei Province, Xiamen in Fujian Province, Hangzhou in Zhejiang Province and Dunhuang in Gansu Province. Through a variety of storytelling forms, including video footage and in-depth interviews, the film vividly presents China’s practical efforts in the new era to trace the origins of civilization and protect cultural heritage, highlighting the profound, comprehensive, inclusive and ever-evolving nature of Chinese culture. –0–
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in cooperation with more than 75 countries and 10 international organizations, successfully completed a 36-hour exercise that tested global preparedness and response arrangements for a severe nuclear accident scenario at the Cernavoda NPP in Romania. The ConvEx-3 (2025) exercise started on 24 June and concluded at 17:45 CET on 25 June.
Such exercises are conducted every three to five years and are based on simulated events at a nuclear facility in the host IAEA member state.
The exercise simulated a significant release of radioactive material, requiring participating countries and organizations to make decisions in real time, exchange information, inform the public and coordinate protective measures, including aspects of medical response and cross-border logistics.
“ConvEx-3 (2025) demonstrated the power of international cooperation in nuclear emergency preparedness,” said Carlos Torres Vidal, Director of the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre. “By working together under realistic scenarios, we are strengthening our collective capacity to protect people and the environment.”
Among the main innovations in this year’s exercise program were the following.
Enhanced regional cooperation: Recognizing the cross-border consequences of severe nuclear accidents, neighbouring countries Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova coordinated protective measures to ensure a coherent cross-border response. Integrating nuclear security scenarios: Simulations also included tests related to physical security and cybersecurity threats, reflecting new and evolving risks. Enhanced crisis communication testing: An enhanced social media simulator was used to evaluate and improve public communication strategies. Deploying international assistance missions: As part of the IAEA Response and Assistance Network (RANET) Expert groups from Bulgaria, Canada, Lithuania, Moldova, the United States, Sweden and France carried out a number of joint operations, including the use of air and ground-based radiation monitoring equipment.
The exercise highlighted the importance of timely information sharing, accurate assessments and forecasts, and effective public communication in the event of nuclear emergencies.
In the coming weeks, the IAEA will gather feedback from all participants to identify good practices and areas for improvement, contributing to the continued strengthening of global nuclear emergency preparedness. The final report of the exercise will be taken into account in preparation for the upcoming International Conference “Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies”, which is scheduled for December this year in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
A selection of photos from the ConvEx3 exercise is available at this link.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
The National Games Coordination Office (Hong Kong) today announced that the 15th National Games (NG), the 12th National Games for Persons with Disabilities (NGD) and the 9th National Special Olympic Games (NSOG) will receive a $450 million sponsorship from the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) to support the hosting of these events in Hong Kong.
Chief Executive John Lee witnessed the signing ceremony held at the Central Government Offices today, in which Secretary for Culture, Sports & Tourism Rosanna Law and HKJC Chief Executive Officer Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges represented the Government and the HKJC respectively.
The HKJC will be the exclusive partner sponsor for the Hong Kong competition region of the 15th NG, the 12th NGD and the 9th NSOG.
Speaking at the ceremony, Miss Law emphasised that the successful hosting of the Games is a major priority for Hong Kong this year.
She highlighted that the HKJC’s staunch support and sponsorship would significantly boost event preparations in Hong Kong, particularly in supporting volunteer service programmes, citywide community and school promotional activities, and initiatives enabling underprivileged groups and youth to attend the events as spectators.
The sports chief also expressed gratitude for the HKJC’s contribution and reaffirmed Hong Kong’s commitment to co-hosting with Guangdong and Macao a simple, safe and wonderful Games.
The Culture, Sports & Tourism Bureau added that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government looks forward to collaborating with the HKJC to further promote sports development in Hong Kong and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Defendant Charged as Part of Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Initiative
WASHINGTON –Ronald Stevenson Richardson, 29, of the District of Columbia, has been indicted on a federal firearms charge as part of the “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative. The indictment was announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Special Agent in Charge Anthony Spotswood of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Richardson is charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon.
According to court documents, on May 6, 2025, members of the Seventh District Special Missions Unit (SMU) were patrolling the area of 1509 W Street SE in Washington, D.C., in the Anacostia neighborhood. While on patrol, police observed allegedly Richardson standing at a bus stop with an open container of alcohol at the intersection of 16th Street SE and W Street SE.
Richardson was subsequently arrested for possession of an open container of alcohol. During a search incident to the arrest, officers allegedly discovered a firearm in Richardson’s undergarments, beneath his waistband. The firearm was identified as a Glock 42, chambered in .380 auto, loaded with one round in the chamber and four additional rounds in its six-round capacity magazine.
Richardson is prohibited from possessing a firearm and ammunition due to a prior conviction in D.C. Superior Court for carrying a pistol without a license outside home/business, establishing him as a felon in possession.
This case is being investigated by the ATF Washington Field Office and the Metropolitan Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Truscott is prosecuting this case.
The “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative is a public safety effort surging resources to reduce violent crime in the District of Columbia. This initiative was created to address gun violence in the District, prioritize federal firearms violations, pursue tougher penalties for offenders, and seek detention for federal firearms violators.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Defendant Charged as Part of Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Initiative
WASHINGTON –Ronald Stevenson Richardson, 29, of the District of Columbia, has been indicted on a federal firearms charge as part of the “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative. The indictment was announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Special Agent in Charge Anthony Spotswood of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Richardson is charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon.
According to court documents, on May 6, 2025, members of the Seventh District Special Missions Unit (SMU) were patrolling the area of 1509 W Street SE in Washington, D.C., in the Anacostia neighborhood. While on patrol, police observed allegedly Richardson standing at a bus stop with an open container of alcohol at the intersection of 16th Street SE and W Street SE.
Richardson was subsequently arrested for possession of an open container of alcohol. During a search incident to the arrest, officers allegedly discovered a firearm in Richardson’s undergarments, beneath his waistband. The firearm was identified as a Glock 42, chambered in .380 auto, loaded with one round in the chamber and four additional rounds in its six-round capacity magazine.
Richardson is prohibited from possessing a firearm and ammunition due to a prior conviction in D.C. Superior Court for carrying a pistol without a license outside home/business, establishing him as a felon in possession.
This case is being investigated by the ATF Washington Field Office and the Metropolitan Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Truscott is prosecuting this case.
The “Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful” initiative is a public safety effort surging resources to reduce violent crime in the District of Columbia. This initiative was created to address gun violence in the District, prioritize federal firearms violations, pursue tougher penalties for offenders, and seek detention for federal firearms violators.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, was sentenced in federal court to 33 months of imprisonment on his conviction of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.
Senior United States District Judge Nora Barry Fischer imposed the sentence on Desmond Dontae Lee, 47.
According to information presented to the Court, on March 1, 2023, Lee and his son were both part of a group of individuals congregating outside of an apartment in a McKeesport apartment complex. When the resident of the apartment confronted the group and asked them to leave, one of the group members approached the resident and struck him with a closed fist, which led to the resident shooting and killing his attacker. Lee entered and proceeded through the apartment next to the resident’s, exiting that apartment from the rear, and then approached the rear of the resident’s apartment, firing five rounds from a 9mm semi-automatic pistol into the apartment before fleeing the scene. At that time, Lee’s son shot back at and killed the resident at the front of the apartment. The firearm used by Lee was never recovered, but investigators with the Allegheny County Police Department Homicide Unit collected the shell casings fired from Lee’s gun.
Lee was previously convicted on state drug trafficking and firearms offenses. Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon.
Assistant United States Attorney V. Joseph Sonson prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.
Acting United States Attorney Rivetti commended the Allegheny County Police Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the investigation leading to the successful prosecution of Lee.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, was sentenced in federal court to 33 months of imprisonment on his conviction of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.
Senior United States District Judge Nora Barry Fischer imposed the sentence on Desmond Dontae Lee, 47.
According to information presented to the Court, on March 1, 2023, Lee and his son were both part of a group of individuals congregating outside of an apartment in a McKeesport apartment complex. When the resident of the apartment confronted the group and asked them to leave, one of the group members approached the resident and struck him with a closed fist, which led to the resident shooting and killing his attacker. Lee entered and proceeded through the apartment next to the resident’s, exiting that apartment from the rear, and then approached the rear of the resident’s apartment, firing five rounds from a 9mm semi-automatic pistol into the apartment before fleeing the scene. At that time, Lee’s son shot back at and killed the resident at the front of the apartment. The firearm used by Lee was never recovered, but investigators with the Allegheny County Police Department Homicide Unit collected the shell casings fired from Lee’s gun.
Lee was previously convicted on state drug trafficking and firearms offenses. Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon.
Assistant United States Attorney V. Joseph Sonson prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.
Acting United States Attorney Rivetti commended the Allegheny County Police Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the investigation leading to the successful prosecution of Lee.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
TOLEDO, Ohio – A federal grand jury has returned a four-count indictment charging Anthony Emmanuel Labrador-Sierra, 24, a Venezuelan national residing in Perrysburg, Ohio, with possession of a firearm by an alien unlawfully in the United States, making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm, and making or using false writings or documents.
According to the indictment, the defendant is accused of submitting a false date of birth to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on federal applications for Temporary Protective Status and Employment Authorization Documents in 2024 and 2025.
In the original criminal complaint and underlying affidavit filed May 22, 2025, investigators learned that Perrysburg Schools reported to the Perrysburg Police Department that they received information that Labrador-Sierra, a student attending Perrysburg High School, was actually a 24-year-old man who enrolled under false pretenses.
The grand jury further charges that Labrador-Sierra was in possession of a Taurus G3C 9mm, semiautomatic pistol, which he did not have lawful status to purchase or own in the United States, and that he submitted false information on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473 to purchase the firearm. Among the alleged false statements the defendant submitted that were intended and likely to deceive the licensed firearms dealer at the point of sale, were that:
He was a United States citizen or national.
He was not illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
He was not an alien who had entered the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
If convicted, Labrador-Sierra faces up to 15 years in prison for possession of a firearm by an alien; 10 years in prison for making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm; and up to five years in prison for making or using false writings or documents.
This case is being investigated by the City of Perrysburg Police Department, United States Border Patrol−Sandusky Bay Station, the FBI Toledo Field Office, and the ATF, with assistance from the Wood County Prosecutor’s Office.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert N. Melching and Tracey Tangeman for the Northern District of Ohio, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Dobson.
This investigation is ongoing. Anyone with knowledge and information about this matter, please call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324) or visit fbi.gov/tips.
An indictment is merely an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Gross misconduct and misconduct has been proven for three officers involved in the search of Child Q.
A disciplinary hearing found a number of allegations proven against trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge, PC Victoria Wray and PC Rafal Szmydynski, each attached to Central East Command Unit which covers Hackney and Tower Hamlets.
The hearing did not find that the officers were influenced by Child Q’s race, nor that was she subject to adultification.
Commander Kevin Southworth said: “The experience of Child Q should never have happened and was truly regrettable.
“We have sincerely apologised to Child Q since this incident happened. Again, I am deeply sorry to Child Q and her family for the trauma that we caused her, and the damage this incident caused to the trust and confidence Black communities across London have in our officers.
“While the officers involved did not act correctly, we acknowledge there were organisational failings. Training to our officers around strip search and the type of search carried out on Child Q was inadequate, and our oversight of the power was also severely lacking.
“This left officers, often young in service or junior in rank, making difficult decisions in complex situations with little information, support or clear resources to help their decision-making.
“What happened to Child Q was a catalyst for change both for the Met and for policing nationally.
“While we should not have needed an incident such as Child Q to check our approach, it has absolutely led us to improving our processes and significantly reducing the number of these types of searches carried out.
“It’s crucial we get this right to ensure the impact on young people is minimised as far as possible.
“Sadly, we know there are children in London being exploited to carry drugs and weapons for others as well as involved in criminality, so these types of searches have to remain within police powers. The work we have done since Child Q means we now have the right safeguards in place.”
The search of Child Q took place on Thursday, 3 December 2020, when police were called to a Hackney school. Staff were concerned that a 15-year-old girl smelled strongly of cannabis and may have been in possession of drugs.
Two female officers conducted a more thorough search of the girl, that exposed intimate parts, in the medical room at the school.
No drugs were found.
The Met voluntarily referred the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct in May 2021 following complaints received.
The misconduct hearing concluded that the search on Child Q was unnecessary, inappropriate and disproportionate. It was carried out without authorisation from a more senior officer, without an appropriate adult present and a proper record was not made afterwards.
The hearing found T/DC Linge and PC Szmydynsk breached standards of professional behaviour in relation to authority, respect and courtesy, orders and instructions, duties and responsibilities and discreditable contact at the level of gross misconduct.
PC Wray breached standards in relation to authority, respect and courtesy, orders and instructions and duties and responsibilities at the level of misconduct.
Allegations against all the officers that they breached the standards of professional behaviour for equality and diversity were not proven.
Allegations that PC Szmydynski and TDC Linge breached standards for honesty and integrity for reportedly making a misleading record of the search were also not proven.
The misconduct panel is now considering sanction.
Progress since this case
Ensuring the safeguarding of every child who is searched is an absolute priority.
Every strip search or more thorough search where intimate parts are exposed (an ‘MTIP search’ outside custody as carried out on Child Q) requires authorisation by a local officer of inspector rank. That inspector is also responsible for the administration of the search, including recording the rationale, and a mandatory safeguarding referral to relevant authorities. This has been cemented in our Metropolitan Police Service Children’s Strategy, published in September 2024.
We have issued guidance to every frontline officer across the Met on the correct process, including the requirement for an appropriate adult to be present during the strip search or MTIP search of a child.
We have linked in with policing nationally to share areas of learning from Child Q’s incident and ensure forces across the country are aligned.
Recognising the wider community concerns that this case has raised regardless of today’s outcome, the Met is currently training more than 20,000 frontline officers and staff as part of a New Met for London around the risk of adultification and how to ensure a child-first approach in every instance.
We continue to listen to communities and partners on what more we need to do around our processes. Hackney has an active community-led scrutiny panel which scrutinises the use of police powers across the borough.
We continue to work closely in partnership with schools across London to keep children safe and prevent and detect crime.
Following Child Q we reviewed all strip searches and MTIP searches across the Met and made a number of voluntary referrals to the IOPC. In a number of those cases the IOPC found officers acted correctly, in others we have progressed disciplinary matters and learning.
We continue to publish data, which shows how the figures have significantly fallen on these types of searches, both inside and outside of custody:
A total of 68 were carried out between 1 June 2023 and 31 May 2024. The positive outcome rate was 66.2 per cent (45 individuals).
A total of 42 were carried out between 1 June 2024 and 31 May 2025. The positive outcome rate was 59.5 per cent (25 individuals).
This shows a decrease over this period in the number of searches carried out of 38.2 per cent. The overall positive outcome rate for this period was 63.6 per cent.
A positive outcome means when criminality of any type is detected following a search.
The number of MTIPs carried out on under 18s over this period was 7.3 per cent of the total for all ages.
The dashboard carries data from the last two years.
Prior to that, between 25 May 2021 and 24 May 2022 – a full year before we made changes to policy as the result of Child Q – a total of 232 MTIP searches on children were carried out.
Between 25 May 2022 and 24 May 2023 – a full year post policy change – a total of 101 MTIP searches on children were carried out.
This is a 56 per cent decrease.
On average in London, in the five years to 31 May 2025, we have each year seen 499 children (aged 17 and under) recorded as a victim of crime after being injured with a knife, not including domestic abuse related incidents.
Tragically, during that five-year period, 59 of those children were fatally stabbed.
An annual average of 432 children were arrested for possession with intent to supply drugs and an annual average of 1,626 were arrested for possession of an offensive weapon.
SAN DIEGO, June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — LPL Financial LLC announced today that financial advisor Jason Wyatt, AWMA®, has joined LPL Financial’s broker-dealer, Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) and custodial platforms to launch Wyatt Wealth Management. He reported serving approximately $180 million in advisory, brokerage and retirement plan assets* and joins LPL from Wells Fargo Advisors.
Based in Bryan, Texas, home to Texas A&M University, Wyatt was introduced to the financial services industry as a college student working in a Dallas restaurant. Two of his regular customers were financial advisors and encouraged him to interview for a job. Now, with more than 30 years of financial industry experience, Wyatt has earned a reputation as an advisor who takes an individualized approach to wealth management, offering his clients, who are mostly near or in retirement, personalized and holistic experiences with the goal of helping them navigate their financial journey with confidence.
“We pride ourselves on treating clients like family, creating a caring environment where they feel confident in the guidance they receive,” Wyatt said. “Whether our clients are planning for retirement, managing their investments or considering their legacy, we are here to help support them every step of the way. Our mission is to empower our clients with the knowledge and tools to make informed decisions, helping to certify that their financial journey aligns with their values and aspirations.”
Looking for more freedom, flexibility and a new partner to help him grow his practice free of proprietary products, Wyatt and his team turned to LPL Financial following an extensive due diligence process.
“I see this move to LPL as an opportunity to regain my independence and to grow my business my way,” Wyatt said. “LPL does not offer proprietary investment products, which allows us to provide the appropriate products and services for our clients. And, because our clients are at the center of everything we do, we are even expanding our staff and office space to provide a next-level experience that allows us to better serve our clients.”
Scott Posner, LPL Managing Director, Business Development, said, “We welcome Jason and his team to the LPL community and congratulate him on the move to independence. With more freedom and flexibility, financial advisors who choose LPL can work more effectively, run thriving practices and create value for their clients. We look forward to supporting Wyatt Wealth Management for years to come.”
LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,200 financial institutions, servicing and custodying approximately $1.8 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets on behalf of approximately 7 million Americans. The firm provides a wide range of advisor affiliation models, investment solutions, fintech tools and practice management services, ensuring that advisors and institutions have the flexibility to choose the business model, services, and technology resources they need to run thriving businesses. For further information about LPL, please visit www.lpl.com.
Securities and advisory services offered through LPL Financial LLC (“LPL Financial”), a registered investment advisor and broker-dealer, member FINRA/SIPC. Wyatt Wealth Management and LPL Financial are separate entities.
Throughout this communication, the terms “financial advisors” and “advisors” are used to refer to registered representatives and/or investment advisor representatives affiliated with LPL Financial.
We routinely disclose information that may be important to shareholders in the “Investor Relations” or “Press Releases” section of our website.
SAN DIEGO, June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — LPL Financial LLC announced today that financial advisor Jason Wyatt, AWMA®, has joined LPL Financial’s broker-dealer, Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) and custodial platforms to launch Wyatt Wealth Management. He reported serving approximately $180 million in advisory, brokerage and retirement plan assets* and joins LPL from Wells Fargo Advisors.
Based in Bryan, Texas, home to Texas A&M University, Wyatt was introduced to the financial services industry as a college student working in a Dallas restaurant. Two of his regular customers were financial advisors and encouraged him to interview for a job. Now, with more than 30 years of financial industry experience, Wyatt has earned a reputation as an advisor who takes an individualized approach to wealth management, offering his clients, who are mostly near or in retirement, personalized and holistic experiences with the goal of helping them navigate their financial journey with confidence.
“We pride ourselves on treating clients like family, creating a caring environment where they feel confident in the guidance they receive,” Wyatt said. “Whether our clients are planning for retirement, managing their investments or considering their legacy, we are here to help support them every step of the way. Our mission is to empower our clients with the knowledge and tools to make informed decisions, helping to certify that their financial journey aligns with their values and aspirations.”
Looking for more freedom, flexibility and a new partner to help him grow his practice free of proprietary products, Wyatt and his team turned to LPL Financial following an extensive due diligence process.
“I see this move to LPL as an opportunity to regain my independence and to grow my business my way,” Wyatt said. “LPL does not offer proprietary investment products, which allows us to provide the appropriate products and services for our clients. And, because our clients are at the center of everything we do, we are even expanding our staff and office space to provide a next-level experience that allows us to better serve our clients.”
Scott Posner, LPL Managing Director, Business Development, said, “We welcome Jason and his team to the LPL community and congratulate him on the move to independence. With more freedom and flexibility, financial advisors who choose LPL can work more effectively, run thriving practices and create value for their clients. We look forward to supporting Wyatt Wealth Management for years to come.”
LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,200 financial institutions, servicing and custodying approximately $1.8 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets on behalf of approximately 7 million Americans. The firm provides a wide range of advisor affiliation models, investment solutions, fintech tools and practice management services, ensuring that advisors and institutions have the flexibility to choose the business model, services, and technology resources they need to run thriving businesses. For further information about LPL, please visit www.lpl.com.
Securities and advisory services offered through LPL Financial LLC (“LPL Financial”), a registered investment advisor and broker-dealer, member FINRA/SIPC. Wyatt Wealth Management and LPL Financial are separate entities.
Throughout this communication, the terms “financial advisors” and “advisors” are used to refer to registered representatives and/or investment advisor representatives affiliated with LPL Financial.
We routinely disclose information that may be important to shareholders in the “Investor Relations” or “Press Releases” section of our website.
Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing.
As experts on housingpolicy, we’re concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households.
However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available.
A financial sinkhole
Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.?
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, it’s considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. That’s up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023.
Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%.
Estimates of the nation’s housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas.
Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldn’t fix everything.
We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened renters – but not by as much as you might think.
Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomes – the households that face the most severe affordability challenges.
The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened.
Vouchers offer more breathing room
Meanwhile, there’s a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies.
In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as “deep” housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income.
These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership.
The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their area’s median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need.
By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8.
The program helps pay the rent up to a specified “payment standard” determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUD’s physical quality standards.
Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers.
Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holders. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients.
However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach.
The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject.
Homeowners get subsidies – why not renters?
Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly.
The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year.
However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment.
For example, from 1998 through 2017 – prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017 – the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of one’s home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion.
Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, over 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000.
Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs.
Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administration’s priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing.
On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis.
Alex Schwartz has received funding from the Catherine and John D. MacArthur Foundation. Since 2019 he has served on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board. He has a relative who works for The Conversation.
Kirk McClure received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and receives funding from the National Science Foundation.
Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing.
As experts on housingpolicy, we’re concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households.
However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available.
A financial sinkhole
Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.?
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, it’s considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. That’s up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023.
Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%.
Estimates of the nation’s housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas.
Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldn’t fix everything.
We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened renters – but not by as much as you might think.
Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomes – the households that face the most severe affordability challenges.
The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened.
Vouchers offer more breathing room
Meanwhile, there’s a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies.
In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as “deep” housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income.
These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership.
The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their area’s median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need.
By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8.
The program helps pay the rent up to a specified “payment standard” determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUD’s physical quality standards.
Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers.
Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holders. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients.
However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach.
The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject.
Homeowners get subsidies – why not renters?
Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly.
The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year.
However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment.
For example, from 1998 through 2017 – prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017 – the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of one’s home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion.
Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, over 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000.
Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs.
Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administration’s priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing.
On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis.
Alex Schwartz has received funding from the Catherine and John D. MacArthur Foundation. Since 2019 he has served on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board. He has a relative who works for The Conversation.
Kirk McClure received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and receives funding from the National Science Foundation.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Bui, Assistant Professor of Information and Digital Studies, University of Michigan
Yelp’s Black-owned tag was designed to help business owners like Don Studvent attract more customers. His restaurant closed in 2018 after nine years in business.AP Photo/Carlos Osorio
When the online review platform Yelp added a “Black-owned” tag in 2020, it boosted the visibility of Black-owned restaurants in Detroit. It also caused their ratings to drop, according to our recent study.
Both local and nonlocal reviewers who showed awareness of a restaurant’s Black ownership rated restaurants 3.03 stars on average. Those who did not acknowledge Black ownership gave a rating of 3.78 stars on average. The tag seems to have caused the average rating to drop by attracting more reviewers who were aware of Black ownership.
Why it matters
Technology companies often introduce new features and tools to influence user behavior and make their platforms more usable.
Although Yelp intended to support Black communities with the Black-owned tag, the design intervention was harmful to Black restaurant owners in Detroit because Yelp failed to consider platform and community-based factors that significantly shape user interactions.
Yelp’s user base is predominantly white, educated and affluent. Making Detroit’s Black-owned restaurants more visible to Yelp users may have amplified cross-cultural interactions and frictions. For example, non-Black users sometimes mentioned “slower” and “rude” service as justifications for lower ratings. Close readings of these reviews hinted at intercultural and communicative clashes.
And even businesses that don’t select the tag are identified within searches as Black-owned, based on user reviews and relevant links. Yelp doesn’t provide a way for the business to opt out of these search results.
How we did our work
To examine the local impacts of Yelp’s Black-owned tag, we collected over 250,000 Yelp reviews of Black- and non-Black-owned restaurants in Detroit and Los Angeles.
We identified Black-owned restaurants through community-sourced lists for Detroit and Los Angeles and then generated a random sample for the non-Black-owned restaurants.
We then identified reviews that explicitly noted “Black ownership” for closer analysis.
Detroit’s Black-owned businesses saw a greater loss in business compared with “ownership-unreported” restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic. This means they also potentially had more to gain from the new tag.
We found the awareness of Black ownership on Yelp significantly increased following Yelp’s addition of the Black-owned tag in June 2020. A year after the tag was added, reviews in Detroit mentioned Black ownership 4.3% more often than a year before it was rolled out.
Detroit Black-owned restaurants also saw a small temporary spike in their number of reviews, largely around the time Yelp added the Black-owned tag. At the same time, the restaurants’ average star ratings dropped from 3.91 to 3.88. In contrast, non-Black-owned restaurants’ ratings stayed relatively steady at 3.90.
This metric is an aggregate of all Detroit restaurants’ Yelp reviews over their entire existence, so a .03-star rating change is small but significant.
Adding obstacles in digital platforms serves to reproduce and amplify inequalities these businesses already face, rather than alleviate them. For example, Black-owned businesses have a harder time getting loans and are relatively underrepresented in Michigan as a whole.
These findings may seem surprising given that Detroit is a majority Black city. However, Black users on Yelp are a minority. Keeping in mind the skewed user base of Yelp, we hypothesize the lower reviews for businesses featuring a Black-owned tag reflect existing racial and digital divides in the city.
Generally, our study provides additional evidence that digital interventions are not “one-size-fits-all,” nor is digital visibility inherently positive for all businesses.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
This research was supported by a research grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Matthew Bui 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.
Cameron Moy 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 Matthew Bui, Assistant Professor of Information and Digital Studies, University of Michigan
Yelp’s Black-owned tag was designed to help business owners like Don Studvent attract more customers. His restaurant closed in 2018 after nine years in business.AP Photo/Carlos Osorio
When the online review platform Yelp added a “Black-owned” tag in 2020, it boosted the visibility of Black-owned restaurants in Detroit. It also caused their ratings to drop, according to our recent study.
Both local and nonlocal reviewers who showed awareness of a restaurant’s Black ownership rated restaurants 3.03 stars on average. Those who did not acknowledge Black ownership gave a rating of 3.78 stars on average. The tag seems to have caused the average rating to drop by attracting more reviewers who were aware of Black ownership.
Why it matters
Technology companies often introduce new features and tools to influence user behavior and make their platforms more usable.
Although Yelp intended to support Black communities with the Black-owned tag, the design intervention was harmful to Black restaurant owners in Detroit because Yelp failed to consider platform and community-based factors that significantly shape user interactions.
Yelp’s user base is predominantly white, educated and affluent. Making Detroit’s Black-owned restaurants more visible to Yelp users may have amplified cross-cultural interactions and frictions. For example, non-Black users sometimes mentioned “slower” and “rude” service as justifications for lower ratings. Close readings of these reviews hinted at intercultural and communicative clashes.
And even businesses that don’t select the tag are identified within searches as Black-owned, based on user reviews and relevant links. Yelp doesn’t provide a way for the business to opt out of these search results.
How we did our work
To examine the local impacts of Yelp’s Black-owned tag, we collected over 250,000 Yelp reviews of Black- and non-Black-owned restaurants in Detroit and Los Angeles.
We identified Black-owned restaurants through community-sourced lists for Detroit and Los Angeles and then generated a random sample for the non-Black-owned restaurants.
We then identified reviews that explicitly noted “Black ownership” for closer analysis.
Detroit’s Black-owned businesses saw a greater loss in business compared with “ownership-unreported” restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic. This means they also potentially had more to gain from the new tag.
We found the awareness of Black ownership on Yelp significantly increased following Yelp’s addition of the Black-owned tag in June 2020. A year after the tag was added, reviews in Detroit mentioned Black ownership 4.3% more often than a year before it was rolled out.
Detroit Black-owned restaurants also saw a small temporary spike in their number of reviews, largely around the time Yelp added the Black-owned tag. At the same time, the restaurants’ average star ratings dropped from 3.91 to 3.88. In contrast, non-Black-owned restaurants’ ratings stayed relatively steady at 3.90.
This metric is an aggregate of all Detroit restaurants’ Yelp reviews over their entire existence, so a .03-star rating change is small but significant.
Adding obstacles in digital platforms serves to reproduce and amplify inequalities these businesses already face, rather than alleviate them. For example, Black-owned businesses have a harder time getting loans and are relatively underrepresented in Michigan as a whole.
These findings may seem surprising given that Detroit is a majority Black city. However, Black users on Yelp are a minority. Keeping in mind the skewed user base of Yelp, we hypothesize the lower reviews for businesses featuring a Black-owned tag reflect existing racial and digital divides in the city.
Generally, our study provides additional evidence that digital interventions are not “one-size-fits-all,” nor is digital visibility inherently positive for all businesses.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
This research was supported by a research grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Matthew Bui 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.
Cameron Moy 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.
For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.
A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.
That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.
Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.
Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.
A supporter of Donald Trump tries to push past demonstrators in Philadelphia on June 30, 2023. AP Photo/Nathan Howard
The muting of the American voice
According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.
And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.
About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.
The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.
How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship
In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.
The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.
People rally at the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the Trump administration on March 19, 2025. AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez
A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.
This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.
This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.
The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.
Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.
The consequences for democratic deliberation
The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.
No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.
Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.
But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.
The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.
James L. Gibson 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.
For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.
A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.
That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.
Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.
Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.
A supporter of Donald Trump tries to push past demonstrators in Philadelphia on June 30, 2023. AP Photo/Nathan Howard
The muting of the American voice
According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.
And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.
About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.
The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.
How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship
In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.
The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.
People rally at the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the Trump administration on March 19, 2025. AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez
A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.
This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.
This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.
The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.
Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.
The consequences for democratic deliberation
The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.
No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.
Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.
But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.
The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.
James L. Gibson 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 Jake Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University
Public health experts worry that factually inaccurate statements by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threaten the public’s confidence in vaccines.Andrew HarnikGetty Images
In the four months since he began serving as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made many public statements about vaccines that have cast doubt on their safety and on the objectivity of long-standing processes established to evaluate them.
Many of these statements are factually incorrect. For example, in a newscast aired on June 12, 2025, Kennedy told Fox News viewers that 97% of federal vaccine advisers are on the take. In the same interview, he also claimed that children receive 92 mandatory shots. He has also widely claimed that only COVID-19 vaccines, not other vaccines in use by both children and adults, were ever tested against placebos and that “nobody has any idea” how safe routine immunizations are.
As an infectious disease physician who curates an open database of hundreds of controlled vaccine trials involving over 6 million participants, I am intimately familiar with the decades of research on vaccine safety. I believe it is important to correct the record – especially because these statements come from the official who now oversees the agencies charged with protecting Americans’ health.
Do children really receive 92 mandatory shots?
In 1986, the childhood vaccine schedule contained about 11 doses protecting against seven diseases. Today, it includes roughly 50 injections covering 16 diseases. State school entry laws typically require 30 to 32 shots across 10 to 12 diseases. No state mandates COVID-19 vaccination. Where Kennedy’s “92 mandatory shots” figure comes from is unclear, but the actual number is significantly lower.
From a safety standpoint, the more important question is whether today’s schedule with additional vaccines might be too taxing for children’s immune systems. It isn’t, because as vaccine technology improved over the past several decades, the number of antigens in each vaccine dose is much lower than before.
Antigens are the molecules in vaccines that trigger a response from the immune system, training it to identify the specific pathogen. Some vaccines contain a minute amount of aluminum salt that serves as an adjuvant – a helper ingredient that improves the quality and staying power of the immune response, so each dose can protect with less antigen.
Those 11 doses in 1986 delivered more than 3,000 antigens and 1.5 milligrams of aluminum over 18 years. Today’s complete schedule delivers roughly 165 antigens – which is a 95% reduction – and 5-6 milligrams of aluminum in the same time frame. A single smallpox inoculation in 1900 exposed a child to more antigens than today’s complete series.
The incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b, a bacterial infection that can cause pneumonia, meningitis and other severe diseases, has dropped by 99% in infants. Pediatric hepatitis infections are down more than 90%, and chickenpox hospitalizations are down about 90%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that vaccinating children born from 1994 to 2023 will avert 508 million illnesses and 1,129,000 premature deaths.
Placebo testing for vaccines
Kennedy has asserted that only COVID-19 vaccines have undergone rigorous safety trials in which they were tested against placebos. This is categorically wrong.
Of the 378 controlled trials in our database, 195 compared volunteers’ response to a vaccine with their response to a placebo. Of those, 159 gave volunteers only a salt water solution or another inert substance. Another 36 gave them just the adjuvant without any viral or bacterial material, as a way to see whether there were side effects from the antigen itself or the injection. Every routine childhood vaccine antigen appears in at least one such study.
Once an effective vaccine exists, ethics boards require new versions be compared against that licensed standard because withholding proven protection from children would be unethical.
How unknown is the safety of widely used vaccines?
Kennedy has insisted on multiple occasions that “nobody has any idea” about vaccine safety profiles. Of the 378 trials in our database, the vast majority published detailed safety outcomes.
Beyond trials, the U.S. operates the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Vaccine Safety Datalink and the PRISM network to monitor hundreds of millions of doses for rare problems. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System works like an open mailbox where anyone – patients, parents, clinicians – can report a post-shot problem; the Vaccine Safety Datalink analyzes anonymized electronic health records from large health care systems to spot patterns; and PRISM scans billions of insurance claims in near-real time to confirm or rule out rare safety signals.
On June 9, Kennedy took the unprecedented step of dissolving vetted members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the expert body that advises the CDC on national vaccine policy. He has claimed repeatedly that the vast majority of serving members of the committee – 97% – had extensive conflicts of interest because of their entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry. Kennedy bases that number on a 2009 federal audit of conflict-of-interest paperwork, but that report looked at 17 CDC advisory committees, not specifically this vaccine committee. And it found no pervasive wrongdoing – 97% of disclosure forms only contained routine paperwork mistakes, such as information in the wrong box or a missing initial, and not hidden financial ties.
Reuters examined data from Open Payments, a government website that discloses health care providers’ relationships with industry, for all 17 voting members of the committee who were dismissed. Six received no more than US$80 from drugmakers over seven years, and four had no payments at all.
The remaining seven members accepted between $4,000 and $55,000 over seven years, mostly for modest consulting or travel. In other words, just 41% of the committee received anything more than pocket change from drugmakers. Committee members must divest vaccine company stock and recuse themselves from votes involving conflicts.
A term without a meaning
Kennedy has warned that vaccines cause “immune deregulation,” a term that has no basis in immunology. Vaccines train the immune system, and the diseases they prevent are the real threats to immune function.
Today’s vaccine panel doesn’t just prevent infections; it deters doctor visits and thereby reduces unnecessary prescriptions for “just-in-case” antibiotics. It’s one of the rare places in medicine where physicians like me now do more good with less biological burden than we did 40 years ago.
The evidence is clear and publicly available: Vaccines have dramatically reduced childhood illness, disability and death on a historic scale.
Jake Scott 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 Jake Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University
Public health experts worry that factually inaccurate statements by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threaten the public’s confidence in vaccines.Andrew HarnikGetty Images
In the four months since he began serving as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made many public statements about vaccines that have cast doubt on their safety and on the objectivity of long-standing processes established to evaluate them.
Many of these statements are factually incorrect. For example, in a newscast aired on June 12, 2025, Kennedy told Fox News viewers that 97% of federal vaccine advisers are on the take. In the same interview, he also claimed that children receive 92 mandatory shots. He has also widely claimed that only COVID-19 vaccines, not other vaccines in use by both children and adults, were ever tested against placebos and that “nobody has any idea” how safe routine immunizations are.
As an infectious disease physician who curates an open database of hundreds of controlled vaccine trials involving over 6 million participants, I am intimately familiar with the decades of research on vaccine safety. I believe it is important to correct the record – especially because these statements come from the official who now oversees the agencies charged with protecting Americans’ health.
Do children really receive 92 mandatory shots?
In 1986, the childhood vaccine schedule contained about 11 doses protecting against seven diseases. Today, it includes roughly 50 injections covering 16 diseases. State school entry laws typically require 30 to 32 shots across 10 to 12 diseases. No state mandates COVID-19 vaccination. Where Kennedy’s “92 mandatory shots” figure comes from is unclear, but the actual number is significantly lower.
From a safety standpoint, the more important question is whether today’s schedule with additional vaccines might be too taxing for children’s immune systems. It isn’t, because as vaccine technology improved over the past several decades, the number of antigens in each vaccine dose is much lower than before.
Antigens are the molecules in vaccines that trigger a response from the immune system, training it to identify the specific pathogen. Some vaccines contain a minute amount of aluminum salt that serves as an adjuvant – a helper ingredient that improves the quality and staying power of the immune response, so each dose can protect with less antigen.
Those 11 doses in 1986 delivered more than 3,000 antigens and 1.5 milligrams of aluminum over 18 years. Today’s complete schedule delivers roughly 165 antigens – which is a 95% reduction – and 5-6 milligrams of aluminum in the same time frame. A single smallpox inoculation in 1900 exposed a child to more antigens than today’s complete series.
The incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b, a bacterial infection that can cause pneumonia, meningitis and other severe diseases, has dropped by 99% in infants. Pediatric hepatitis infections are down more than 90%, and chickenpox hospitalizations are down about 90%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that vaccinating children born from 1994 to 2023 will avert 508 million illnesses and 1,129,000 premature deaths.
Placebo testing for vaccines
Kennedy has asserted that only COVID-19 vaccines have undergone rigorous safety trials in which they were tested against placebos. This is categorically wrong.
Of the 378 controlled trials in our database, 195 compared volunteers’ response to a vaccine with their response to a placebo. Of those, 159 gave volunteers only a salt water solution or another inert substance. Another 36 gave them just the adjuvant without any viral or bacterial material, as a way to see whether there were side effects from the antigen itself or the injection. Every routine childhood vaccine antigen appears in at least one such study.
Once an effective vaccine exists, ethics boards require new versions be compared against that licensed standard because withholding proven protection from children would be unethical.
How unknown is the safety of widely used vaccines?
Kennedy has insisted on multiple occasions that “nobody has any idea” about vaccine safety profiles. Of the 378 trials in our database, the vast majority published detailed safety outcomes.
Beyond trials, the U.S. operates the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Vaccine Safety Datalink and the PRISM network to monitor hundreds of millions of doses for rare problems. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System works like an open mailbox where anyone – patients, parents, clinicians – can report a post-shot problem; the Vaccine Safety Datalink analyzes anonymized electronic health records from large health care systems to spot patterns; and PRISM scans billions of insurance claims in near-real time to confirm or rule out rare safety signals.
On June 9, Kennedy took the unprecedented step of dissolving vetted members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the expert body that advises the CDC on national vaccine policy. He has claimed repeatedly that the vast majority of serving members of the committee – 97% – had extensive conflicts of interest because of their entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry. Kennedy bases that number on a 2009 federal audit of conflict-of-interest paperwork, but that report looked at 17 CDC advisory committees, not specifically this vaccine committee. And it found no pervasive wrongdoing – 97% of disclosure forms only contained routine paperwork mistakes, such as information in the wrong box or a missing initial, and not hidden financial ties.
Reuters examined data from Open Payments, a government website that discloses health care providers’ relationships with industry, for all 17 voting members of the committee who were dismissed. Six received no more than US$80 from drugmakers over seven years, and four had no payments at all.
The remaining seven members accepted between $4,000 and $55,000 over seven years, mostly for modest consulting or travel. In other words, just 41% of the committee received anything more than pocket change from drugmakers. Committee members must divest vaccine company stock and recuse themselves from votes involving conflicts.
A term without a meaning
Kennedy has warned that vaccines cause “immune deregulation,” a term that has no basis in immunology. Vaccines train the immune system, and the diseases they prevent are the real threats to immune function.
Today’s vaccine panel doesn’t just prevent infections; it deters doctor visits and thereby reduces unnecessary prescriptions for “just-in-case” antibiotics. It’s one of the rare places in medicine where physicians like me now do more good with less biological burden than we did 40 years ago.
The evidence is clear and publicly available: Vaccines have dramatically reduced childhood illness, disability and death on a historic scale.
Jake Scott 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 Andrea Stanton, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies & Faculty Affiliate, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Denver
After 12 days of trading deadly airstrikes, Israel and Iran confirmed on June 24, 2025, that a ceasefire is in effect, one day after President Donald Trump proclaimed the countries reached a deal to end fighting. Experts are wondering how long the ceasefire, which does not contain any specific conditions, will hold.
The United States’ involvement in the fighting between Iran and Israel, which Israel started on June 12, has also sparked concerned comparisons with the eight-year war the U.S. waged in Iraq, another Middle Eastern country.
The U.S. invaded Iraq more than 20 years ago in March 2003, claiming it had to disarm the Iraqi government of weapons of mass destruction and end the dictatorial rule of President Saddam Hussein. U.S. soldiers captured Saddam in December 2003, but the war dragged on through 2011.
The Trump administration, bolstered by the Israeli government, has claimed that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons represents an imminent, dangerous threat to Western countries and the rest of the world. Iran says that its nuclear development program is for civilian use. While the International Atomic Energy Agency, an independent organization that is part of the United Nations, monitors Iran and other countries’ nuclear development work, Iran has not complied with recent IAEA requests for information about its nuclear program.
Trump has also called for regime change in Iran, writing on his Truth Social media platform on June 22 that he wants to “Make Iran Great Again”, though he has since walked back that plan. The case of U.S. involvement in Iraq might offer some lessons in this current moment.
Most of these problems stem directly or indirectly from the war. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the war that followed are defining events in the histories of both countries – and the region. Yet, for many young people in the United States, drawing a connection between the war and its present-day impact is becoming more difficult. For them, the war is an artifact of the past.
I am a Middle East historian and an Islamic studies scholar who teaches two undergraduate courses that cover the 2003 invasion and the Iraq War. My courses attract students who hope to work in politics, law, government and nonprofit groups, and whose personal backgrounds include a range of religious traditions, immigration histories and racial identities.
The stories of the invasion and subsequent war resonate with them in the same way that stories of other past events do – they’re eager to learn from them, but don’t see them as directly connected to their lives.
Since I started teaching courses related to the Iraq War in 2010, my students have shifted from millennials to Generation Z. The latter were born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s. There has also been a change in how these students understand major early 21st-century events, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
I teach this event by showing things like former President George W. Bush’s March 19, 2003, televised announcement of the invasion.
I also teach it through the flow of my lived experience. That includes remembering the Feb. 15, 2003, anti-war protests that took place in over 600 cities around the world as an effort to prevent what appeared to be an inevitable war. And I show students aspects of material culture, like the “Iraqi most wanted” deck of playing cards, distributed to deployed U.S. military personnel in Iraq, who used the cards for games and to help them identify key figures in the Iraq government.
The millennial students I taught around 2010 recalled the U.S. invasion of Iraq from their early teen years – a confusing but foundational moment in their personal timelines.
But for the Gen-Z students I teach today, the invasion sits firmly in the past, as a part of history.
Why this matters
Since the mid-2010s, I have not been able to expect students to enroll in my course with personal prior knowledge about the invasion and war that followed. In 2013, my students would tell me that their childhoods had been defined by a United States at war – even if those wars happened far from U.S. soil.
Millennial students considered the trifecta of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq to be defining events in their lives. The U.S. and its allies launched airstrikes against al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. This followed the Taliban refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11.
By 2021, my students considered Bush’s actions with the same level of abstract curiosity that they had brought to the class’s earlier examination of the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine, which said that a country could request help from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by another country, and was used to justify U.S. military involvement in Lebanon in 1958.
On an educational level, this means that I now provide much more background information on the first the Gulf War, the 2000 presidential elections, the Bush presidency, the immediate U.S. responses to 9/11 and the Afghanistan invasion than I had to do before. All of these events help students better understand why the U.S. invaded Iraq and why Americans felt so strongly about the military action – whether they were for or against the invasion.
The Iraq invasion lost popularity among Americans within two years. In March 2003, 71% of Americans said that the U.S. made the right decision to use military force in Iraq.
That percentage dropped to 47% in 2005, following the revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Yet those supporters continued to strongly endorse the invasion in later polls.
In 2018, just over half of Americans believed that the U.S. failed to achieve its goals, however those goals might have been defined in Iraq.
Older Americans age 65 and up are more likely than young people to prioritize foreign policy issues, including maintaining a U.S. military advantage.
Younger Americans – age 18 to 39 – say the top issues that require urgency are providing support to refugees and limiting U.S. military commitments abroad, according to a 2021 Pew research survey.
Generation Z members are also less likely than older Americans to think that the U.S. should act by itself in defending or protecting democracy around the world, according to a 2019 poll by the think tank Center for American Progress.
They also agree with the statement that the United States’ “wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan were a waste of time, lives, and taxpayer money and they did nothing to make us safer at home.” They prefer that the U.S. use economic and diplomatic means, rather than military intervention, to advance American interests around the world.
Israel’s conflict with Iran may not flare again and give way to more airstrikes and violence. If the countries resume fighting, however, their conflict threatens to draw in Lebanon, Qatar and other countries in the Middle East, as well as likely the U.S. – and to drag on for a long time.
Andrea Stanton 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.
People on TikTok tend to follow accounts that align with their own political beliefs, meaning the platform is creating political echo chambers among its users. These findings, from a study my collaborators, Yanlin Li and Homero Gil de Zúñiga, and I published in the academic journal New Media & Society, show that people mostly hear from voices they already agree with.
We analyzed the structure of different political networks on TikTok and found that right-leaning communities are more isolated from other political groups and from mainstream news outlets. Looking at their internal structures, the right-leaning communities are more tightly connected than their left-leaning counterparts. In other words, conservative TikTok users tend to stick together. They rarely follow accounts with opposing views or mainstream media accounts. Liberal users, on the other hand, are more likely to follow a mix of accounts, including those they might disagree with.
Our study is based on a massive dataset of over 16 million TikTok videos from more than 160,000 public accounts between 2019 and 2023. We saw a spike of political TikTok videos during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. More importantly, people aren’t just passively watching political content; they’re actively creating political content themselves.
Some people are more outspoken about politics than others. We found that users with stronger political leanings and those who get more likes and comments on their videos are more motivated to keep posting. This shows the power of partisanship, but also the power of TikTok’s social rewards system. Engagement signals – likes, shares, comments – are like a fuel, encouraging users to create even more.
Why it matters
People are turning to TikTok not just for a good laugh. A recent Pew Research Center survey shows that almost 40% of U.S. adults under 30 regularly get news on TikTok. The question becomes what kind of news are they watching, and what does that mean for how they engage with politics.
The content on TikTok often comes from creators and influencers or digital-native media sources. The quality of this news content remains uncertain. Without access to balanced, fact-based information, people may struggle to make informed political decisions.
TikTok is not unique; social media generally fosters polarization.
Amid the debates over banning TikTok, our study highlights how TikTok can be a double-edged sword in political communication. It’s encouraging to see people participate in politics through TikTok when that’s their medium of choice. However, if a user’s network is closed and homogeneous and their expression serves as in-group validation, it may further solidify the political echo chamber.
When people are exposed to one-sided messages, it can increase hostility toward outgroups. In the long run, relying on TikTok as a source for political information might deepen people’s political views and contribute to greater polarization.
TikTok has its unique format, algorithmic curation and entertainment-driven design. I believe that its function as a tool for political communication calls for closer examination.
What’s next
In 2024, the Biden/Harris and Trump campaigns joined TikTok to reach young voters. My research team is now analyzing how these political communication dynamics may have shifted during the 2024 election. Future research could use experiments to explore whether these campaign videos significantly influence voters’ perceptions and behaviors.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Zicheng Cheng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When most people hear the word uranium, they think of mushroom clouds, Cold War standoffs or the glowing green rods from science fiction. But uranium isn’t just fuel for apocalyptic fears. It’s also a surprisingly common element that plays a crucial role in modern energy, medicine and geopolitics.
Uranium reentered the global spotlight in June 2025, when the U.S. launched military strikes on sites in Iran believed to be housing highly enriched uranium, a move that reignited urgent conversations around nuclear proliferation. Many headlines have mentioned Iran’s 60% enrichment of uranium, but what does that really mean?
As a biochemist, I’m interested in demystifying this often misunderstood element.
What is uranium?
Uranium holds the 92nd position on the periodic table, and it is a radioactive, metallic element. Radioactivity is a natural process where some atoms – like uranium, thorium and radium – break down on their own, releasing energy.
The German chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth initially identified uranium in 1789, and he named it after the newly discovered planet Uranus. However, its power was not unlocked until the 20th century, when scientists discovered that uranium atoms could split via a process known as nuclear fission. In fission, the nucleus of the atom splits into two or more nuclei, which releases large amounts of energy.
Uranium is found almost everywhere. It is in rocks, soil and water. There are even traces of uranium in plants and animals – albeit tiny amounts. Most of it is found in the Earth’s crust, where it is mined and concentrated to increase the amount of its most useful radioactive form, uranium-235.
The enrichment dilemma
Uranium-235 is an isotope of uranium, which is a version of an element that has the same basic identity but weighs a little more or less. Think about apples from the same tree. Some are big and some are small, but they are all apples – even though they have slightly different weights. Basically, an isotope is the same element but with a different mass.
Unprocessed uranium is mostly uranium-238. It only contains approximately 0.7% uranium-235, the isotope that allows the most nuclear fission to occur. So, the enrichment process concentrates uranium-235.
Enrichment can make uranium more useful for the development of nuclear weapons, since natural uranium doesn’t have enough uranium-235 to work well in reactors or weapons. The process usually contains three steps.
Centrifuges spin the uranium to separate out its isotopes.
The first step is to convert the uranium into a gas, called uranium hexafluoride. In the second step, the gas gets funneled into a machine called a centrifuge that spins very fast. Because uranium-235 is a little lighter than uranium-238, it moves outward more slowly when spun, and the two isotopes separate.
It’s sort of like how a salad spinner separates water from lettuce. One spin doesn’t make much of a difference, so the gas is spun through many centrifuges in a row until the uranium-235 is concentrated.
Uranium can typically power nuclear plants and generate electricity when it is 3%-5% enriched, meaning 3%-5% of the uranium is uranium-235. At 20% enriched, uranium-235 is considered highly enriched uranium, and 90% or higher is known as weapons-grade uranium.
The enrichment level depends on the proportion of uranium-235 to uranium-238. Wikimedia Commons
This high grade works in nuclear weapons because it can sustain a fast, uncontrolled chain reaction, which releases a large amount of energy compared with the other isotopes.
Uranium’s varied powers
While many headlines focus on uranium’s military potential, this element also plays a vital role in modern life. At low enrichment levels, uranium powers nearly 10% of the world’s electricity.
In the U.S., many nuclear power plants run on uranium fuel, producing carbon-free energy. In addition, some cancer therapies and diagnostic imaging technologies harness uranium to treat diseases.
Uranium is a story of duality. It is a mineral pulled from ancient rocks that can light up a city or wipe one off the map. It’s not just a relic of the Cold War or science fiction. It’s real, it’s powerful, and it’s shaping our world – from global conflicts to cancer clinics, from the energy grid to international diplomacy.
In the end, the real power is not just in the energy released from the element. It is in how people choose to use it.
André O. Hudson receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.
