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.
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.
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.
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.
Israel, with the assistance of U.S. military hardware, bombs an adversary’s nuclear facility to set back the perceived pursuit of the ultimate weapon. We have been here before, about 44 years ago.
The reactor, which the French called Osirak and Iraqis called Tammuz, was destroyed. Much of the international community initially condemned the attack. But Israel claimed the raid set Iraqi nuclear ambitions back at least a decade. In time, many Western observers and government officials, too, chalked up the attack as a win for nonproliferation, hailing the strike as an audacious but necessary step to prevent Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear arsenal.
But the reality is more complicated. As nuclear proliferation experts assess the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities following the recent U.S. and Israeli raids, it is worth reassessing the longer-term implications of that earlier Iraqi strike.
The Osirak reactor
Iraq joined the landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, committing the country to refrain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But in exchange, signatories are entitled to engage in civilian nuclear activities, including having research or power reactors and access to the enriched uranium that drives them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible through safeguards agreements for monitoring countries’ civilian use of nuclear technology, with on-the-ground inspections to ensure that civilian nuclear programs do not divert materials for nuclear weapons.
But to Israel, the Iraqi reactor was provocative and an escalation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Israel believed that Iraq would use the French reactor – Iraq said it was for research purposes – to generate plutonium for a nuclear weapon. After diplomacy with France and the United States failed to persuade the two countries to halt construction of the reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin concluded that attacking the reactor was Israel’s best option. That decision gave birth to the “Begin Doctrine,” which has committing Israel to preventing its regional adversaries from becoming nuclear powers ever since.
In spring 1979, Israel attempted to sabotage the project, bombing the reactor core destined for Iraq while it sat awaiting shipment in the French town of La Seyne-sur-Mer. The mission was only a partial success, damaging but not destroying the reactor.
France and Iraq persisted with the project, and in July 1980 – with the reactor having been delivered – Iraq received the first shipment of highly enriched uranium fuel at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad.
Then in September 1980, during the initial days of the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian jets struck the nuclear research center. The raid also targeted a power station, knocking out electricity in Baghdad for several days. But a Central Intelligence Agency situation report assessed that “only secondary buildings” were hit at the nuclear site itself.
It was then Israel’s turn. The reactor was still unfinished and not in operation when on June 7, 1981, eight U.S.-supplied F-16s flew over Jordanian and Saudi airspace and bombed the reactor in Iraq. The attack killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and a French civilian.
Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid
Many years later, U.S. President Bill Clinton commented: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981, which I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam from developing nuclear power.”
But nonproliferation expertshave contended for years that while Saddam may have had nuclear weapons ambitions, the French-built research reactor would not have been the route to go. Iraq would either have had to divert the reactor’s highly enriched uranium fuel for a few weapons or shut the reactor down to extract plutonium from the fuel rods – all while hiding these operations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
As an additional safeguard, the French government, too, had pledged to shut down the reactor if it detected efforts to use the reactor for weapons purposes.
In any event, Iraq’s desire for a nuclear weapon was more aspirational than operational. A 2011 article in the journal International Security included interviews with several scientists who worked on Iraq’s nuclear program and characterized the country’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability as “both directionless and disorganized” before the attack.
Iraq’s program begins in earnest
So what happened after the strike? Many analysts have argued that the Israeli attack, rather than diminish Iraqi desire for a nuclear weapon, actually catalyzed it.
Nuclear proliferation expert Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, the author of the 2011 study, concluded that the Israeli attack “triggered a nuclear weapons program where one did not previously exist.”
In the aftermath of the attack, Saddam decided to formally, if secretively, establish a nuclear weapons program, with scientists deciding that a uranium-based weapon was the best route. He tasked his scientists with pursuing multiple methods to enrich uranium to weapons grade to ensure success, much the way the Manhattan Project scientists approached the same problem in the U.S.
In other words, the Israeli attack, rather than set back an existing nuclear weapons program, turned an incoherent and exploratory nuclear endeavor into a drive to get the bomb personally overseen by Saddam and sparing little expense even as Iraq’s war with Iran substantially taxed Iraqi resources.
As those challenges were beginning to be addressed, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking a military response from the United States. In the aftermath of what would become Operation Desert Storm, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered and dismantled the clandestine Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
Similarly to Iraq in 1980, Iran today is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the time President Donald Trump withdrew U.S. support in 2018 for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Tehran was complying with the requirements of the agreement.
In the case of Iraq, military action on its nascent nuclear program merely pushed it underground – to Saddam, the Israeli strikes made acquiring the ultimate weapon more rather than less attractive as a deterrent. Almost a half-century on, some analysts and observers are warning the same about Iran.
Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.
A commitment to responsible use of antibiotics earns UConn Health’s John Dempsey Hospital the designation of “Antimicrobial Stewardship Center of Excellence” from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Certificate from the Infectious Diseases Society of America
With this designation, the IDSA recognizes institutions that have established stewardship programs, led by infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists, to advance science in antimicrobial resistance, and that have surpassed high standards aligned with evidence-based national guidelines.
“Evolving antimicrobial resistance patterns and the introduction of new therapeutics have made antibiotic prescribing more challenging than ever,” says Kevin Chamberlin, UConn Health’s chief pharmacy officer. “This Center of Excellence designation is a testament to the sound antimicrobial stewardship we practice that protects our limited options for our most vulnerable patients.”
John Dempsey Hospital is one of four hospitals in Connecticut designated as an Antimicrobial Stewardship Center of Excellence, and among fewer than 200 hospitals in the world that have earned the distinction since the ISDA started this program in 2017.
Core criteria include implementation of stewardship protocols by integrating best practices to slow the emergency of resistance, optimize the treatment of infections, reduce adverse events associated with antibiotic use, and address other challenging areas of antimicrobial stewardship.
“This shows that we are using multidisciplinary collaboration to ensure that we’re using antibiotics in the most quality way and optimizing those antibiotics across care, both on the inpatient and outpatient side,” says Gillian Kuszewski ’03 (PHARM), ’05 Pharm.D., university director of UConn Health’s pharmacy residency programs.
Kuszewski co-leads UConn Health’s antibiotic stewardship program with Dr. David Banach ’06 MD, MPH, infectious diseases physician and UConn Health’s hospital epidemiologist, and Jeffrey Aeschlimann ’93 (PHARM), a UConn School of Pharmacy faculty member and clinician in UConn Health’s pharmacy practice.
From left: Dr. David Banach, Gillian Kuszewski, and Jeffrey Aeschlimann lead UConn Health’s antibiotic stewardship program. (Photo by Chris DeFrancesco, UConn Health)
“Antibiotic stewardship is a global health priority,” Banach says. “The goal of using the right antibiotic for the right patient at the right time for the right duration is really becoming recognized as a key public health measure, both for reducing resistance and also reducing antibiotic-associated side effects and adverse events like C. diff.”
C. diff, or Clostridioides difficile infection, is one of the most common health care-associated infections. It is highly contagious and difficult to treat.
“One of the important things the stewardship program does is minimize unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which has been shown to also decrease C. diff rates in hospitals and health care settings,” Aeschlimann says.
While this is the first time UConn Health has applied for this ISDA designation, antimicrobial stewardship has been a priority going back more than a decade, predating regulatory requirements. Aeschlimann and Dr. Kevin Dieckhaus, who today is chief of UConn Health’s Division of Infectious Diseases, started the antibiotic stewardship committee in 2013. Since then, it has grown to include representation from throughout the institution, including microbiology lab professionals, nurses, pharmacists, physicians, informatics specialists, infection preventionists, and students, residents and fellows.
“We’ve always been doing these things along the way, and we felt now was the right time to sit down and formally submit an application,” Kuszewski says. “We’ve always done extremely well with our program when regulatory bodies like the Joint Commission come to visit. From a regulatory perspective, we’ve consistently received really good feedback from them on our antimicrobial stewardship activities.”
She says the committee has established protocols, policies, and workflows to guide and support front-line providers in making the best choices.
“We’ve supported, for example, processes to make sure that even after the patient leaves the emergency department, they’re on the right antibiotic based on follow-up information that we get from cultures,” Kuszewski says.
“We have the collaborations between those who prescribe antibiotics and those who have expertise to offer and help support optimal prescribing,” Banach says.
And the committee’s guidance has made its way into the electronic health record system to provide an additional resource for prescribers.
“We try to develop either order sets or clinical pathways or popups, whatever we think might work best, to guide clinicians to pick the right antibiotic choice,” Aeschlimann says.
Another strategy is to prioritize documentation of allergies to help inform prescribing decisions.
“They can choose an antibiotic with the least risk of a negative outcome,” Kuszewski says. “Penicillin allergy documentation often leads to unnecessary use of certain antibiotics that come with greater risks. Perhaps a penicillin might cause some temporary stomach upset for a patient and is not really a true allergy. Clarifying this documentation in a patient’s medical record can help providers determine which antibiotic carries the least risk in treating an infection.”
Kuszewski notes that UConn Health leadership has been supportive of the antimicrobial stewardship efforts since the beginning.
“Not only are we following standards, but we’re also seeing better outcomes,” she says. “We also have results that show that we’re using less broad-spectrum antibiotics than what we’re expected to use, and our C. diff rates are down. The outcomes are actually tangible. It’s not just what we say we’re doing, but we’re seeing good results.”
When electronic devices overheat, they can slow down, malfunction, or stop working altogether. This heat is mainly caused by energy lost as electrons move through a material—similar to friction in a moving machine.
Most devices today use silicon (Si) as their semiconductor material. However, engineers are increasingly turning to alternatives like gallium nitride (GaN) for longer lifetime use and higher performance. This includes products such as LEDs, compact laptop chargers, and 5G phone networks. For even more extreme applications—such as high-voltage systems or harsh environments—researchers are exploring ultrawide bandgap (UWBG) materials like gallium oxide (Ga2O3), aluminum gallium nitride (AlGaN), and even diamond.
Pictured in center, Georges Pavlidis, assistant professor of mechanical engineering, and School of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Manufacturing Engineering Ph.D. candidates Francis Vásquez, at left, and Dominic Myren, are co-authors of a “Perspectives” paper published in Applied Physics Letters. Together, they’re exploring thermal management strategies in ultra side bandgap semiconductor devices. (Sarah Richmond/UConn Photo)
The key difference between these materials lies in their electronic bandgap—the energy needed to get electrons to flow through the material. Wider bandgaps allow companies to reduce the size of their electronics and make them more electrically efficient.
“UWBG materials can resist up to 8,000 volts and can operate at temperatures over 200 °C (392°F), making them promising for the next generation of electronics in the energy, health, and communication sectors,” explains Georges Pavlidis, assistant professor of mechanical engineering.
While these materials offer promising advantages, they also come with challenges. They’re currently expensive, difficult to manufacture, and their thermal behavior is hard to measure precisely. As electronics become more powerful and in smaller dimensions, the heating in the device becomes more localized and can generate a heat flux greater than the sun, Pavlidis explains.
“Chip manufacturers need new methods to measure temperature in smaller dimensions,” he says.
Pavlidis, along with UConn’s School of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Manufacturing Engineering Ph.D. candidates Dominic Myren and Francis Vásquez, collaborated with colleagues from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory over the past year to tackle the challenge of measuring the heat output. Their work resulted in a “Perspectives” paper published in Applied Physics Letters.
“A ‘Perspectives’ paper is intended to be an outline of what’s coming soon, get people excited about what’s coming, and encourage other researchers to start looking into similar topics,” says Myren, a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellow who has seven years of industrial R&D experience in fuel systems, internal combustion, and engine controls and holds patents related to electromagnetic actuators and engine controls. “The push right now is for the development of thermal management strategies in wide and ultra-wide bandgap semiconductor devices. We have a lot of open questions, and we’re working hard on them over in Dr. Pavlidis’ lab, but the cross pollination of ideas is how academic circles thrive.”
Titled “Emerging Thermal Metrology for Ultrawide Bandgap Semiconductor Devices,” the co-authors discuss the pros and cons of using UWBG material for semiconductors, and outline several innovative techniques for measuring temperature at the microscale. These methods could help engineers design faster, more powerful electronic devices—without the risk of overheating.
After the paper ran online in late May, the co-authors received an unexpected note from the editors at Applied Physics Letters. “[We] felt that your article is noteworthy, and have chosen it to be promoted as an Editor’s Pick. It will be posted on the journal homepage, and a badge will be displayed next to the title.”
“It is no small feat for a publication to be chosen as an Editor’s Pick in the highly regarded Applied Physics Letters that publishes more than 2,000 articles a year,” says JC Zhao, dean of the UConn College of Engineering. “I congratulate Professor Pavlidis and his group on this recognition and I am very proud of their accomplishment.”
Members of the Pavlidis Lab prepare to measure the heat produced by a GaN-on-diamond transistor. This advanced semiconductor technology combines gallium nitride (GaN) with a diamond substrate to improve thermal management in electronic devices. “We shine light through the microscope and it reflects off the sample and travels up to the camera. That’s how we measure temperature,” Pavlidis explains. (Sarah Richmond/UConn Photo)
Vásquez’s particular research interests are thermal management for high-power and radio-frequency (RF) power electronics. In Pavlidis’s lab, he enjoys the combination of research and meaningful application where the group solves real challenges in electronics and photonics that directly impact energy efficiency, reliability, and performance.
“What makes the experience truly special is the lab culture,” Vásquez says. “Professor Pavlidis is incredibly supportive and patient, especially when we hit difficult knowledge to explain, and he always encourages us to stay curious. His approach pushes us to explore new ideas, test them rigorously, and think about how our work can translate into real-world innovations. It’s that mix of intellectual freedom and high standards to make an impact that keeps me excited every day in the lab.”
In the paper, the researchers explore several options to measure temperature in UWBG devices. They suggest using optical methods like Raman spectroscopy and thermoreflectance, which use light to measure temperature dependent properties. Electrical methods use electric signals to detect temperature, and scanning probe methods, like scanning thermal microscopy, touch the surface to feel the heat.
The researchers also describe exciting new ideas, like combining thermal images created from different colors of light to see heat in nitride-based devices, or measuring how light is absorbed in material defects to calculate the temperature in gallium oxide electronics. They’re even working on a new kind of microscope that can see very tiny heat patterns using deep ultraviolet light.
“These proposed methods provide a solution to measuring the peak temperature in future electronics which is the primary indicator of when the device will fail. Providing the industry with accurate metrology will lower the barrier to commercialization and enable engineers to develop new thermal management strategies,” Pavlidis says.
The group’s research is supported by Microelectronics Commons, a program specifically created to commercialize UWBG devices for power electronics. The Commons program established the Northeast Microelectronics Coalition Hub, a network of more than 200 organizations, academic institutions, commercial and defense companies, and federally funded centers concentrated in eight northeast states. The idea for the paper stemmed from a project Pavlidis worked on last summer as an Office of Naval Research Fellow.
Moving forward, Pavlidis—who was promoted to a Senior Member of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) this month—aims to work with semiconductor partners in developing affordable strategies to reduce the temperature in power electronics. By pushing the resolution limits of temperature measurements, the lab plans to extend their methods to improve other technologies such as quantum computing and photonic circuits. They’ve already worked with colleagues at the University of Maryland to design photonic hardware for next-generation data storage. (View the study in this May 2025 Nature Conversations paper.)
“We hope our work has laid the foundation for the thermal design of the next generation of UWBG devices,” Pavlidis says.
Groups of cells called phagocytes are like the clean-up crews of our body – eating and clearing away debris or foreign particles. UConn Health immunologist Kai Li has developed a unique system called PhagoPL to capture and study how phagocytes feel, taste, digest and respond to their “meal.” Understanding this process is relevant to developing treatments for many diseases, such as lupus, sepsis or cancer.
LAKEWOOD, NJ, June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Reliance Global Group, Inc.(Nasdaq: RELI) (“Reliance,” “we,” “us,” “our” or the “Company”) today highlighted the strong preliminary unaudited financial results of Spetner Associates, Inc. (“Spetner”) for the first quarter ended March 31, 2025. As previously announced, Reliance has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Spetner, and the transaction continues to advance toward closing.
Revenue increased by more than 95% year-over-year to approximately $5.16 million, compared with $2.64 million in Q1 2024.
Operating income margin grew by 29% year-over-year to 74% from 46% in Q1 2024.
Net income grew by 220% to approximately $2.98 million, more than triple the approximately $0.9 million reported for Q1 2024.
Cash flows from operating activities increased by 112% to $2.6 million, more than double the $1.2 million generated in Q1 2024.
Ezra Beyman, CEO of Reliance Global Group, commented, “We’re thrilled with Spetner’s impressive first quarter results, illustrating full alignment with our strategy of acquiring and integrating high-performing cash-generating synergistic insurance distribution platforms. Combined with Reliance’s scalable operating model and technology-driven platform, the combined organization will be well positioned to generate consistent significant profits, returns and cash flows.”
About Reliance Global Group, Inc.
Reliance Global Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: RELI) is an InsurTech pioneer, leveraging artificial intelligence (AI), and cloud-based technologies, to transform and improve efficiencies in the insurance agency/brokerage industry. The Company’s business-to-business InsurTech platform, RELI Exchange, provides independent insurance agencies an entire suite of business development tools, enabling them to effectively compete with large-scale national insurance agencies, whilst reducing back-office cost and burden. The Company’s business-to-consumer platform, 5minuteinsure.com, utilizes AI and data mining, to provide competitive online insurance quotes within minutes to everyday consumers seeking to purchase auto, home, and life insurance. In addition, the Company operates its own portfolio of select retail “brick and mortar” insurance agencies which are leaders and pioneers in their respective regions throughout the United States, offering a wide variety of insurance products. Further information about the Company can be found at https://www.relianceglobalgroup.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You can identify these statements by terminology such as “may,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “estimate,” “continue,” “potential,” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, without limitation, statements regarding:
Our expectation that the acquisition of Spetner Associates, Inc. will close as planned or at all and continue to advance toward completion, including obtaining any necessary regulatory or shareholder approvals;
Our objective to acquire and integrate high-performing, cash-generating synergistic insurance distribution platforms that align with our scalable, technology-driven model to drive shareholder value;
Our intention to pursue disciplined, accretive growth opportunities across the InsurTech and insurance agency sectors; and
Other statements regarding our plans, strategies, expectations and intentions concerning future operations, financial performance, and service offerings of either us, Spetner or the potentially combined company thereof.
These forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions, including the assumptions that: the LOI will not be terminated prior to execution of definitive purchase agreements; due diligence and documentation negotiations will proceed without material adverse findings; the Fortman sale and the Spetner acquisition will both close as expected; our revenue and EBITDA projections for Spetner are attainable; integration risks will be managed successfully; and there will be no material adverse changes in market, economic or regulatory conditions affecting our businesses. There can be no assurance that any of these assumptions will prove correct.
There are numerous risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results or performance to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These include, among others: the risk that the Fortman buyer may withdraw or renegotiate the terms of the LOI; delays or failure to complete either the Fortman sale or the Spetner acquisition; unanticipated liabilities or integration challenges in connection with Spetner; our inability to realize the projected revenue or EBITDA benefits; competition in the InsurTech and agency brokerage industry; changes in insurance regulation or Nasdaq listing requirements; general economic or financial market conditions; and the other risks and uncertainties described in the “Risk Factors” section of our Registration Statement on Form S-1 and our periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
You should carefully review our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, as amended, and the other reports we have filed or will file with the SEC for a more complete discussion of risks and uncertainties. tExcept as required by law, Reliance Global Group, Inc. disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
GRAND CAYMAN, Cayman Islands, June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited(Nasdaq:OXBR) (“Oxbridge Re”), a leader in digitizing reinsurance securities as tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), together with its subsidiary SurancePlus, today announced its participation during the Ethereum Community Conference (EthCC), to be held in Cannes, France, June 30–July 3, 2025. The event brings together blockchain builders, institutional investors, and capital allocators from around the world to explore the next wave of decentralized finance and tokenized assets.
As part of the conference, Chairman and CEO Jay Madhu will speak at the Gamma Prime Investor Forum, a private gathering hosted alongside EthCC that showcases institutional-grade opportunities in the RWA space.
Jay Madhu, CEO of Oxbridge and SurancePlus, commented: “We look forward to speaking during EthCC – Cannes about RWA tokenization and public markets This is an especially exciting time for Oxbridge as we review a range of potentially transformative strategic initiatives.”
About Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited
Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: OXBR, OXBRW) (“Oxbridge”) is headquartered in the Cayman Islands. The company offers tokenized Real-World Assets (“RWAs”) as tokenized reinsurance securities and reinsurance business solutions to property and casualty insurers, through its wholly owned subsidiaries SurancePlus Inc., Oxbridge Re NS, and Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited.
Insurance businesses in the Gulf Coast region of the United States purchase property and casualty reinsurance through our licensed reinsurers Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited and Oxbridge Re NS.
Our Web3-focused subsidiary, SurancePlus Inc. (“SurancePlus”), has developed the first “on chain” reinsurance RWA of its kind to be sponsored by a subsidiary of a publicly traded company. By digitizing interests in reinsurance contracts as on-chain RWAs, SurancePlus has democratized the availability of reinsurance as an alternative investment to both U.S. and non U.S. investors.
Gamma Prime is a next-generation investment platform delivering institutional-grade access to uncorrelated alternative investments. With over $3.6B AUM of funds and $460M of investors onboarded, Gamma Prime has curated a vast menu of reg-compliant alternatives – both digital assets and RWAs – that fits investor profiles. The partnership with SurancePlus expands investor access to high-yield, low-correlation reinsurance-backed digital securities.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release may contain forward-looking statements made pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “project” and other similar words and expressions are intended to signify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results and conditions but rather are subject to various risks and uncertainties. A detailed discussion of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from such forward-looking statements is included in the section entitled “Risk Factors” contained in our Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on 26th March 2025 and in our other filings with the SEC. The occurrence of any of these risks and uncertainties could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Any forward-looking statements made in this press release speak only as of the date of this press release and, except as required by law, the Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward looking statement contained in this press release, even if the Company’s expectations or any related events, conditions or circumstances change.
TAMPA, Fla., June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Upexi, Inc. (NASDAQ: UPXI) (the “Company” or “Upexi”), a brand owner specializing in the development, manufacturing, and distribution of consumer products with diversification into the cryptocurrency space, today announced its intention to tokenize its SEC-registered shares using Opening Bell, an on-chain issuance platform from financial technology firm Superstate.
Opening Bell enables companies to tokenize public equity via blockchain infrastructure, making shares tradable on-chain. This announcement expands upon Upexi’s existing Nasdaq listing and upon official listing may introduce key investor benefits, including:
24/7 trading and real-time settlement via crypto-native wallets
Global liquidity and broadened investor access without impacting existing shareholder rights
Programmable equity compatible with DeFi tools such as staking, automation, and tokenized governance
“Tokenizing Upexi’s shares on Opening Bell reflects our strong conviction in the future of the Solana ecosystem and our commitment to expanding shareholder access through transformative on-chain technology,” said Allan Marshall, CEO of Upexi. “Partnering with Superstate, a leading SEC-registered transfer agent, gives us the trusted foundation to harness Solana’s unmatched speed and scalability for our shares – unlocking new opportunities and driving long-term value for our investors.”
Upexi is the largest Solana treasury company, with a stated mission to acquire and hold as much SOL as possible. Backed by 15 leading digital asset venture firms and led by Allan Marshall, founder of XPO Logistics, Upexi brings deep expertise and strong relationships across both digital assets and traditional finance. As a digital asset treasury platform underpinned by Solana, the leading high-performance blockchain, Upexi seeks to create long-term shareholder value through intelligent capital markets strategies while supporting the broader Solana ecosystem through increased institutional visibility and adoption.
Opening Bell, launched by Superstate in May 2025, is a regulated on-chain issuance platform enabling companies to issue tokenized public equity via blockchain infrastructure making shares available on-chain, initially utilizing Solana. It allows compliant, programmable equity to participate in digital finance ecosystems.
Upexi also today provided an update regarding its SOL holdings. As of June 24, Upexi holds 735,692 SOL, up 8% from the previously disclosed 679,677 SOL on May 28.
About Upexi, Inc. Upexi is a brand owner specializing in the development, manufacturing, and distribution of consumer products. The Company has entered the cryptocurrency industry and cash management of assets through a cryptocurrency portfolio. For more information on Upexi’s treasury strategy and future developments, visit www.upexi.com.
About Superstate Superstate is a financial technology firm reshaping public capital markets. They connect financial assets with crypto capital markets to expand access, improve liquidity, and advance capital formation through on-chain public listings and tokenized investment products. Their offerings include Opening Bell, a platform for compliant on-chain equity listings; USTB, a tokenized fund backed by US Treasuries; and USCC, a tokenized fund optimized for crypto basis exposure. Learn more at superstate.com.
Forward Looking Statements This news release contains “forward-looking statements” as that term is defined in Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Statements in this press release which are not purely historical are forward-looking statements and include any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations, or intentions regarding the future. For example, the Company is using forward looking statements when it discusses the anticipated use of proceeds. Actual results could differ from those projected in any forward-looking statements due to numerous factors. Such factors include, among others, the inherent uncertainties associated with business strategy, potential acquisitions, revenue guidance, product development, integration, and synergies of acquiring companies and personnel. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release, and we assume no obligation to update the forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those projected in the forward- looking statements. Although we believe that the beliefs, plans, expectations, and intentions contained in this press release are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions will prove to be accurate. Investors should consult all of the information set forth herein and should also refer to the risk factors disclosure outlined in our annual report on Form 10-K and other periodic reports filed from time-to-time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Company Contact Brian Rudick, Chief Strategy Officer Email:brian.rudick@upexi.com Phone: (216) 347-0473
Real gross domestic product (GDP) decreased at an annual rate of 0.5 percent in the first quarter of 2025 (January, February, and March), according to the third estimate released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter of 2024, real GDP increased 2.4 percent.
The decrease in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an increase in imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, and a decrease in government spending. These movements were partly offset by increases in investment and consumer spending.
Real GDP was revised down 0.3 percentage point from the second estimate, primarily reflecting downward revisions to consumer spending and exports that were partly offset by a downward revision to imports. For more information, refer to the “Technical Notes” below.
Compared to the fourth quarter, the downturn in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an upturn in imports, a deceleration in consumer spending, and a downturn in government spending that were partly offset by an upturn in investment.
Real final sales to private domestic purchasers, the sum of consumer spending and gross private fixed investment, increased 1.9 percent in the first quarter, revised down 0.6 percentage point from the previous estimate.
From an industry perspective, the decrease in real GDP reflected decreases of 2.8 percent in real value added for private goods-producing industries and 0.3 percent for private services-producing industries that were partly offset by an increase of 2.0 percent in real value added for government.
Real gross output increased 0.6 percent in the first quarter, reflecting an increase of 1.1 percent for private services-producing industries that was partly offset by decreases of 0.6 percent for private goods-producing industries and 0.6 percent for government.
The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 3.4 percent in the first quarter, revised up 0.1 percentage point from the previous estimate. The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index increased 3.7 percent, and the PCE price index excluding food and energy increased 3.5 percent, both 0.1 percentage point higher than previously estimated.
Real gross domestic income (GDI) increased 0.2 percent in the first quarter, revised up 0.4 percentage point from the previous estimate.
Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments) decreased $90.6 billion in the first quarter, an upward revision of $27.5 billion.
Real GDP and Related Measures
[Percent change from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025]
Advance Estimate
Second Estimate
Third Estimate
Real GDP
-0.3
-0.2
-0.5
Current-dollar GDP
3.5
3.4
3.2
Real final sales to private domestic purchasers
3.0
2.5
1.9
Real GDI
…
-0.2
0.2
Average of Real GDP and Real GDI
…
-0.2
-0.1
Gross domestic purchases price index
3.4
3.3
3.4
PCE price index
3.6
3.6
3.7
PCE price index excluding food and energy
3.5
3.4
3.5
For definitions, statistical conventions, updates to GDP, and more, visit “Additional Information.”
Next release: July 30, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. EDT Gross Domestic Product (Advance Estimate) 2nd Quarter 2025
Technical Notes
Sources of revisions to real GDP in the third estimate
Real GDP decreased at an annual rate of 0.5 percent (0.1 percent at a quarterly rate1) in the first quarter, a downward revision of 0.3 percentage point from the previous estimate, primarily reflecting downward revisions to consumer spending and exports that were partly offset by a downward revision to imports.
Within consumer spending, the largest contributor to the revision was services, led by recreation services and transportation services, based on new and revised first-quarter data from the Census Bureau Quarterly Services Survey, as well as other services (led by international travel), based on revised data from BEA’s International Transactions Accounts (ITAs).
For both exports and imports, the revised estimates primarily reflected updated data from BEA’s ITAs.
Within exports, the downward revision was to services, led by other business services and charges for the use of intellectual property.
Within imports, the revision reflected downward revisions to both services (led by other business services) and goods (led by industrial supplies and materials as well as by capital goods, except automotive).
More information on the source data and BEA assumptions that underlie the first-quarter estimate is shown in the key source data and assumptions table.
1Percent changes in quarterly seasonally adjusted series are displayed at annual rates, unless otherwise specified. For more information, refer to the FAQ “Why does BEA publish percent changes in quarterly series at annual rates?“.
~ Palomar to Appoint Neptune as Exclusive Managing General Agent for Flood Insurance ~
LA JOLLA, Calif. and ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Palomar Holdings, Inc. (“Palomar” NASDAQ: PLMR), a leading specialty insurer, and Neptune Flood (“Neptune”), the largest provider of private flood insurance in the United States, today announced a strategic partnership under which Neptune will become Palomar’s exclusive managing general agent for flood insurance.
Palomar will continue its longstanding commitment to the private flood insurance market while gaining access to Neptune’s AI-based technology powered by data science and machine learning. The partnership enables both companies to advance their shared mission to deliver a robust technology driven alternative to the National Flood Insurance Program and make flood coverage more accessible to customers nationwide.
“Neptune’s technology and underwriting capabilities make them an ideal partner as we continue to grow in the flood insurance space,” said Jon Christianson, President of Palomar. “Together, we are expanding flood insurance availability with a streamlined and scalable solution that delivers strong value to our policyholders and partners.”
“Neptune is excited to add Palomar to our panel of top-tier carriers,” said Trevor Burgess, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Neptune Flood. “We look forward to welcoming Palomar’s flood customers to the Neptune platform and to increasing access to flood insurance nationwide.”
Through the seamless transition, Palomar’s agents will gain access to Neptune’s platform, offering a streamlined quoting and binding experience with enhanced coverage options.
About Palomar
Palomar Holdings, Inc. is the holding company of subsidiaries Palomar Specialty Insurance Company (“PSIC”), Palomar Specialty Reinsurance Company Bermuda Ltd. (“PSRE”), Palomar Insurance Agency, Inc., Palomar Excess and Surplus Insurance Company (“PESIC”), Palomar Underwriters Exchange Organization, Inc. (“PUEO”), First Indemnity of America Insurance Co. (“FIA”), and Palomar Crop Insurance Services, Inc. (“PCIS”). Palomar’s consolidated results also include Laulima Exchange (“Laulima”), a variable interest entity for which the Company is the primary beneficiary. Palomar is an innovative specialty insurer serving residential and commercial clients in five product categories: Earthquake, Inland Marine and Other Property, Casualty, Fronting, and Crop. Palomar’s insurance subsidiaries, PSIC, PSRE, and PESIC, have a financial strength rating of “A” (Excellent) from A.M. Best. FIA carries an “A-” (Stable) rating from A.M. Best.
With nearly 250,000 policies in force, Neptune is the largest private flood insurance provider in the United States, revolutionizing the industry with AI-driven underwriting and data science-driven machine learning technology. Neptune simplifies the flood insurance process, offering instant, affordable, and comprehensive coverage in minutes, without the delays and complexities of traditional insurance. Neptune is committed to closing the flood insurance gap and making coverage accessible nationwide.
Safe Harbor Statement Palomar cautions you that statements contained in this press release may regard matters that are not historical facts but are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on the company’s current beliefs and expectations. The inclusion of forward-looking statements should not be regarded as a representation by Palomar that any of its plans will be achieved. Actual results may differ from those set forth in this press release due to the risks and uncertainties inherent in the Company’s business. The forward-looking statements are typically, but not always, identified through use of the words “believe,” “expect,” “enable,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “intends,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “predict,” “probable,” “potential,” “possible,” “should,” “continue,” and other words of similar meaning. Actual results could differ materially from the expectations contained in forward-looking statements as a result of several factors, including unexpected expenditures and costs, unexpected results or delays in development and regulatory review, regulatory approval requirements, the frequency and severity of adverse events and competitive conditions. These and other factors that may result in differences are discussed in greater detail in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date hereof. All forward-looking statements are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement, which is made under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
The South African government has called for the immediate de-escalation of hostilities between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The two countries traded air strikes earlier this month.
Speaking during a media briefing on the outcomes of a Cabinet meeting held on Wednesday, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni said Cabinet was “deeply concerned about escalation of hostilities between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, along with airstrikes by the United States of America”.
“The ongoing attacks by both countries has led to loss of lives, casualties and destruction to property. Cabinet calls for an urgent de-escalation of hostilities, restraint and full compliance with international law by all parties to prevent further human suffering.
“Cabinet further calls on the USA, Israel and Iran to create room for constructive dialogue and give the United Nations the opportunity to lead the peaceful resolution of dispute, including the inspection and verification of Iran’s status on uranium enrichment, as well as its broader nuclear capacity.
“The world cannot afford the balkanisation of Iran, by the sheer size of its population, geographic location and mineral resources.
“As a continent, we in Africa are still suffering the consequences of the balkanisation of Libya 14 years later, with the escalation of terrorism across the continent,” she said.
Turning to issues in the Caribbean, Ntshavheni said Cabinet had registered concern on the ongoing gang violence in Haiti.
“Cabinet is concerned about the Haiti’s worsening situation and asserts that a multifaceted approach is needed to strengthen governance, improving law enforcement, and promoting economic development through regional and international cooperation prioritising Haitian interests,” she said.
Group of 7 (G7)
Cabinet reflected on the G7 Leaders’ Summit held in Canada last week.
President Cyril Ramaphosa participated in the G7 Summit Outreach Session.
“President Ramaphosa used the opportunity of the G7 to urge for greater cooperation between the G7 and the G20 and mobilise support for reforms in the international institutions of global governance such as the UN Security Council and the global financial system.
“The President’s participation in the G7 clearly points out that South Africa does not hold an anti-West policy position, but we are ready to work with everyone to pursue South Africa’s national interests and to advance the African Agenda,” she said.
SANDF soldiers
Regarding the return of South African soldiers from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ntshavheni said Cabinet was briefed on the process to bring them home.
“Cabinet was updated on the phased arrival of South African National Defence Force (SANDF) troops from the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) following the SADC decision to terminate the SAMIDRC intervention.
“About 1 718 SANDF troops have now arrived in the country, and more are expected to arrive over the next few weeks.
“Cabinet reaffirmed South Africa’s continued commitment to a peaceful, stable and prosperous Southern African region and commended the efforts by the SANDF troops to contribute towards restoring peace, security and stability in the DRC,” she said. – SAnews.gov.za
The IAM Local 601 Human Rights Committee proudly participated in the city of Anchorage’s annual Juneteenth celebration, joining community members, elected officials, and organizations honoring this historic day in African-American history.
The city of Anchorage hosted the Juneteenth event, which brought together a broad coalition of voices committed to celebrating freedom, resilience, and the ongoing pursuit of equity. IAM Local 601 set up a booth at the celebration, where members engaged directly with participants to share the vital role unions play in building fairer workplaces and stronger communities.
“Active participation in community events like the Anchorage Juneteenth celebration exemplifies the true spirit of the IAM – building inclusive spaces where every voice is heard and valued,” said IAM Air Transport Territory General Vice President Richie Johnsen. “By creating opportunities for learning and connection, we are not only strengthening our union but also advancing equity and justice beyond the workplace.
IAM members also engaged with local elected officials and community leaders, advocating for worker empowerment and dignity on the job. The presence of the IAM at this important cultural event reflects the union’s enduring commitment to justice, equity, and solidarity for all working people.
“Our members had powerful conversations with local residents about what it means to be union,” said IAM Human Rights Director Nicole Fears. “Moments like these remind us that the labor movement and the fight for human rights have always been linked. We cannot build power for working people without lifting every voice in our communities.”
The post Alaska Local 601 Human Rights Committee Stands Proud at Anchorage Juneteenth Celebration appeared first on IAM Union.
TORONTO, June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Churchill Resources Inc. (“Churchill” or the “Company“) (TSXV: CRI) is pleased to announce a non-brokered private placement of common shares to raise gross proceeds of up to $700,000. The Company is also pleased to announce a strategic leadership transition designed to strengthen the Company’s capital markets presence and operational execution as it advances its projects in Newfoundland and Labrador. Effective today, Paul Sobie, will step down from the role of Chief Executive Officer and continue in his capacity as President of the Company, and Conan McIntyre, a current director of Churchill, will assume the role of Chief Executive Officer.
Private Placement Financing The $700,000 private placement will comprise up to 14,000,000 common shares of the Company at a price of $0.05 per share (the “Private Placement”). The Company intends to use the proceeds from the Private Placement on the advancement of exploration activities at the Company’s key projects and for general corporate purposes. The Private Placement is expected to close on or about July 9, 2025, and remains subject to the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange.
Strategic Leadership Changes The leadership transition is designed to strengthen the Company’s strategic and operational capabilities while maximizing continuity benefits.
Mr. McIntyre will concentrate on corporate strategy, capital markets activities, and business development, while Paul Sobie will focus on advancing the Company’s exploration programs. Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Sobie will continue to serve on the Company’s board of directors along with Malik Easah and Bill Fisher, who will continue serving as Chairman.
“This strategic restructuring represents an important evolution for Churchill that will enable us to pursue multiple value-creation opportunities simultaneously while preserving operational expertise and local knowledge,” said Mr. McIntyre.
Mr. Sobie commented: “I am excited about the opportunity to dedicate my full attention to our exploration activities in Newfoundland and Labrador at Black Raven, as well as at Taylor Brook and Florence Lake. This focused approach will allow me to accelerate our field programs and maximize the value of our exploration assets.”
Mr. Fisher, Chairman of the Board, stated: “The exciting work being undertaken at Black Raven, in particular, continues to demonstrate the significant potential of our portfolio. Black Raven represents a truly exceptional exploration opportunity, featuring a polymetallic metal assemblage at the site of past producers that has never been drilled using modern exploration techniques. With the focused leadership structure we are implementing, I am confident we will unlock substantial value.”
About Churchill Resources Inc.
Churchill Resources Inc. is a Canadian exploration company focused on strategic, critical minerals in Canada, principally at its prospective Black Raven, Taylor Brook and Florence Lake properties in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Company’s flagship Black Raven property features a polymetallic metal assemblage with evidence of historical production, representing a unique exploration opportunity as the site of past producers that has never been systematically drilled using modern techniques. The Churchill management team, board, and advisors have decades of combined experience in mineral exploration and in the establishment of successful publicly listed mining companies, both in Canada and around the world. Churchill’s Newfoundland and Labrador projects have the potential to benefit from the province’s large and diversified minerals industry, which includes world class nickel mines and processing facilities, and a well-developed mineral exploration sector with locally based drilling and geological expertise.
Further Information
For further information regarding Churchill, please contact:
Paul Sobie, President Tel. +1 416.365.0930 (o); +1 647.988.0930 Email: psobie@churchillresources.com
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking Information This news release contains “forward-looking information” and “forward-looking statements” (collectively, “forward-looking statements”) within the meaning of the applicable Canadian securities legislation. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements and are based on expectations, estimates and projections as at the date of this news release. Any statement that involves discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions, future events or performance (often but not always using phrases such as “expects”, or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, “plans”, “proposed”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “forecasts”, “estimates”, “believes” or “intends” or variations of such words and phrases or stating that certain actions, events or results “may” or “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken to occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements. In this news release, forward-looking statements relate to, among other things, the completion of the Private Placement and the management changes; the receipt of all applicable regulatory approvals; the Company’s objectives, goals and exploration activities conducted and proposed to be conducted at the Company’s properties; future growth potential of the Company, including whether any proposed exploration programs at any of the Company’s properties will be successful; exploration results; the effectiveness of the new management structure; the benefits of operational continuity; potential value to be unlocked at the Company’s properties, including at Black Raven; the potential for resource discovery and expansion at Black Raven; and future exploration plans and costs and financing availability.
These forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions and estimates of management of the Company at the time such statements were made. Actual future results may differ materially as forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to materially differ from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors, among other things, include: risks related to the completion of the private placement and management changes; the expected benefits to the Company relating to the exploration conducted and proposed to be conducted at the Company’s properties; failure to identify any mineral resources or significant mineralization; uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future, including to fund any exploration programs on the Company’s properties; fluctuations in general macroeconomic conditions; fluctuations in securities markets; fluctuations in spot and forward prices of gold, silver, base metals or certain other commodities; fluctuations in currency markets (such as the Canadian dollar to United States dollar exchange rate); change in national and local government, legislation, taxation, controls, regulations and political or economic developments; risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining (including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations pressures, cave-ins and flooding); inability to obtain adequate insurance to cover risks and hazards; the presence of laws and regulations that may impose restrictions on mining and mineral exploration; employee relations; relationships with and claims by local communities and indigenous populations; availability of increasing costs associated with mining inputs and labour; the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development (including the risks of obtaining necessary licenses, permits and approvals from government authorities); the unlikelihood that properties that are explored are ultimately developed into producing mines; geological factors; actual results of current and future exploration; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be evaluated; title to properties; and those factors described in the most recently filed management’s discussion and analysis of the Company. Although the forward-looking statements contained in this news release are based upon what management of the Company believes, or believed at the time, to be reasonable assumptions, the Company cannot assure shareholders that actual results will be consistent with such forward-looking statements, as there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements and information. There can be no assurance that forward-looking information, or the material factors or assumptions used to develop such forward-looking information, will prove to be accurate. The Company does not undertake to release publicly any revisions for updating any voluntary forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable securities law. Neither the TSXV nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSXV) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
