Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolyn Nickson, Associate Professor, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Associate Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney
Australia’s BreastScreen program offers women regular mammograms (breast X-rays) based on their age. And this screening for breast cancer saves lives.
But much has changed since the program was introduced in the early 90s. Technology has developed, as has our knowledge of which groups of women might be at higher risk of breast cancer. So how we screen women for breast cancer needs to adapt.
In a recent paper, we’ve proposed a fundamental shift away from an age-based approach to a screening program that takes into account women’s risk of breast cancer.
We argue we could save more lives if screening tests and schedules were personalised based on someone’s risk.
We don’t yet know exactly how this might work in practice. We need to consult with all parties involved, including health professionals, government and women, and we need to begin Australian trials.
But here’s why we need to rethink how we screen for breast cancer in Australia.
Why does breast screening need to change?
Australia’s BreastScreen program was introduced in 1991 and offers women regular mammograms based on their age. Women aged 50–74 are targeted, but screening is available from the age of 40.
The program is key to Australia’s efforts to reduce the burden of breast cancer, providing more than a million screens each year.
Women who attend BreastScreen reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 49% on average.
Breast screening saves lives because it makes a big difference to find breast cancers early, before they spread to other parts of the body.
Despite this, around 75,000 Australian women are expected to die from breast cancer over the next 20 years if we continue with current approaches to breast cancer screening and management.
Who’s at high risk, and how best to target them?
International evidence confirms it is possible to identify groups of women at higher risk of breast cancer. These include:
women with denser breasts (where there’s more glandular and fibrous tissue than fatty tissue in the breasts) are more likely to develop breast cancer, and their cancers are harder to find on standard mammograms
women whose mother, sisters, grandmother or aunts have had breast or ovarian cancer, especially if there are multiple relatives and the cancers occurred at young ages
women who have been found to carry genetic mutations that lead to a higher risk of breast cancer (including women with multiple moderate risk mutations, as indicated by what’s known as a polygenic risk score).
Women in these and other high-risk groups might warrant a different form of screening. This could include screening from a younger age, screening more frequently, and offering more sensitive tests such as digital breast tomosynthesis (a 3D version of mammography), MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography (a type of mammography that uses a dye to highlight cancerous lesions).
But we don’t yet know:
how to best identify women at higher risk
which screening tests should be offered, how often and to whom
how to staff and run a risk-based screening program
how to deliver this in a cost-effective and equitable way.
The road ahead
This is what we have been working on, for Cancer Council Australia, as part of the ROSA Breast project.
This federally funded project has estimated and compared the expected outcomes and costs for a range of screening scenarios.
For each scenario we estimated the benefits (saving lives or less intense treatment) and harms (overdiagnosis and rates of investigations in women recalled for further investigation after a screening test who are found to not have breast cancer).
Of 160 potential screening scenarios we modelled, we shortlisted 19 which produced the best outcomes for women and were the most cost effective. The shortlisted scenarios tended to involve either targeted screening technologies for higher-risk women or screening technologies other than mammography for all screened women.
For example, in our estimates, making no change to the target age range or screening intervals but offering a more sensitive screening test to the 20% of women deemed to be at highest risk would save 113 lives over ten years.
Alternatively, commencing targeted screening from age 40 and offering a more sensitive screening test annually to the 20% of women at highest risk, and three-yearly screening (of the current kind) to the 30% of women at lowest risk, would save 849 lives over ten years.
However, less frequent screening of the lower risk group was expected to lead to small increases in breast cancer deaths in that group.
How do we best assess women for their risk of breast cancer? At this stage, there’s no one answer. Tint Media/Shutterstock
We also outlined 25 recommendations to put into action, and set out a five-year roadmap of how to get there. This includes:
a large scale trial to find out what is feasible, effective and affordable in Australia
making sure women at higher risk in different parts of Australia are offered suitable options regardless of where they live and who they see
testing how we assess women for their risk of breast cancer, including whether these assessments work as intended and make sense to women from a range of backgrounds
clinical studies of screening technologies to determine the best delivery models and associated costs
ongoing engagement with groups including women, health professionals and government.
Breast cancer screening review out soon
Federal health minister Mark Butler said a review of the BreastScreen program would consider our recommendations. The results of this review are expected soon.
We’ve provided an evidence-based roadmap towards better screening for breast cancer. Now is the time to commit to this journey.
We acknowledge Louiza Velentzis from the Daffodil Centre, and Paul Grogan and Deborah Bateson from the University of Sydney, who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article.
Carolyn Nickson led the ROSA Project for Cancer Council Australia. She receives funding from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care, the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Melbourne Health.
Bruce Mann works as a surgeon at Northwestern BreastScreen in Melbourne. He was a board member of the Breast Cancer Network Australia, which has improved screening as a key strategic objective. He is director of research at Breast Cancer Trials. If trials are done in this space, Breast Cancer Trials may be involved. He was a member of the ROSA Project coordination group and jointly chaired the project advisory groups.
Karen Canfell was executive lead for the ROSA Project discussed in this article. She has received grants from the Australian government’s Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund, the US National Cancer Institute and CDC, Cancer Research UK, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and government agencies in several countries. She co-leads an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, Compass, run by the Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity. Compass receives infrastructure support from the Australian government and the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA. She also co-leads an implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Indo-Pacific which has received support from the Australian government and the Minderoo Foundation, and equipment donations from Cepheid and Microbix.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Whiting, Vice-Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow in Music Industries and Cultural Economy, RMIT University
The Australian Music Venue Foundation launched this month to advocate for and potentially administer an arena ticket levy to support grassroots live music venues. Funds would be raised through a small levy, approximately A$1 per ticket, on the price of tickets to large music events, over 5,000 capacity.
The foundation is partly modelled on the United Kingdom’s Music Venue Trust, a charity and advocacy body founded in 2014 that has advocated for a big ticket levy.
While the proposed levy would certainly help to level the playing field between grassroots music venues and the big end of touring, the Music Venue Trust was founded on much more radical principles and ambitions than simple redistribution.
Socialising live music
Although the Music Venue Trust has moved into advocacy and policy work, such as vocal support for the big ticket levy, the trust’s original and continuing mission is to socialise grassroots music venues. This means they work to help venues transition away from for-profit models and towards alternative ownership structures.
The trust’s “Own Our Venues” campaign spawned Music Venue Properties, a charitable landlord funded by the broader music community. The scheme has now purchased five grassroots venues around the UK, leased on the condition they continue to run as live music venues.
The goal is to take the profit motive out of running a venue. Surplus is reinvested into venue spaces, ensuring their long-term sustainability.
As the trust’s founder and CEO Mark Davyd states, “[the community] is the best person to own a venue”.
We don’t want money going to private landlords, we want it in the cultural economy because that’s the way we generate more great artists and give more people the opportunity to be involved in music.
Acknowledging that such radical ambitions require funding, the trust have been long term advocates for a big ticket levy. However, this advocacy has always accompanied their greater goal of socialising live music venues.
The trust have helped to change the broader cultural understanding of grassroots venues in the UK. Between 2014 and 2022, the proportion of music venues in the country run as not-for-profit ventures increased from 3% to 26%.
The Australian context
Melbourne’s Gasometer Hotel and Brisbane’s The Bearded Lady are the latest small, but culturally significant, live music venues to face closure. The number of venues licensed for live music in Australia is falling, with the greatest reductions in the small-to-medium range.
The recent parliamentary inquiry into the live music industry found costs like insurance and rent have risen sharply in the last five years. Meanwhile, income from alcohol sales – a core revenue source for smaller venues – has dropped in connection with changing youth culture, the cost-of-living crisis, and excises hitched to inflation.
Costs to run music venues have increased, while income from avenues like alcohol sales have fallen. Frankie Cordoba/Unsplash
Surveys of young people and other groups affirm that Australians value live music, and most people would like to attend more. The most commonly cited barrier is cost, followed by distance from appropriate venues, especially in regional areas.
An arena ticket levy was a key recommendation of the inquiry, with the committee recommending government agency Music Australia should manage the funds.
capital improvements to venues, such as sound-proofing or disability access
festivals promoting regional, all-ages, First Nations and community participation.
Neither the Labor government nor the opposition have indicated a position on this recommendation, which would require legislation.
The industry proposal
The Australian Music Venue Foundation is asking big music businesses to opt in to an industry-managed ticket levy to fund grassroots live music.
While there has been advocacy for such a voluntary arrangement in the UK, this is yet to come to fruition. The UK government’s deadline for the arrangement of a voluntary scheme by the end of March is approaching, opening up the alternative scenario of a legislated mandatory levy.
Australian advocates believe they may have the relationships to create a different outcome, arguing all industry players have a stake in a healthy music ecosystem.
In the proposed Australian scheme, the recipients and use of funding would be decided by a board of industry professionals. This raises questions around potential conflicts of interest. The foundation has applied for charity status, which requires transparency around operations and finances. However, there are broader questions about priorities.
The foundation argues all levels of the industry have a stake in their being a healthy ecosystem of venues. Austin/Unsplash
If the scheme gets up, the foundation will need to consider whether to restrict its support to Australian-owned, independent venues of a certain size. Alternatively, funds may be available to venues that are part-owned by the same major, for-profit, international companies paying into the scheme.
To replace the proposed government levy, the foundation would also need to find ways of supporting access to live music for regional, all-ages, First Nations, and other disadvantaged communities, as recommended by the inquiry’s report.
The foundation could promote social objectives such as performer diversity, patron safety, and environmental sustainability, but there are no guarantees of this under an industry-led scheme.
These examples demonstrate the issues that can arise when economic redistribution is managed within an industry, rather than by government.
Lofty ambitions
The Music Venue Trust has successfully argued for grassroots music venues as a public good, worthy of longterm community and public investment as well as a structural approach to support.
Through their work, they have provided a new narrative for live music in the UK, supporting innovative ownership and operating models that go beyond the default of a commercially-leased space run as a for-profit small business.
Ambition and innovation has made the trust much more than another industry association advocating for the interests of a particular group of businesses. The Australian Music Venue Foundation should aspire to similar heights if it is to have the same level of influence and impact.
Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust.
Ben Green receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
In December 2024, the editorial board of the Journal of Human Evolution resigned en masse following disagreements with the journal’s publisher, Elsevier. The board’s grievances included claims of inadequate copyediting, misuse of artificial intelligence (AI), and the high fees charged to make research articles publicly available.
The previous year, more than 40 scientists who made up the entire academic board of a leading journal for brain imaging also walked off the job. The journal in question, Neuroimage, is also published by Elsevier, which the former board members accused of being “too greedy”.
Mass resignations of journal editors are becoming more frequent. They highlight the tension between running a for-profit publishing business and upholding research integrity.
For a long time, academic journals were a niche branch of publishing. They were run by and for research communities. But this started to change from the second world war onwards.
The expansion of research, combined with an influx of commercial publishing players and the rise of the internet in the 1990s, have transformed journal publishing into a highly concentrated and competitive media business.
Along with Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, SAGE, and Taylor & Francis make up what are known as the “big five” in academic publishing. Collectively, these publishers are responsible for roughly 50% of all research output.
A key factor in their profitability is volunteer labour provided by researchers. Traditional models of peer review are a good example of this. Academics provide publishers with content, in the form of journal articles. They also review their peers’ work for free. University libraries then pay for access to the final published journal on behalf of their research community.
Alongside the pressure on academics to publish, the push to “speed up science” through these systems of peer-review only contribute to issues of trust in research.
In 2023, academic publisher Elsevier recorded a profit of roughly $3.6 billion. T.Schneider/Shutterstock
Profit at the expense of research integrity
The increasing frequency of editorial board resignations reflects the tension between researchers trying to uphold scientific and research integrity, and publishers trying to run a for-profit business answerable to shareholders.
Research is most often built on spending taxpayers’ money.
Yet there is often little alignment between the profit imperatives of large, multinational publishers and the expectations of the communities and funding bodies that pay for the costs of research.
For example, for-profit publishing models mean the results of research often end up locked behind paywalls. This has implications for the dissemination of research findings. It also means the public may not be able to access information they need most, such as medical research.
The business of academic publishing also doesn’t always sit comfortably with the values and motives of scholarly inquiry and researchers.
As Arash Abizadeh, a former editor of Philosophy & Public Affairs – a leading political philosophy journal – wrote in The Guardian in July 2024:
Commercial publishers are incentivised to try to publish as many articles and journals as possible, because each additional article brings in more profit. This has led to a proliferation of junk journals that publish fake research, and has increased the pressure on rigorous journals to weaken their quality controls.
What could alternative academic publishing practices that safeguard the integrity of research look like?
The “publish-review-curate” model is one example.
This model has been adopted by community research
initiative MetaROR. It involves authors publishing their work as “preprints” which are immediately accessible to the community.
The work then goes through an open peer review process. Finally, an assessment report is produced based on the reviews.
This model aims to accelerate the dissemination of knowledge. It also aims to encourage a more transparent, collaborative, and constructive review process.
Another important advantage of preprints is that they are not locked behind paywalls. This makes it faster and easier for research communities to share new findings with other researchers quickly.
There are some drawbacks to this model. For example, preprints can cause confusion if they are publicised by the media too early.
The question of who should pay for and maintain online preprint servers, on which global research communities depend, is also a subject of continuing debate.
As the academic ecosystem continues to evolve, we will need publishing models that can adapt to the changes and needs of the research community and beyond.
Lucy Montgomery is part of the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative, and serves on Advisory Boards for several not-for-profit organisations involved in scholarly publishing and open access. She is a member of the UWA Press Board; as well as Chair of the Scientific Committee for the Directory of Open Access Books. She has received funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Arcadia Fund, and has previously consulted to both commercial and non-commercial scholarly presses.
Emilia Bell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship for their doctoral research. They are a non-executive director of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) and Manager, Research and Digital Services at Murdoch University Library. Emilia is also affiliated with several organisations in the wider not-for-profit, higher education, and library sectors.
Karl Huang is affiliated with the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) project, which receives or has received funding from Curtin University, Mellon Foundation, and Arcadia Fund. COKI also works closely with non-profit partners internationally and in Australia. Karl is also affiliated with the Centre for Culture and Technology, as its current Director, at Curtin University.
Source: US House of Representatives – Democratic Caucus
The following text contains opinion that is not, or not necessarily, that of MIL-OSI – March 20, 2025
FOSTER CITY, CA — Today, House Democratic Chair Pete Aguilar appeared on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper to talk about the party’s ongoing fight to protect Medicaid.
TAPPER: I want to ask you, first of all, you hear from a lot of Democrats out there, we’ve been playing their soundbites for the last week or so, do something! Do something! Well, you’re in the minority in the House. What can you do that you’re not doing?
CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: Well, we can definitely work to activate the American people and to shine a light on what Donald Trump and Elon Musk are doing to systematically shut down government and raise their prices. And that’s what people care about. They care that tariffs are going to increase the costs that they face in the supermarket or at the gas station. They care that Medicaid is under attack by House Republicans and that will make health care more costly and less accessible. And they care that their local schools aren’t going to get the funding that they need if the Department of Education is eliminated under Donald Trump’s plan. Those are things the American people care about, and what we can do is shine a light on that.
TAPPER: So, every single House Democrat voted against funding the government, except for one in a Trump district in Maine. Every one of you voted against the Continuing Resolution. And then I thought that Senate Democrats were going to do the same thing, and most of them voted the same way you did, but enough of them voted with Republicans to pass it. What was your reaction? Were you upset with Senate Leader Schumer? Do you agree with some of your colleagues, that we’re beginning to hear, that it’s time for Senate Democrats to think about a new leader?
CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: Well, first, I’m a Californian and I appreciate the leadership of Senator Padilla and Senator Schiff who both voted no. And we voted no, collectively, California Democrats and our Senate counterparts voted no because Donald Trump is slow walking a government shutdown already. We felt that giving appropriators more time, four weeks to negotiate spending limits and bills, would have been the appropriate move. The Senate decided to do something else. We’re looking forward, though. We’re looking forward at the next legislative fight that we’re going to have to have because House Republicans continue to insist on raising people’s costs and cutting programs that our communities rely on, from the Department of Education and IDEA funding and funding that goes into the classrooms to Medicaid. Those are the battles that are worth fighting for, Jake, and those are things the American people stand squarely with us on. And that’s what you’re going to see us focus on moving forward. I know it’s popular to talk about who said what when last week, but we’re focusing our energy on how we protect the American people and how we drive down costs that everyday Americans face.
TAPPER: Well, just for the record, I think 35 of like 45, or whatever the number is, Senate Democrats voted the same way you did, including Padilla and Schiff, but most of them voted the same way you did. Most Senate Democrats voted the way you did. It was Schumer, and maybe like ten others that voted the other way. You have confidence in Schumer? You’re totally cool with him continuing to be the leader of the Senate Democrats?
CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: I don’t get to make that decision. My job is, as a House Member, we are lockstep behind Hakeem Jeffries as the leader of our party and our efforts to retake the House and to get to 218 votes so we can have some sanity back and we can have a reasonable check. I think what happened last week, though, further underscores that it’s House Democrats who are going to stand up and speak up, and it’s House Democrats who have the best opportunity to provide a check on Donald Trump next year, if not sooner, if we can get to 218 votes. But in the meantime, we’re going to keep fighting for the American people and protecting Medicaid and protecting so many of these vital programs from being cut.
TAPPER: So, I’m going to move on, but just for the record, I’ve asked you about Senator Schumer twice, and you’ve praised Padilla, Schiff and Jeffries. Enough said. So, Senator…
CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: Those are all good elected officials.
TAPPER: Yeah, it’s interesting what you’re saying and not saying. So let me ask you, Senator Elissa Slotkin, former House colleague, now a Senator, was at a roundtable discussion yesterday. She was asked why she isn’t aggressive like Senator Sanders or Congresswoman Crockett or AOC, who we just heard from. Take a listen to part of what she had to say.
SENATOR ELISSA SLOTKIN: I can’t just chain myself to the White House and become an activist full-time because you and others here are going to call me for things that you need. All of those things require me to be more than just an AOC. I can’t do what she does because we live in a purple state and I’m a pragmatist.
TAPPER: Spoken like somebody who’s not going to have reelection for six years. You believe that there’s always room to push back more. Can Democrats really do that in purple states, in battleground districts, the way that voters are demanding them to?
CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: You highlighted it before. We are in the minority in the House and in the Senate. We don’t control the White House. The levers which we can pull are very limited. What we can do is speak to issues that people care about. We can understand their economic anxiety that they’re facing, and that that was part of why they made the decision that they made if they didn’t vote the way that we wanted them to last November. And so, we’re focused on how we build a coalition, how we reach out in purple districts like in Michigan, like Elissa Slotkin comes from and represents, as well as across this country. in understanding the economic anxiety that people are having and what are our solutions to face that. And oftentimes that isn’t going to mean being the loudest voice. It means what is our plan and strategy to how we achieve that. And we think that we’re meeting those goals now.
TAPPER: Good to see you, Congressman Pete Aguilar, the Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. Thanks so much for being with us.
The IAM Union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM) held an event on Monday, March 24 to celebrate and honor federal employees’ hard work and dedication. The event took place outside L’Enfant Plaza Metro Station during peak commute hours. Supporters gathered to show appreciation for federal workers who provide essential services across the nation. Many federal agencies are in close proximity to the L’Enfant Plaza Metro Station.
View photos from the event and watch a video recap
Union members engaged with commuting federal workers and held signs thanking them for their service. Federal workers were also greeted by IAM Union International President Brian Bryant, AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler, IAM Union Resident General Vice President Jody Bennett, and NFFE-IAM National President Randy Erwin.
“Federal employees dedicate their lives to serving the American people, often under challenging circumstances,” said IAM Union International President Brian Bryant. “It’s crucial that we take time to recognize their hard work and commitment, not just on special occasions, but every day. They are going through a difficult time. We are proud to support them with a simple thank you.”
The event continues to underscore the importance of supporting federal employees when they are under attack from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
“Federal workers are the unsung heroes who keep our government functioning,” said Randy Erwin, National President of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM). “They deserve our respect, our support, and fair treatment. This event is a small way to show our appreciation for their dedication and service.”
“We are here with the IAM and NFFE-IAM standing up for federal workers,” said National AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler. “Federal workers need dignity and respect, not to be dishonored and demoralized by all these cuts that Elon Musk and others are making across our government. Because federal workers deliver essential services. They make sure that our country is protected, and the work they do should be honored.”
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers is one of North America’s largest and most diverse industrial trade unions, representing approximately 600,000 active and retired members in the aerospace, defense, airlines, railroad, transit, healthcare, automotive, and other industries.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Labor today announced Catherine Eschbach will lead the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
“I’m honored to serve as director of the OFCCP under the Trump Administration and oversee its transition to its new scope of mission,” Eschbach said. “President Trump made clear in his executive order on eliminating DEI that EO 11246 had facilitated federal contractors adopting DEI practices out of step with the requirements of our Nation’s civil rights laws and that, with the recission of EO 11246, the President mandates federal contractors wind those practices down within 90 days. As director, I’m committed to carrying out President Trump’s executive orders, which will restore a merit-based system to provide all workers with equal opportunity.”
Prior to her appointment, Eschbach worked for six years in Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP’s appellate group where her practice focused on complex constitutional, statutory, and administrative law issues. In that role, she spearheaded successful path-making litigation to return the federal government’s practices to its constitutional limits, including issues affecting OFCCP. As an active attorney in Houston’s legal community, Eschbach was appointed by the Texas Supreme Court to its advisory Grievance Oversight Committee and served as the president of the Houston Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society.
Before joining the firm, Eschbach served as a judicial law clerk for now-Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. She holds a J.D. from the Pepperdine School of Law and a B.S. from Vanderbilt University.
Source: United States Senator for Vermont – Bernie Sanders
BURLINGTON, Vt., March 24 – Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday will hold a roundtable discussion with the student finalists of his fifteenth annual State of the Union Essay Contest at the Vermont State House.
This year, 475 students from 25 Vermont high schools submitted essays. A panel of nine Vermont educators served as volunteer judges, ranking the essays and selecting 12 finalists and three winners. Students wrote on critically important issues, including climate change, access to mental health care, the opioid epidemic, immigration reform, the housing crisis, political polarization, and the cost of higher education. Sanders also entered the finalists’ essays into the Congressional Record, the official archive of the U.S. Congress.
Read the essays of the winners and finalists here.
Details:
What: State of the Union Essay Contest Roundtable with student finalists and Sen. Sanders
When: Saturday, March 29, 2:00 p.m.
Where: Vermont State House, House Chamber
Notes: Attendance is limited to student participants, their invited guests, and members of the press. Media members must RSVP by contacting press@sanders.senate.gov. Please be in place 15 minutes prior to the event start time. All attendees are expected to follow Vermont Department of Health guidance, monitor symptoms, and are encouraged to take a rapid COVID-19 test prior to the event.
United States President Donald Trump recently argued “he who saves his country does not violate any Law” as he ignores Congress and the courts, governs by executive order and threatens international laws and treaties.
Republican leaders moved dramatically to the right, and the primary system allowed the choice of an extremist. Republican voters then aligned their opinions with his. Trump’s disdain for democratic fundamentals spread quickly. Partisans defending their team slid away from democratic values.
Canada’s more centrist ideological spectrum is not foolproof against this type of extremism. Public opinion can be moved when our leaders take us there.
Decline can start slowly and then accelerate. America’s democratic backsliding in the first weeks of Trump’s second presidency follows the erosion of democratic norms over decades. Republican attacks on institutions, the opposition, the media and higher education corrosively undermined public faith in the truth, including election results.
Trust in government is holding steady in Canada, however. That provides an important guardrail for Canadian democracy.
The dangers of courting the far right
There are also lessons for our political parties. To maximize their seats, Republicans accepted extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene, but soon needed those types of politicians for key votes.
The so-called Freedom Caucus, made up of MAGA adherents, forced the choice of a new, more extreme, leader of the House of Representatives. This provides a clear lesson that history has shown many times: it is dangerous for the party on the political right to accommodate the far right, which can quickly take control.
Once established within the ruling party, extremists can hold their party hostage.
Austria recently avoided the inclusion of the far right in its new coalition, and now Germany is working to do the same. As Canada’s Conservatives look for every vote, courting far-right voters and candidates risks destabilizing the system.
They clearly did not imagine party loyalty negating the safeguards that protect democracy from an authoritarian-minded president. The Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate and impeach, limits the executive’s power to spend and make appointments, gives the judiciary power to hold an executive accountable and contains the 25th amendment allowing cabinet to remove a president.
But when one party controls the legislative and executive branches during a time of hyper-partisanship, these mechanisms may not constrain an authoritarian. Today, Republican loyalty has eroded these checks and balances and American courts are struggling to step up to their heightened role.
Although counter-intuitive, parliamentary systems like Canada’s are usually less susceptible to authoritarianism than presidential ones because the cabinet or the House of Commons can turn against a lawless leader.
Still, if popular, authoritarian leaders can still retain their party’s support — and then things can slide quickly. The rightward pull of extremists seen in the U.S. House would be more dangerous here since the Canadian House of Commons includes our executive.
Guarding against xenophobia
Lastly, Canada should be wary of xenophobic rhetoric.
“America First” is not simply shopping advice. It began as an isolationist slogan during the First World War but was soon adopted by pro-fascists, American Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. These entities questioned who is really American and wanted not only isolationism, but racist policies, immigration restrictions and eugenics.
Trump did not revive the phrase accidentally. It’s a call to America’s fringes. Alienating domestic groups is a sure sign of democratic decline.
“Canada First” mimics that century-long dark theme in America. In combination with contempt for the opposition, it questions the right of other parties to legitimately hold power if used as a message by one party.
Also, asserting that “Canada is broken” — as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre often does — mimics Trump’s talk of American carnage, language and imagery he uses to justify extraordinary presidential authority.
Such language erodes citizens’ trust in democratic institutions and primes voters to support undemocratic practices in the name of patriotism. Canadian parties and politicians should exit that road.
Ultimately, institutions alone do not protect a country from the rise of authoritarianism. Democracy can be fragile. As a federal election approaches in Canada, it’s important to know the warning signs of extremism and anti-democratic practices that are creeping into our politics.
Matthew Lebo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael R. King, Associate Professor, Gustavson School of Business and Lansdowne Chair in Finance, University of Victoria
An Ontario court has approved the liquidation of nearly all Hudson’s Bay Company’s stores, marking the end of Canada’s oldest company, which has been in operation for 355 years. The liquidation is set to begin March 24, and will continue until June 15, leaving only six stores in operation.
The court’s decision came shortly after Hudson’s Bay filed for creditor protection, signalling the company’s struggle to manage its mounting debt.
With widespread layoffs sure to follow, this corporate collapse is both shocking and distressing. But the court documents suggest it was not unexpected. Hudson’s Bay lost $329.7 million in the 12 months leading up to Jan. 31, 2025. As of that date, Hudson’s Bay had only $3.3 million in cash and owed more than $2 billion in debt and leases.
The final straw appears to have been trade tensions between Canada and the U.S., with the increased geopolitical and economic uncertainty leading lenders to shun Hudson’s Bay as it sought more financing, according to court documents.
What bankruptcy looks like
The downfall of a major company like Hudson’s Bay brings with it a wave of financial jargon. Understanding the differences between insolvency, bankruptcy, restructuring and liquidation is crucial to fully grasp the situation.
Insolvency occurs when a business runs out of cash and cannot pay its bills. At the start of March, it was $5 million behind on rent and supplier payments, and within days of missing payroll.
Bankruptcy is a legal process under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act where a company files for protection from its creditors. The goal is to avoid the social and economic costs of liquidation, preserve jobs and protect the interests of affected stakeholders. If granted, the judge sets a “stay period” where the company works out a restructuring plan with its creditors.
Hudson’s Bay has more than 2,000 creditors, including $430 million in secured term loans, $724 million in mortgages and $512 million to unsecured creditors, mostly owed to suppliers. Hudson’s Bay also owes payroll remittances, federal sales taxes and over $60 million in customer gift cards and loyalty points. Gift cards are good until April 6.
A restructuring wipes out the equity holders and allows a company to negotiate a reduction in its debts. The business continues to operate under the supervision of a court-appointed monitor, using interim financing to pay bills. If successful, the company re-emerges from bankruptcy and continues to do business.
If restructuring is not successful, the company asks the court for permission to liquidate. Liquidation means a “fire sale” of all assets such as inventory, shelving, real estate, leases and trademarks. Items are sold at a deep discount, leading to potential bargains.
The Ontario Superior Court denied the initial request to liquidate on March 14, telling Hudson’s Bay and its creditors to “lower the temperature” and work on a deal. With only limited progress and some concessions made to support Hudson’s Bay’s joint venture with RioCan REIT, the court gave permission for the liquidation on March 21.
Many will lose, some will win
The collapse of Hudson’s Bay will leave many facing financial losses, while a select few stand to gain.
Secured creditors, some suppliers and Hudson’s Bay pensioners are expected to be protected by the courts. However, many others, including thousands of customers and more than 1,800 unsecured creditors, will suffer a financial hit.
The hardest impact will be felt by the more than 9,300 employees losing their jobs. Employees will lose their income, health and disability benefits, and life insurance, significantly impacting families across the country.
However, employees will not lose their pension benefits. The company’s pension plan is fully funded and in surplus position. This was not the case for Sears Canada when it went bankrupt in 2018. A surplus means the value of investments is greater than the promised benefits and is good news for retirees.
Mall landlords will also lose out. Hudson’s Bay drove foot traffic in malls across the country where it was the anchor-tenant. There will likely be painful ripple effects for smaller Hudson’s Bay store owners, including falling sales, defaults on mortgages and business failures.
When a company is liquidated, the proceeds from selling its assets are used to repay claimants based on their priority in bankruptcy. This is sometimes referred to as the waterfall of “who gets what.” Think of it as a queue with people lining up to get paid.
Interim DIP financing is paid off first, together with legal and accounting fees related to the bankruptcy. Essential operating costs during the restructuring are also paid, including employee wages.
Next come secured creditors. These lenders provided funding backed by specific assets, known as collateral. Collateral may include inventory and real estate. A similar process happens on a personal residence; if a homeowner defaults on their mortgage payments, the bank may take possession of the house.
Third in line are debts granted priority by the courts. Employees receive unpaid wages up to a certain cap, just under $9,000, under the federal Wage Earner Protection Program. Pension benefits are paid out and outstanding payroll and sales tax remittances are paid.
As the pool of assets gets smaller, unsecured creditors are paid off next including suppliers, landlords and employees owed additional wages or termination benefits.
Last in the queue from the wind-up are equity holders — the residual claimants — who control the company through their common and preferred shares.
In 2020, Hudson’s Bay’s CEO Richard Baker and a group of investors took the company private, meaning it was no longer publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, buying out shareholders for approximately $2 billion. This stake is now wiped out.
Disappointing, but not surprising
Hudson’s Bay’s current financial situation is disappointing, but not surprising. The COVID-19 pandemic made times tough for brick-and-mortar retailers. On top of this, under-investment and a failed e-commerce strategy left the company struggling to compete in an increasingly digital retail landscape.
In the end, Hudson’s Bay backed itself into a corner, arguably waiting too long to secure funding and ultimately losing control of its own destiny. Its bankruptcy is a major blow to Canadian retail, marking the end of a era for a company that lasted more than three-and-a-half centuries.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Today’s blog post is a guest post by foreign law specialist at the Law Library of Congress, Stephania Alvarez. Stephania has previously published the following blog post to In Custodia Legis: FALQs: Guyana-Venezuela Territorial Dispute, and Join Us on 11/21 for a Foreign and Comparative Law Webinar titled “Review of Law Library of Congress Research Reports Published in 2024.”
A new report on Peru’s Civic Space Legal Framework is now available on the Law Library of Congress website. The report offers a comprehensive overview of the constitutional principles governing access to information, freedom of expression, ethnic plurality and cultural expression, freedom of association, the right to privacy, and freedom of the press and media in Peru.
This report examines the scope and limitations of fundamental rights related to civic space as established by the Peruvian Constitution, various statutes, and regulatory frameworks. It is divided into several sections, each addressing a specific constitutional principle and exploring the relevant legal framework and potential challenges to the exercise of these rights.
According to the report, the Peruvian Constitution safeguards individuals’ rights to privacy, including the protection of their personal data. There are specific laws and regulations that govern the collection, use, and protection of personal information. Additionally, Peruvian law guarantees the right to access public information, subject to limited exceptions for sensitive data. The government is obligated to provide information upon request, and specific laws outline the procedures and penalties for non-compliance.
Peruvian citizens enjoy freedom of speech, expression, and assembly. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to limitations to protect public order, morality, and individual reputation. Notably, defamation, libel, and slander are considered criminal offenses in Peru, even when committed through the media. The Peruvian constitution guarantees freedom of the press and media. However, this right is subject to limitations intended to safeguard individual reputation and public order.
Peruvian law acknowledges and protects the rights of indigenous groups to use their native languages and preserve their cultural heritage. Additionally, Peru has ratified international agreements designed to promote cultural diversity. In Peru, individuals have the right to form associations and unions without prior authorization. Organizations are subject to several regulations and are penalized for committing illegal activities.
We invite you to review our report here.
The report is an addition to the Law Library’s Legal Reports (Publications of the Law Library of Congress) collection, which includes over 4,000 historical and contemporary legal reports covering a variety of jurisdictions, researched and written by foreign law specialists with expertise in each area. To receive alerts when new reports are published, you can subscribe to email updates and the RSS feed for Law Library Reports (click the “subscribe” button on the Law Library’s website). The Law Library also regularly publishes articles on Peru in the Global Legal Monitor.
Subscribeto In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.
Critics have long accused the agency – and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia – of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.
But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of anti-American ideas and agendas – including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.
Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.
Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?
Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex – as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.
Public service or state propaganda?
The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.
Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.
Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed – or even known – by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.
On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.
Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.
Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.
The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.
In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement. CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.
Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.
A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave. Getty Images
Other voices get louder
The biggest concern for western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind – including in the Pacific.
Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.
An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.
Switched off
Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.
This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.
But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week the New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.
Valerie A. Cooper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) will host his sixth Federal Judiciary Youth Summit on Monday, April 14, 2025, at the U.S. Courthouse in Cedar Rapids. The summit allows students and educators to learn more about the federal judiciary system and their constitutional freedoms.
Grassley has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee throughout his time in the U.S. Senate and continually advocates for civic engagement and appreciation of the nation’s system of checks and balances.
“As the first farmer to ever chair the Judiciary Committee, I know how important it is for people of all backgrounds to gain an understanding of the judicial process,” Grassley said. “Participants will be able to learn and ask questions about a branch of government that can often seem complex and unapproachable. The courts interpret the law and defend the constitutional freedoms we enjoy on a daily basis. Learning how these decisions are made and upheld will provide a valuable experience for these students. I’m pleased to host this opportunity once again.”
The summit will feature Chief Judge C.J. Williams, a Senate-confirmed judge for the Northern District of Iowa, as the speaker. The event will start with a welcome reception followed by a question-and-answer session. 62 area high schools have been invited to participate. Each school is allowed to bring four juniors or seniors, accompanied by one teacher.
Attendees from last year’s summit praised the experience:
“I really enjoyed the session,” said Madelyn Gobble of Fort Madison High School. “[It was] interesting to hear a real-life perspective from both [Judge Locher] and Senator Chuck Grassley, as well as getting that perspective of being from such a small town and being able to go on and be something larger.”
“I thought this was a very beneficial experience. We got to learn about our judicial system and speak with some very influential people in our society,” said Jack Hoffman of Clinton High School.
Learn more about Grassley’s role and responsibilities as Judiciary Chairman HERE.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Press release
Foot and Mouth disease controls amended in Germany
Import ban amended following outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Germany.
As of 24 March 2025, the import ban currently in place due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease on cattle, pigs, sheep, deer, buffaloes and their products such as meat, and dairy from Germany will be amended.
This decision follows rigorous technical assessment of the measures applied in Germany and the current situation. If the situation changes, we will not hesitate to take necessary action in response to the FMD outbreaks in the European Union to protect our domestic biosecurity.
Great Britain has officially recognized regionalisation for FMD in Germany at the containment zone level, which covers a 6km radius around the outbreak. Consequently, the export of affected commodities can resume from areas outside this zone, provided all other import requirements are satisfied.
Personal imports of packaged and unpackaged meat, meat products, milk and dairy products, certain composite products and animal by products of pigs and ruminants will remain in place at a country level.
FMD poses no risk to human or food safety, but is a highly contagious viral disease of cattle, sheep, pigs and other cloven-hoofed animals. Livestock keepers should therefore be absolutely rigorous about their biosecurity.
Foot and mouth disease is a notifiable disease and must be reported. If you suspect foot and mouth disease in your animals, you must report it immediately by calling:
H.R. 744 would allow state and local governments that receive disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to repurpose unused funds that were originally allocated for management costs to increase their administrative capacity to prepare for, recover from, or mitigate the effects of future disasters. Under current law, unused funds generally are returned to the Disaster Relief Fund and used for disaster recovery. Those governments could retain unused funds from amounts appropriated after enactment for disasters that are declared on or after enactment of H.R. 744. Those funds would not be available for repurposing until a grant has reached its closeout date, which occurs at the completion of all projects funded by the grant, and would then remain available for five years from that point.
The bill also would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO), within six months of enactment, to report to the Congress on the amount of management costs incurred over the past five years, how those amounts were used by state and local governments, and whether the amounts set aside to cover management costs are appropriate.
Using information from FEMA and state and local officials in the disaster response field, CBO expects that smaller states—particularly those with smaller budgets for disaster recovery—would be most likely to repurpose unused funds to hire permanent staff. Based on an analysis of historic obligations for disaster recovery, CBO expects that the amount of funds available to repurpose in 2025 would be small, because most grants are available for several years after a disaster has occurred. The amount of funding available for repurposing would grow steadily over time, as more grants are closed out. In total, CBO expects that over time between 10 and 20 smaller states would each hire or retain an additional one to four employees to perform work related to disaster response and preparedness, at an average cost of about $100,000 per employee. CBO expects that those governments also would repurpose funds for other activities that would build administrative capacity, such as training, outreach, and creating disaster response plans. In total, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $15 million over the 2025-2030 period. Estimated costs would continue to increase after 2030, as more funds become available for repurposing.
CBO estimates that the GAO report would cost less than $500,000 in 2025.
Any related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
The costs of the legislation, detailed in Table 1, fall within budget function 450 (community and regional development).
Table 1.
Estimated Increases in Spending Subject to Appropriation Under H.R. 744
By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2025-2030
Estimated Authorization
1
1
2
3
5
5
17
Estimated Outlays
*
1
2
3
4
5
15
* = between zero and $500,000.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jon Sperl. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Kwateng-Yeboah, Assistant Professor, Department for the Study of Religion, Saint Mary’s University
Aspirations transform migration from mere physical movement into a deeply personal conviction, reshaping how individuals see themselves and their futures. (NEOM/Unsplash)
When governments, policymakers or the news media discuss migration, the focus is almost exclusively on those who physically cross borders, seek asylum or arrive at ports of entry. But migration does not begin at at the moment of departure or upon arrival. It starts much earlier, as an aspiration.
In the United States, that figure has hit a record 21 per cent. These figures challenge the common assumption that Canada and the U.S. are simply migration destinations. Increasingly, they are also places people aspire to leave. But what fuels migration desire?
As a scholar of religion and migration, my recently published research focuses on aspiring migrants: those who dream and plan for a future elsewhere, even if they never leave.
While studies have shown how religion might aid or hinder a person’s integration into new societies, I explore how religion shapes who wants to migrate in the first place and why.
Not everyone who wants to migrate will ultimately do so, but their aspirations matter. Migration aspirations influence education, career choices, family formation and even political engagement. Yet, the forces behind these aspirations remain largely understudied.
Migration aspirations influence education, career choices, family formation and even political engagement. (Evangeline Shaw/Unsplash)
Who wants to migrate?
My interviews with young Ghanaians between the ages of 20 and 35 reveal that migration is not just about where people go. It’s also about who they believe they are meant to be.
Analyzing 565 surveys and 25 in-depth interviews, I found that the aspiraton to migrate was widespread, with nearly 78 per cent of those surveyed expressing a desire to migrate. However, aspirations were not evenly distributed.
University students were the most eager to migrate, often viewing higher education abroad as a stepping stone. Family history also shaped migration aspirations. Those with relatives abroad and no prior travel experience were significantly more likely to want to leave, suggesting the influence of migrant social networks.
Yet the strongest predictors of migration aspirations among participants were experiences like dreams, prophecies and intuitions that were considered religiously significant.
Individuals who reported having migration-related dreams were more than twice as likely to express a strong desire to migrate, while those who believed migration was part of a divine plan were more than three times as likely. These findings challenge the traditional idea that migration is purely an economic decision, highlighting the role of religion and spirituality.
Spiritual experiences and migration
Dreams, prophecies and intuitions do more than inspire migration desires. They shape how people perceive and legitimize migration. These experiences transform migration from mere physical movement into a deeply personal conviction, reshaping how they see themselves and their futures.
Participants in my study who had migratory dreams described them as vivid, immersive experiences in which they found themselves leaving their homeland, boarding airplanes or settling in foreign countries.
These dreams transported them into sensory encounters with airports, unfamiliar climates like snowfall and racially diverse communities. Such dreams made migration feel imminent, influencing behaviours such as preparing travel documents and expanding social networks.
Prophecy in many religious traditions are declarations made by spiritual leaders, often perceived as divine revelations about an individual’s life, future or destiny. In the context of migration, these prophecies foretell a person’s foreseeable journey abroad, shaping their understanding of the future.
Dreams, prophecies and intuitions do more than inspire migration desires. They shape how individuals perceive and legitimize migration. (Adedotun Adegborioye/Unsplash)
Migratory prophecies are often delivered in Pentecostal-Charismatic churches, through sermons, prayer sessions or direct pronouncements from pastors. Their significance lies not in predictive accuracy, but in their ability to inspire, shape emotions, and guide behaviours regarding migration.
These prophecies legitimize a person’s migration aspirations as part of a divine plan, enhancing the aspiring migrant’s self-perception as one destined for success. They foster an internalized identity of a successful migrant even before the individual embarks on their journey, highlighting their potential to elevate social status and bring honour to their families and communities.
Intuitions attributed to divine prompting also generate an inner certainty about migration. People feel an inexplicable but profound conviction that they must migrate, leading them to align their life decisions with what they perceive as a higher plan.
By reinforcing deeply held aspirations, spiritual experiences do not just shape the desire to migrate; they construct the migrant’s very sense of self, embedding migration into their personal identity long before they ever set foot on foreign soil.
Informing policy
Most migration policies focus on border control, but rarely consider the social and cultural dynamics that shape migration. Dreams, prophecies and intuitions act as indicators of unmet aspirations.
Understanding these experiences can help migration policymakers create strategies that are cross-culturally sensitive and context-specific. These strategies should move beyond the economics of migration to address the full spectrum of human motivations.
Additionally, governments and news media must confront idealized narratives of migration destinations portrayed as utopias of opportunity. When such expectations clash with the stark realities of labour exploitation, cultural alienation and systemic racism, the resulting disillusionment can profoundly affect the well-being of individuals and communities.
A responsible approach to migration must present a balanced view, acknowledging both opportunities and challenges, while preparing aspiring migrants for the complexities of their journeys and recognizing their aspirations as integral to their personhood.
James Kwateng-Yeboah does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Matthew S Miller, Executive Director, Global Nexus and M.G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University
If the H5N1 avian flu virus learns to spread efficiently from person to person, it could pose an imminent threat to humanity.(CDC and NIAID), CC BY
Infectious disease outbreaks have a bad habit of piling on at the worst possible times.
The 1918 flu pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu, caught the world by surprise just as the First World War was coming to an end. It was responsible for killing three to five per cent of the world’s population (50-100 million people, equivalent to about 400 million today).
Now, as we reflect on five years since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic and face economic uncertainty imposed by the United States administration — as well as lingering conflicts in places such as the Middle East and Ukraine — it’s the steady march of avian influenza, or “bird flu,” that poses an imminent threat to humanity.
Walter Reed hospital flu ward in Washington, D.C. during the flu epidemic of 1918-19, which killed three to five per cent of the world’s population. (Shutterstock)
Bird flu has been causing a flurry of human infections, especially in U.S. cattle workers. If the virus learns to spread effectively from human to human, it could change the course of history. Even though our weary world already feels maxed out, we have to make room to avert yet another crisis.
The question is whether we will act in time to head off a bird flu pandemic. The Spanish Flu was the first of five influenza pandemics since the end of the First World War.
A sixth is inevitable without co-ordinated global action. Otherwise, the only questions are when it will it come and how bad it will be.
Infectious diseases constitute a permanent threat to society, especially as vaccine hesitancy and misinformation grow. Fighting pandemics needs to be a full-time, ongoing priority for governments everywhere.
Canada needs to establish permanent capacity to prevent and respond to health emergencies. Government agencies specifically dedicated to supporting the development of medical countermeasures for pathogens that pose a pandemic risk, like the recently established Health Emergencies Readiness Canada (HERC), are a step in the right direction.
However, we must also re-prioritize investments in the fundamental research that is the birthplace of new medical and non-medical solutions to pandemic preparedness — where we currently lag far behind essentially all of our G7 counterparts. This has never been more important than in the current global political context.
The world needs to adopt a collective mentality that we are “all in” on prevention if we want to maximize our chances of avoiding the next pandemic. We cannot sit on our hands and hope we get lucky. That strategy has failed us in the past and will doom us in the future.
But the effort to stop or at least slow avian influenza needs to include all countries and to engage everyday people, especially those who work directly with birds, cattle and other wild and domestic animals.
Targeted interventions
The best tactics to stave off a pandemic, at least at this point, are relatively unintrusive, targeted interventions. It’s critical that farm workers, veterinarians and others who work with animals follow careful protocols such as wearing masks and goggles, sanitizing equipment and continuing to cull poultry flocks where exposure is identified.
We also need to educate hunters about protective measures to lower their risk of exposure.
Most mitigation measures are entirely non-medical — though offering vaccines to those at high risk of exposure, as Finland has done, would be prudent. It’s much easier to target vaccination programs to high-risk groups than to organize a global vaccine campaign after a pandemic has begun.
We need to encourage these groups to take every possible action to protect themselves — and therefore the world — and to provide financial supports that enable them to comply without cost.
If avian flu becomes established among humans, which could happen rapidly and with very little warning, COVID-19 has shown that only a swift, decisive and truly global approach can fend off disaster.
A significant lesson from COVID-19 is that we have to support pandemic prevention and response efforts for people in every corner of the world, however remote they may be, and that we must reach vulnerable populations within wealthy countries, such as elderly, frail and marginalized people, and those affected by poverty. These are the people always impacted most by infectious diseases.
A selective distribution of resources among the planet’s wealthiest populations will not provide the protection the world needs and will only enlarge and extend the reach of a new pandemic.
We must remember what it was like to close down schools, workplaces and public gatherings and to have hospitals overflowing with patients as clinicians risked their lives to care for them.
We could have saved so many people and so much money by taking the threat more seriously from the outset, including providing better public education about evidence-based measures such as masking and vaccines.
It’s past time we made pandemic prevention and response a permanent priority, no matter what else is happening in the world.
Matthew S Miller is co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer of AeroImmune Inc. He has received compensation from Seqirus, Sanofi, GSK, Roche, Grifols, and Aramis Biotechnologies for participating on advisory boards and for supporting educational activities. He has received research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Ontario Centre of Innovation, Bay Area Health Trust, Providence Therapeutics, JN Nova Pharma, Lactiga, and Zentek. He is a member of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization COVID-19 Working Group and H5N1 Influenza Working Group. He is also a member of the Ontario Immunization Advisory Committee and the Public Health Agency of Canada Expert Panel on Avian Influenza A(H5Nx).
To support the recovery of unpaid oil and gas property taxes, Alberta’s government is establishing a working group with municipal partners. This working group will explore the issue in depth and investigate potential solutions to ensure municipalities are getting taxes they are due.
This working group aims to develop a new property tax accountability strategy that will result in recommendations and strategies to recover unpaid taxes. These recommendations and strategies may include closing loopholes and establishing stronger partnerships and communication between the energy industry, rural municipalities and government.
“Whether you like it or not, you have to pay your taxes. We’re committed to working with our municipal partners to ensure that bad actors in the oil and gas industry are held to account, and that municipalities are paid the property taxes they are due.”
“We are committed to working with municipalities and all of our partners to hold private companies accountable and ensure they pay the taxes they owe.”
Most oil and gas companies pay their taxes, with about $1.5 billion paid by energy companies in municipal taxes in 2023. However, some companies have not paid their taxes to municipalities, causing shortfalls in municipal revenues. This working group will work to resolve this issue.
“Rural municipalities continue to face the long-standing issue of unpaid oil and gas property taxes, putting immense strain on their financial sustainability. We are encouraged by the willingness of both Alberta Municipal Affairs and Alberta Energy and Minerals to collaborate with RMA to form the Property Tax Accountability Strategy working group. Together, we can create solutions that address this issue and restore a partnership between municipalities, government and industry.”
This working group is in addition to the development of a mature asset strategy to deal with the issues of the changing nature of the energy industry and to encourage more energy and economic development in the parts of Alberta that have mature oil and gas assets. As part of the development of the strategy, Alberta’s government has been engaging with partners including industry groups and rural municipalities. More information on the mature asset strategy engagement will be announced in the coming weeks.
CAMDEN, N.J. – A Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, man was found guilty of conspiring to distribute cocaine, U.S. Attorney John Giordano announced.
Marvin Murphy, 48, of Camden, New Jersey, was convicted on March 18, 2025 after a two-day bench trial before Chief U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb. Murphy was remanded into custody after the verdict.
According to documents filed in this case and evidence at trial:
From June 2021 through July 13, 2021, Murphy conspired with Carl Lee Holloway, Lavinston Lamar, and others to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. On June 23, 2021, Holloway traveled to San Diego, California, to meet with an undercover agent posing as a drug dealer. Holloway and the undercover agent discussed arranging a drug deal in New Jersey during which the undercover agent would deliver at least 10 kilograms of cocaine for Holloway and his associates. During the meeting, Holloway called Murphy, and the two proceeded to communicate about the drug deal during the subsequent weeks.
On July 13, 2021, Holloway, Murphy, and Lamar separately arrived at a hotel in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, each with bags containing U.S. currency collectively totaling over $340,000. They met with undercover agents inside a hotel room at the hotel. They briefly inspected one of the kilograms of cocaine previously brought into the room by undercover agents, after which agents entered the room and arrested Holloway, Lamar, and Murphy.
Chief Judge Bumb previously sentenced Holloway to 120 months in prison after Holloway pleaded guilty to his involvement in the same conspiracy. Chief Judge Bumb also previously sentenced Lamar to 114 months in prison, which was later reduced to 100 months, after Lamar pleaded guilty to his involvement in the same conspiracy and to violating the conditions of his supervised release from a prior conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine.
The count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a fine of up to $1,000,000. Sentencing is scheduled for July 17, 2025.
U.S. Attorney Giordano credited special agents with the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Ricky J. Patel in Newark and Special Agent in Charge Shawn S. Gibson in San Diego; and the Mount Laurel Police, under the direction of Chief Timothy Hudnall, with the investigation leading to today’s conviction.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Bender and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Katelyn Waegener of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Camden.
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
March 24, 2025
Response from GAO (PDF)
Washington, D.C. – Following a request from U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) agreed to open an investigation into how the Trump administration’s firing of probationary federal workers will impact Americans’ health and safety.
Thousands of these recently fired federal employees were responsible for protecting Americans’ health and safety, across areas like air travel, flood and wildfire response, infectious disease control, nuclear safety, veterans’ healthcare and benefits, food safety, and managing the opioid epidemic.
In recent weeks, courts have ordered the Trump administration to reinstate probationary employees, only for many of the employees to be reinstated and immediately placed on administrative leave, still leaving the health and safety of Americans at risk.
On March 6, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren led 10 Democratic senators in writing to the Government Accountability Office requesting an investigation into how the recent mass firings of probationary federal workers have impacted Americans’ health and safety.
“GAO accepts your request as work that is within the scope of its authority,” wrote agency officials, noting that the work would begin “shortly.” GAO’s investigation is set to investigate how the recent firings of probationary federal workers affect the health and safety of Americans.
Senator Warren has been a leader in standing up for federal workers amidst Donald Trump’s and Elon Musk’s government takeover:
On March 20, 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) led a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to slash the capacity of Federal Student Aid to handle student aid complaints.
On March 19, 2025, at a town hall in Lowell, MA, Senator Elizabeth Warren laid out her strategy, including fighting the illegal mass firings in the courts, to fight Donald Trump’s and Elon Musk’s dangerous government takeover, which is hurting Massachusetts families, and she invited neighbors from Lowell to join her in the fight.
On March 3, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren announced Doug Kowalewski, a National Science Foundation employee who was fired unexpectedly as part of Elon Musk’s and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) gutting of the federal workforce, as her guest at the 2025 State of the Union. Senator Warren brought Doug “to force Trump to confront the federal workers he fired – the people who make this country run.”
On February 20, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren secured an investigation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Inspector General into how the Acting Chairman rescinding more than 200 job offers to bank examiners impacts the U.S. banking system.
On February 18, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren led a letter demanding that the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Scott Turner, halt any further staff cuts at the agency, noting that additional staffing reductions would further exacerbate the housing crisis and would likely prevent HUD from being able to meet critical functions like supporting disaster recovery efforts.
Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council
Following are UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks to the Security Council’s open debate titled “Advancing Adaptability in UN Peace Operations — Responding to New Realities”, in New York today:
I thank the Government of Denmark for convening this high-level discussion.
United Nations peace operations safeguard people and communities in some of the most desperate places on earth.
These operations comprise both peacekeeping operations and special political missions.
Their work ranges from early warning to preventive diplomacy, from peacemaking to verifying peace agreements to protecting civilians, from negotiating ceasefires to helping parties implement them on the ground, to electoral support and observer missions.
Collectively, these operations represent a critical tool at this Council’s disposal to maintain international peace and security in a variety of contexts.
Since the first special political mission and peacekeeping operation were deployed in 1948, our peace operations have grown, adapted and evolved.
Time and again, they allow us to mount tailored responses that have saved lives, reduced violence, prevented the expansion and spillover of deadly conflicts and stopped atrocities.
Peace operations are designed not only to be an effective example of multilateralism in action — but a cost-effective one.
At their best, they show how when the UN comes together to address challenges; the burden is diminished on individual countries alone.
But as we all know, peace operations face serious barriers that demand new approaches.
Wars are becoming more complex and more deadly. They last longer and are more enmeshed in global and regional dynamics.
Negotiated settlements have been harder to achieve. Meanwhile, our peace operations are confronted with a complex interplay of threats — many of which do not respect national borders.
Terror and extremist groups, organized crime, the weaponization of new technologies, and the effects of climate change are all testing our capacities to respond. And, I regret to say, geopolitical divisions are undermining peace.
The bilateral and multilateral arrangements that — for decades — have managed tensions and maintained stability are eroding.
Violations of international law, human rights and the UN Charter are rampant — seemingly without consequence.
Trust is in short supply among — and within — countries and regions.
All of these challenges and more throw fuel on the fires of conflict.
Meanwhile, our peace responses are struggling. We see a persistent mismatch between mandates and available resources. And we see increasing differences of views — including in this Council itself — around how peace operations should work, under what circumstances, with what mandates they should be deployed, and for how long.
This is a grim diagnosis, but we must face facts.
The good news is that, through the Pact for the Future, Member States committed to working to adapt peace operations for the future.
This is an important opportunity to gain a shared understanding of what makes peace operations successful, what is hindering their effectiveness, and what new models we can use to make them more adaptable, flexible and resilient — while recognizing the limitations in situations where there is little or no peace to keep.
My recent proposals to you in the context of Haiti are a good example. We must keep working for a political process — owned and led by the Haitian people — that restores democratic institutions through elections. And the UN has a clear role to play in supporting stability and security, while addressing the root causes of the appalling crisis.
The UN stands ready to assume the responsibility of the logistical and operational expenditures — including transportation, medical capabilities and support for the national police — that can support an international force established by Member States that is able to confront the gangs in Haiti and create conditions for peace. And the salaries of the force are paid through the trust fund that already exists.
This is a good example of how we can design a tailored and collective approach to peace operations in an extremely complex and dangerous environment.
Other examples of adapting our peace operations include the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which recently developed an adaptation plan to support the parties to uphold their obligations under resolution 1701 (2006), and our operations in Abyei, Sudan, where we reconfigured our peace operations into a multinational force.
We also increasingly see the enormous benefits of strengthening cooperation with regional and subregional organizations. Security Council resolution 2719 (2023) is an important example.
This breakthrough has lifted our partnership with the African Union to a new level as we work to establish peace enforcement missions under the responsibility of the African Union, supported by the United Nations. We are now working actively across our two Secretariats to meet the vision of the resolution, and I urge Council members to fully support this work.
It’s time to build on these examples and continue adapting our peace operations for current and future challenges.
Work is now under way to review all forms of peace operations, as requested by Member States in the Pact for the Future.
The review will aim to critically examine these tools and propose concrete recommendations to make them fit for today.
This will include extensive consultations with Member States and others to inform — and inspire — recommendations.
The review will build on the analysis presented in the New Agenda for Peace.
It will be informed by the first comprehensive study of the history of special political missions in the 80 years of the United Nations, which will be released soon.
And it will reflect the Pact’s call to ensure that peace operations engage at the earliest possible stage in planning transitions with host countries, UN country teams and local and regional groups.
The review also aligns with the Pact’s call to this Council to ensure that peace operations are guided by clear and sequenced mandates that are realistic and achievable — with viable exit strategies and transition plans.
And it will draw on the discussions taking place in preparation for the Peacekeeping Ministerial in Berlin in May focusing on the future of peacekeeping.
Throughout, we will hold extensive consultations to capture as wide a spectrum of views as possible and to benefit from worldwide expertise.
From Member States, host States, troop- and police-contributing countries and financial contributors to regional organizations, civil society and academia, and our own leaders and experts within UN peace operations and the Secretariat.
And the review will, of course, help inform our efforts through our UN@80 initiative, to find efficiencies and improvements across our work in light of the continued funding challenges we face as an organization.
Today’s open debate provides a vital opportunity for the Council to share perspectives and ideas to inform the review process. I urge all Members to support it. And I call on this Council to continue working to overcome divisions and disagreements around peace operations and build the unified and consistent political support our peace operations — and the women and men who conduct them — need and deserve.
Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services
Light Rail Stage 2A will extend the light rail network by 1.7 kilometres.
A major works contract has been signed for the delivery of Light Rail Stage 2A City to Commonwealth Park with long-time delivery partner Canberra Metro.
Stage 2A will extend the light rail network by 1.7 kilometres, with three new stops at Edinburgh Avenue, City South and Commonwealth Park.
Not only will the light rail extension support thousands of local jobs during its construction, it will deliver improved public transport for decades in Canberra and help shape the development of Canberra’s city centre.
Work on Stage 2A is planned to commence in late 2024. Construction and testing is expected to take approximately three years, with services commencing from January 2028.
The alignment travelling along London Circuit will transform the southern part of the CBD, providing public transport to major employment and future housing precincts in City West, the ANU, City South, Acton Waterfront and Commonwealth Park.
Already, there has been significant interest in ACT Government land release along the route – similar to the experience with stage 1 of the project.
Light rail to Commonwealth Park will be delivered wire-free to support National Capital Authority requirements for a future connection through the Parliamentary Triangle.
In a Canberra first, the light rail corridor to Commonwealth Park will include sections of green track where the light rail line sits within a bed of specially selected grass or plants instead of concrete.
This project is jointly funded by the Australian and ACT governments.
Get ACT news and events delivered straight to your inbox, sign up to our email newsletter:
SUNNYVALE, Calif., March 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Asimily, a leading provider of IoT, OT, and IoMT security solutions, today announced significant channel achievements that include a 5-Star rating in CRN’s 2025 Partner Program Guide, the recognition of Wayne Hollinshead as a CRN Channel Chief EMEA, and the expansion of key strategic partnerships across multiple industries.
Asimily Earns 5-Star Rating from CRN
Asimily’s channel program—Launch—has received a 5-star rating by CRN®, a brand of The Channel Company, in the 2025 CRN Partner Program Guide. CRN’s annual guide is an essential resource for solution providers seeking vendor partner programs that match their business goals and deliver high partner value. The 5-Star Award is an elite recognition given to companies that have built their partner programs on the key elements needed to nurture lasting, profitable, and successful channel partnerships.
Asimily’s program is built around a comprehensive channel approach that accommodates various partner roles, including resellers, managed service providers, and systems integrators. Launch excels by offering strong profit opportunities, comprehensive training, and robust support resources that help partners generate revenue quickly. Additionally, Launch simplifies partner engagement through streamlined processes and easy-to-use operational frameworks.
“We’re honored to receive the 5-star rating in CRN’s Partner Program Guide, further validating our commitment to building a program that delivers lasting value to our partners,” said Shankar Somasundaram, CEO, Asimily. “Launch was designed from the ground up to simplify partner engagement while providing the resources needed to succeed in the complex IoT/OT security market. This recognition reflects the investments we’ve made in our channel infrastructure and our dedication to partner success.”
Wayne Hollinshead Named CRN Channel Chief EMEA
Wayne Hollinshead, RoW Channel Director at Asimily, has been recognized as a 2025 CRN Channel Chief EMEA. In the past year, Hollinshead has helped architect and implement an effective two-tier channel distribution model for Asimily. He established simple yet powerful operational structures, creating frameworks that internal teams and external partners could easily execute, laying the foundation for Asimily’s channel growth in EMEA and APAC regions.
“This recognition reflects our team’s commitment to developing strong partnerships tailored to each organization’s unique market needs,” said Hollinshead. “By creating customized go-to-market strategies rather than using one-size-fits-all approaches, we’re building meaningful relationships with our partners that drive mutual success.”
Strategic Partnership Growth
Asimily continues to expand its channel ecosystem with new partnerships across industries, successfully recruiting strategic partners in competitive markets. Recent additions to Asimily’s partner network include:
Carahsoft: As Asimily’s Master Government Aggregator, Carahsoft is making Asimily’s IoT/OT solution available to the public sector through its reseller partners and NASA Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP) V and National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) ValuePoint contracts.
Blood Centers of America: The partnership makes Asimily’s comprehensive lab, medical device, and IoT security and risk management platform directly available to all BCA members, enabling blood centers to protect their critical connected equipment and sensitive data.
“Asimily’s new partnerships, such as those with Carahsoft and BCA, represent our commitment to empowering partners across multiple sectors,” said Somasundaram. “Our channel-first approach ensures that organizations in healthcare, government, critical infrastructure, and other industries can access our award-winning security solutions through trusted partners who understand their unique challenges.”
Asimily’s channel momentum comes amid continued recognition for the company’s innovative approach to IoT/OT security and risk management. The company was recently named the 11th fastest-growing cybersecurity company in North America in the Deloitte Fast 500, with 514% growth driven by strong market demand for IoT, IoMT, and Industrial IoT/OT device security.
About Asimily
Asimily is a leading provider of IoT, OT, and IoMT security solutions that provide inventory, visibility, and risk analysis on all connected devices. The company’s platform helps organizations identify and prioritize vulnerabilities with the highest likelihood of being exploited, enabling efficient risk mitigation across healthcare, industrial, and enterprise environments. Asimily’s comprehensive solution combines vulnerability mitigation, visibility, threat detection/incident response, and risk modeling in a single platform. For more information, visit www.asimily.com.
About The Channel Company
The Channel Company (TCC) is the global leader in channel growth for the world’s top technology brands. We accelerate success across strategic channels for tech vendors, solution providers, and end users with premier media brands, integrated marketing and event services, strategic consulting, and exclusive market and audience insights. TCC is a portfolio company of investment funds managed by EagleTree Capital, a New York City-based private equity firm. For more information, visit thechannelco.com.
Source: United States Small Business Administration
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is reminding eligible private nonprofit (PNP) organizations in the Chickasaw Nation of the April 23, 2025, deadline to apply for low interest federal disaster loans to offset economic losses caused by the severe storms occurring March 14–15, 2024.
The disaster declaration covers the Chickasaw Nation.
Under this declaration, SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to PNPs providing non-critical services of a governmental nature who suffered financial losses directly related to the disaster. Examples of eligible non-critical PNPs include, but are not limited to, food kitchens, homeless shelters, museums, libraries, community centers, schools and colleges.
EIDLs are available for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the PNP did not suffer any physical damage. The loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable and other bills not paid due to the disaster.
“SBA loans help eligible small businesses and private nonprofits cover operating expenses after a disaster, which is crucial for their recovery,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “These loans not only help business owners get back on their feet but also play a key role in sustaining local economies in the aftermath of a disaster.”
The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 3.25% and terms up to 30 years. Interest does not accrue, and payments are not due, until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.
The SBA encourages applicants to submit their loan applications promptly. Applications will be prioritized in the order they are received, and the SBA remains committed to processing them as efficiently as possible.
To apply online, visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Submit completed loan applications to SBA no later than April 23.
###
About the U.S. Small Business Administration
The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.
Source: United States Small Business Administration
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is reminding eligible private nonprofit (PNP) organizations in Missouri of the April 23, 2025, deadline to apply for low interest federal disaster loans to offset economic losses caused by severe storms, straight-line winds, tornadoes and flooding occurring May 19 – 27, 2024.
The disaster declaration covers the counties of Barry, Bollinger, Butler, Carter, Howell, Madison, McDonald, New Madrid, Oregon, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Stoddard and Texas.
Under this declaration, SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to PNPs providing non-critical services of a governmental nature who suffered financial losses directly related to the disaster. Examples of eligible non-critical PNPs include, but are not limited to, food kitchens, homeless shelters, museums, libraries, community centers, schools and colleges.
EIDLs are available for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the PNP did not suffer any physical damage. The loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable and other bills not paid due to the disaster.
“SBA loans help eligible small businesses and private nonprofits cover operating expenses after a disaster, which is crucial for their recovery,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “These loans not only help business owners get back on their feet but also play a key role in sustaining local economies in the aftermath of a disaster.”
The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 3.25% and terms up to 30 years. Interest does not accrue, and payments are not due, until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.
The SBA encourages applicants to submit their loan applications promptly. Applications will be prioritized in the order they are received, and the SBA remains committed to processing them as efficiently as possible.
To apply online, visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Submit completed loan applications to the SBA no later than April 23.
###
About the U.S. Small Business Administration
The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.
Source: United States Small Business Administration
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is reminding eligible small businesses and private nonprofit (PNP) organizations in Missouri of the April 23, 2025, deadline to apply for low interest federal disaster loans to offset economic losses caused by the severe storms, straight-line winds, tornadoes and flooding occurring May 19–27, 2024.
The disaster declaration covers the counties of Barry, Bollinger, Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Dent, Douglas, Dunklin, Howell, Laclede, Lawrence, McDonald, Mississippi, New Madrid, Newton, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Phelps, Pulaski, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Stoddard, Stone, Texas, Wayne and Wright in Missouri, as well as Benton, Clay, Carroll, Fulton and Randolph counties in Arkansas, Alexander County in Illinois, Fulton County in Kentucky, and Lake County in Tennessee.
Under this declaration, SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries, and PNPs with financial losses directly related to the disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for small aquaculture enterprises.
“SBA loans help eligible small businesses and private nonprofits cover operating expenses after a disaster, which is crucial for their recovery,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “These loans not only help business owners get back on their feet but also play a key role in sustaining local economies in the aftermath of a disaster.”
EIDLs are available for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the business or PNP did not suffer any physical damage. The loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills not paid due to the disaster.
The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 4% for businesses and 3.25% for PNPs, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not accrue, and payments are not due, until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.
To apply online, visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services
Submit completed loan applications to SBA no later than April 23.
###
About the U.S. Small Business Administration
The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.
Headline: Microsoft at 50: The journey and future of the partner ecosystem
As we celebrate Microsoft’s 50th anniversary, our annual State of the Partner Ecosystem moment is a great opportunity to reflect on the incredible journey we’ve shared with our partners, employees and customers. Together, we’ve harnessed technology as a force for good, transforming industries and communities. From our early days of revolutionizing personal computing to leading the way in cloud innovation and now AI, our shared milestones highlight the power of collaboration and reinvention.
Fifty years ago, Microsoft started with a bold idea: the belief that technology could change the world. Thanks to the largest partner ecosystem in the industry, numbering 500,000 and growing, that vision became a reality, and I know we are just getting started. From the early days of distributing Windows PCs and Office to now delivering AI transformation strategies that solve the most complex customer challenges, our ability to stay at the forefront of innovation as technology evolves is a testament to our culture of continuous reinvention.
According to IDC, for every $1 of Microsoft revenue, services partners earn $8.45, and software partners earn $10.93. This underscores the immense opportunity available to partners of all types. As we look ahead to the future, we know that generative AI (GenAI) is forecast to grow exponentially faster than the overall IT market. Partners generating at least 25% of their Microsoft-related revenue from AI can expect higher margins and revenue growth, unlocking even more potential for transformation and success.*
Microsoft has always been a partner-led company. Our partners are core to our heritage and our future. Their innovation and collaboration have driven real transformation and customer success and will continue to shape the future of industries around the world. As we commemorate this historic moment, I want to take the opportunity to say Thank You to our partners for being on this incredible journey with us.
Here are just a few ways you can join us to celebrate this milestone:
Watch this video from Judson Althoff, Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer, Microsoft.
Join the Microsoft AI Skills Fest for 50 days of learning and discovery starting April 8! Gain skills that will empower you and your team to build innovative AI solutions with Microsoft’s apps and services.
“For decades, Intel’s partnership with Microsoft has sparked innovation and delivered value to our customers. Together, we’ve revolutionized industries and established new benchmarks for excellence. We look forward to collaborating for the next 50 years — and beyond.”
— Jim Johnson, Senior Vice President, Client Computing Group, Intel
Preparing for the future with the Microsoft AI Cloud Partner Program (MAICPP)
Microsoft succeeds when our partners succeed. MAICPP has evolved to enable partners worldwide to deliver customer outcomes across every industry, from small businesses to the largest enterprises. Our program is designed to provide our partners with the most relevant tools and resources they need to thrive in a rapidly changing market, and it serves as the home for all partner types.
“As a proud Microsoft alum, I’ve seen firsthand how our collaboration has evolved to drive meaningful change for businesses across industries. From strategy through engineering and implementation, PwC and Microsoft drive innovation and deliver real business outcomes for clients worldwide.”
— Stephanie Mosticchio, Principal, US and Global Microsoft Alliance Leader, PwC
Through MAICPP, all partners can access updated benefits packages designed to accelerate growth and meet specific business needs. Software development companies are encouraged to explore ISV Success, a pathway offering additional benefits to expand development capabilities and shorten time to market. Whether building, publishing or growing sales, partners can leverage targeted offers to get the support they need.
“As someone who has led global partnerships at several of the world’s leading technology companies, I am impressed by how Microsoft has leaned in with their partner ecosystem and taken a leadership position in cloud computing and AI. We, at Snowflake, are excited to continue to strengthen our partnership in the years to come, and we look forward to jointly driving customer success in the age of enterprise AI. Congratulations!
— Tyler Prince, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Alliances & Channels, Snowflake
Depending on business goals, partners may pursue a Solutions Partner designation or specialization, both of which provide tailored benefits to help differentiate their business in a competitive market. Achieving a designation unlocks valuable go-to-market resources, sales support, new incentives and product benefits to help expand customer reach, sharpen skills and drive growth. For software development companies, becoming a Solutions Partner** with certified software*** further enhances market presence by validating software capabilities in high-demand areas.
“Having worked alongside every CEO of Microsoft in my career, I would like to personally congratulate Microsoft for its 50 extraordinary years of driving relentless innovation.”
“Lenovo is proud to be a major part of this amazing journey with Microsoft and we are committed to this partnership for many more decades to come.”
— Yuanqing Yang, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Lenovo
For partners holding an Azure designation or Azure specialization, additional incentives are available through Azure Migrate and Modernize and Azure Innovate — both underpinned by Azure Essentials. With comprehensive resources, extensive coverage across scenarios and tailored incentives in one easy-to-navigate hub, Azure partners can better support customers from migration to innovation. Learn more in What’s new for Azure partner-led offerings: ISV Success and specialization updates.
Our program offers benefits for partners aligned to their growth stage and across all customer segments. We have recently made the process of obtaining an Azure Solutions Partner designation more aligned to our partners who specialize in working with small and midsize customers. We are also expanding access to Azure Migrate and Modernize and Azure Innovate incentives for SMB pathways. Read more about the SMB path to Azure Solutions Partner designations.
Cloud Solution Provider is our partner hero motion for small and medium enterprises
In November at Microsoft Ignite, we highlighted the $661 billion total addressable market (TAM) opportunity for SME&C customers in FY25 and beyond. Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) partners are the trusted advisors who serve these customers and accelerate their AI transformation with the value-added services and solutions that create real business impact. CSP is our hero motion that enables those partners to drive this business transformation.
“Our Microsoft partnership has evolved to meet the needs of our business and our partners. Together we’ve been able to support our partners to deliver true solution and value selling, leveraging the robust resources available through Microsoft AI Cloud Partner Program and benefitting from the rich incentives. It has enabled us to drive innovation and deliver exceptional experiences for our partners through our ArrowSphere platform and broader enablement programs to ensure they’re empowered to deliver real customer outcomes. Together, we’re enabling the channel to deliver solutions that deliver real impact for customers around the world.”
— Brendan Murphy, Global Director, Public Cloud, Arrow Electronics
We strive to provide CSP partners with the skilling, capabilities and investments to make this opportunity a reality. So far in FY25, we have:
focused our incentives to clearly align to our five strategic priorities — Copilot on every device across every role, AI design wins with every customer, securing the cyber foundation of every customer, a focus on migrations and Microsoft 365 execution
dedicated 70% of our total incentive spend to partners that serve the Small and Medium Enterprise and Customer (SME&C) segment
introduced a series of new promos, including a new-to-Microsoft 365 E5 offer to enable CSP partners to win new customers
Expanding our portfolio of CSP offers and capabilities is an ongoing priority. We share updates as they become available.
Capturing the marketplace opportunity
As customers increasingly centralize their solution procurement, marketplaces have become the preferred buying platform. For software companies, adopting cloud marketplaces accelerates deal closure and increases deal sizes. Serving as a global B2B commerce engine, our marketplace empowers Microsoft partners to provide solutions to customers worldwide. It offers various sales models: digital direct, through partners or with Microsoft — providing flexibility to align with how customers want to buy and how partners want to sell. Learn more in this recent blog.
Unlocking success through skilling and events
The speed of technology innovation requires continuous learning. To support this, we offer our partners a variety of skilling opportunities, such as our popular in-person Microsoft AI Partner Training Days, designed to help partners develop both technical and sales capabilities.
We are also streamlining and simplifying our skilling portals through initiatives like Microsoft Sales Titan (currently in private preview for CSP Accelerate partners and available for all partners in summer 2025), a program tailored to equip sales professionals with in-depth knowledge of Microsoft Threat Protection SKUs, empowering them to position themselves as industry leaders. Discover these and other skilling opportunities.
Looking ahead, we invite our partners to join us at Microsoft Build, taking place May 19–22, 2025. This flagship event offers an exclusive opportunity to explore the latest advancements in AI, learn how to work smarter and elevate your projects. Connect with peers, industry experts and Microsoft leadership while diving into the code and innovations that will shape the future.
“Schneider Electric and Microsoft have been driven by a shared vision of a world that is more electric and digital. We’re thrilled to celebrate Microsoft’s 50th anniversary and excited to continue pioneering innovative solutions together, harnessing the transformative power of AI, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible for our customers and shaping a sustainable future for generations to come.”
— Frédéric Godemel, Executive Vice President, Energy Management, Schneider Electric
Looking forward – the next 50 years
As we celebrate this remarkable milestone, we remain focused on and optimistic for the future. We continue to innovate, collaborate and empower our partners to thrive in the era of AI and beyond. The past 50 years have been defined by shared success, and this will continue for our future. Together, we will unlock new opportunities, drive transformation and shape the future of technology.
Throughout this journey, stories of innovation have inspired us. A few examples of how partners are celebrating our 50th anniversary are included in this blog. See the full list of partner quotes on the Microsoft 50th Anniversary celebration site.
Thank you for being an integral part of our story. We can’t wait to see what we’ll accomplish together next!
*IDC: Microsoft Partners: Driving Economic Value and AI Maturity
**“Solutions Partner” refers to a company that is a member of the Microsoft AI Cloud Partner Program and may offer software, services, and/or solutions to customers. Reference to “Solutions Partner” in any content, materials, resources, web properties, etc. and any associated designation should be not interpreted as an offer, endorsement, guarantee, proof of effectiveness or functionality, a commitment or any other type of representation or warranty on the part of Microsoft. All decisions pertaining to and related to your business needs including but not limited to strategies, solutions, partner selection, implementation, etc. rest solely with your business.
***A certification is (A) specific to the solution’s interoperability with Microsoft products and (B) based on self-attestation by the solution owner. Solutions are only certified as of the date the solution is reviewed. Solution functionality and capability are controlled by the solution owner and may be subject to change. The inclusion of a solution in marketplace and any such designations should not be interpreted as an offer, endorsement, guarantee, proof of effectiveness or functionality, a commitment or any other type of representation or warranty on the part of Microsoft. All decisions pertaining and related to your business needs including but not limited to strategies, solutions, partner selection, implementation, etc. rest solely with your business.
Tags: AI, Azure, Build, Ignite, Microsoft AI Cloud Partner Program, Microsoft AI Partner Training Days, Microsoft AI Skills Fest, Microsoft Partners
How did Muhammad Ali Jinnah go from being a secular young man appalled by Indian interference in the Ottoman Caliphate crisis to the moving spirit behind the demand for Pakistan – a new Islamic nation which, he claimed, would be capable of defending Muslims abroad?
These are the kinds of questions that kept me awake at night for years. The result of that insomnia is my new book, East of Empire: Egypt, India, and the World Between the Wars.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
These partitions took place barely six months apart, between 1947 and 1948. They remain at the heart of horrific state violence on both continents, not to mention intergenerational trauma and rancorous historical debate.
For much of the period my book deals with, from 1919 until the mid-1930s, the division of territory between religious or ethnic blocs would have been difficult for most people living in the Middle East and South Asia to fathom. There were no obvious frontiers that could be drawn between local communities. Particularly in cities and towns, neighbours of different ethnicities and faiths lived cheek by jowl.
In fact, it was precisely during this time, between the first and second world wars, that Egyptians and Indians came to think of their movements for self-determination as shared across communal divides.
Artists, politicians, activists and intellectuals described a thick and flexible web of interconnections – some spiritual or linguistic, others cultural and geopolitical – which together made up something called the sharq, orient, or “east”. This was said to transcend all kinds of barriers, depending on who you asked – creed, language, ethnicity, nation, gender and class, for starters.
Many historians writing about this period have picked up this “easternism” for closer inspection – only to swiftly place it back down again. They argue it is too vague, amorphous and internally contradictory to be of much use as an analytical category. They are not wrong. Between the 1920s and ’40s, there were many (perhaps even countless) visions of the east in circulation.
There was the east of orientalists – foreign, exotic and “other”. There was the anti-colonial east, a geography of allies in the battle against foreign domination. Then there was the spiritual east, often contrasted with the materialist west. There was the Islamic east, a region populated largely (though never exclusively) by Muslims. There was also the cosmopolitan east, a rich tapestry of cultures bound together by commerce and exchange of ideas. Finally, there was the strategic east, a geopolitical bloc or bulwark that might counter other constellations of power.
It is important to underscore that none of these concepts were mutually exclusive. Instead, proponents of easternism tended to connect several “kinds” of eastern ideas together into a personally appealing hybrid.
Thus in his memoir, Sultan Mahomed Shah, Aga Khan III, revisited his long-cherished dream of an eastern bloc of Muslim nations, serving as both a moral compass to the world and a healthy check on the power of Europe and the United States.
For the Egyptian feminist Huda Shaarawi, the east was unapologetically anticolonial. In the pages of her magazine, l’Egyptienne, it was frequently ancient and exotic – but also, crucially, a stage upon which women from many cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds would together forge the future in their own image.
Given the dizzying array of potential easts, it was never what academics would call a coherent ideology. But this did not prevent it from being a highly prominent feature of both political debate and action in Egypt, India and the broader Arab-Asian region throughout the interwar period.
Beginning in the 1920s and deep into the ’30s, various eastern visions flowed in and out of alignment with one another as headlines changed, alliances evolved, and priorities shifted. With the onset of war in Europe in 1939, however, the stakes of these ideological differences began to spike.
Subjected to the unrelenting pressure of war, the many strands of easternism began to splinter, putting paid to the more fluid and open-ended possibilities that had animated preceding decades.
In their stead emerged postwar ideologies with sharper edges, hardened national frontiers, and – following years of globally cataclysmic violence – little faith in the pacifist and humanist ideals of a bygone era. This almost chemical transformation is the backdrop against which votes affirmed the partitions of India and Palestine in 1947.
Here, then, is the story told in East of Empire: how visions of a transnational, fluid and nonconformist east shaped the interwar politics of India and Egypt, and why these visions gave way to a more rigid, militant nationalism by the end of the second world war.
The book revisits a near-forgotten chapter in the rise of anticolonialism and the end of the British empire across the Middle East and South Asia. And it explains the conditions under which these bold and optimistic visions buckled – unleashing torrents of violence we have yet to staunch, almost 80 years later.
Erin O’Halloran has received funding from the British Academy and UK Research & Innovation.
Young boys play volleyball at an NGO centre in Zaatari camp, Jordan, in 2016.Melissa Gatter
When news of Bashar al-Assad’s downfall broke on December 8 2024, 13 years after the beginning of the Syrian uprising, Syrians around the world rejoiced.
We rejoiced along with them, having spent the last decade in conversation with Syrians displaced to the neighbouring countries of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, where we research humanitarian aid in refugee camps and revolutionaries in exile.
The days and weeks following Assad’s ousting were spent on the phone with the people we have gotten to know since their lives changed drastically in 2011 – hoping that 2025 would be the turning point in a very long and harrowing odyssey. One of us (Charlotte) also travelled to Syria in January 2025 to see what was happening and speak to people trying to navigate the new reality there.
“Syrians everywhere, inside Syria and outside Syria, did not ever imagine we would reach this stage,” said Qasim, 42, speaking from his home in Zaatari camp, the world’s third largest refugee camp, in northern Jordan. “No one ever expected that Assad would fall and leave the country.”
Like the 80,000 others in the desert camp, Qasim has spent the last decade starting his life over again in Jordan. Since fleeing Daraa, in southwest Syria, in 2013, he worked a series of freelance jobs and created a network of clients. He has put food on the table with cash-in-hand work for aid organisations in the camp and offering painting and plastering services outside the camp.
But in Syria, he said, “There’s no home, there’s no work, there’s nothing.”
His family of four grew to 11, and his daughters who left Syria as young children have entered their final years of high school.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Now, with Assad gone seemingly overnight – and the revolution marking its 14th anniversary in March – the dream of returning home or simply the possibility to end a decade of exile is suddenly within reach. But this dream now comes with existential, practical and legal questions. After a decade in exile, how do you uproot yourself and your family yet again? How do you explain the return to the youngest, who have only known life outside Syria? What kind of life waits on the other side of the border?
Qasim’s family has outgrown the home he left behind. While life in the camp, with its electricity shortages and economic hardships, is nowhere near perfect, Qasim at least manages to get by.
Returning to Syria also comes at a price – for Qasim’s family of 11, it would cost US$550 just to cross the border – and many Syrians in exile have not been afforded sufficient economic stability to prepare for the costs of return. For many, the return to Syria remains a distant dream they must work to save up for.
Syria’s critical condition
What is left of Syria in Assad’s wake will take years of recovery. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has warned that Syria is not ready to receive returnees. US president Donald Trump imposed a freeze on US-funded foreign aid in January, affecting up to 90% of humanitarian activities in some areas in Syria, according to the UN’s emergency aid coordination office (OCHA). That has created a devastating ripple effect across Syria and neighbouring host countries.
And yet western powers maintain their sanctions against Syria, where 90% of the population is already living below the poverty line and 70% are in dire need of humanitarian assistance.
Meanwhile, the security situation is still precarious in parts of the country. Things in the northwest have improved since the agreement between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and Damascus’s provisional government, but March was marked by the killing of over a thousand mainly Alawi civilians in the coastal areas after attacks started from Assad loyalists. Israel has expanded its war against Palestine and Lebanon into parts of Syria, even bombing the capital city, as it looks to take advantage of a power vacuum.
At the start of the new year, 115,000 Syrians had already returned home from Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. In December, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) expected 1 million Syrians would return by June, but now predicts only 600,000 to return by September.
Unwelcome guests
Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon are not signatories of the 1951 refugee convention which means they are not obliged to recognise the displaced Syrians in their country as refugees with internationally-protected rights. The governments of these countries recognise displaced Syrians only as “guests”, but that does not necessarily mean they are welcome.
“We were not treated as guests in Turkey, people did not want us there,” Umm Ahmad said. She remembered her life in Gaziantep as one of constant humiliation, where she had to beg for assistance and her son was forced to work shifts of over 12-hours at a time in a clothing factory.
As guests, Syrians face social and legal obstacles in accessing services, education, healthcare, housing and jobs. They are often blamed for waning economies and scarce resources and face xenophobic discrimination as a result. Having to work without protected rights or permissions pushes Syrians like Umm Ahmad’s son to the informal labour market, where they are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
There are over 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey and their status is uncertain and or illegal because residency documents are hard to obtain and are not consistently delivered in some areas. “Refugee” status is reserved only for European citizens. If Turkey was long considered the most welcoming host country among Syria’s neighbours for its open-border policy and friendly position towards the Syrian opposition, the situation changed dramatically after the EU-Turkey deal led to the border closure in 2016. Syrians in Turkey have increasingly faced deportation since 2019, and there is no clear path to Turkish citizenship.
Around 1.5 million Syrians live in Lebanon where there is a long history of animosity towards them harking back to Assad’s occupation of Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war. But only 17% of those Syrians have obtained legal residency.
Umm Ayman, who has lived for ten years in Beirut’s Shatila camp, told us: “I can’t wait to go back to Syria. Our life here has been so hard.” But before she returns she wants “to wait to see how the situation evolves and if it’s safe to go back”.
Umm Ayman never managed to obtain legal status, which means having to home-school her children, who could not be admitted to the Lebanese school system – another reason she wants to go back. But she is still worried about the developing political situation that had taken her, as it did most Syrians, by surprise. Not knowing how the caretaker government would rule, and with no close relatives or home to return to in Syria, Umm Ayman is hesitant to commit to a final decision until she can visit her hometown of Homs to see the situation for herself.
In Jordan, where only about 20% of the 1.3 million Syrian refugees are estimated to live in official camps, refugees have felt the decline in international funding directed towards the Syrian crisis in recent years, even before the January US aid freeze. “Recently there’s been scarce aid in the camp,” Qasim said, “so people are only just managing to take care of themselves.” Now, the refugee-run marketplace in Zaatari has grinded to a halt as camp residents save up for the return. As his current job is coming to an end, Qasim is looking for his next one outside Zaatari, “if there is any”.
People driving through Jordan in January, returning to Syria with their belongings piled on the car. Charlotte Al-Khalili
Outside the camps, Syrians toughing it out in Jordanian cities have even less access to aid. And while the 2016 Jordan compact allowed Syrian refugees access to formal employment, it failed to live up to its potential due to the high prices of work permits and social security contributions.
Where is home?
On the other side of the border, however, for millions of people home has been flattened to the ground. So many refugees have nowhere to return to and will need time to save up for rebuilding a house that has been bombed, burned or vandalised.
Only those with the “money and the means”, as Qasim put it, will be able to return. He calculates that reconstructing and expanding his home to accommodate 11 family members will cost around US$5,000. “I don’t have the money to go back, where am I supposed to go, am I supposed to sleep on the street?” he said.
Others like Qasim in Zaatari camp spoke about how much money they have already spent on the upkeep of their caravan shelter (often thousands of dollars) suggesting that they might be able to return if they could sell their caravan or even bring it with them to Syria.
A view of Zaatari camp in Jordan showing how refugees have adapted their ‘caravans’. Melissa Gatter
Maryam, for example, is a schoolteacher living in Zaatari camp with her husband and four-year-old daughter. She explained that the lack of money was the one thing holding them back from the return: “We paid a lot for our caravan, so if someone could take our house in exchange for money, it would help us to go back right away, in a month or less.” But the UNHCR owns the caravans, even those that camp refugees have bought or replaced over years of wear and tear.
Returning to Syria requires transferring temporary ownership of the caravans back to the UNHCR – losing the years of investments they have made to live comfortably in the harsh desert environment. In Azraq camp, southeast of Zaatari, a woman called Shamsa, who has lived in the camp since 2016, believes that access to basic financial assistance in Syria would facilitate the return:
If the UNHCR helped give money for each individual in the family for things like groceries – like they do now in the camp – people say they will return … But they can’t just return us when there’s nothing for us there.
Many people are assessing the state of their homes and hometowns for themselves before committing to a long-term return.
For example, Umm Mohammad, a mother of five in her late fifties currently living in Beirut, plans to send her husband and eldest son first. She wants to ensure that conditions are suitable for the return before giving up what they have fought hard to obtain in the last decade in Lebanon. “If they see that we can all join, we will,” she said.
Work and school
At the front of many Syrians’ minds is the question of work and school. Many of our interviewees noted that critical economic conditions in Syria mean that work is hard to come by, especially for entrepreneurs like Qasim who rely on a steady presence of customers.
While the interim Syrian government has attempted to raise the cap on public sector salaries to stimulate the economy, those we spoke to were not optimistic about their prospects. “The economic situation is on the floor,” Shamsa said from Azraq camp.
Umm Ayman has a low-paying job in Beirut, but her husband, formerly a doctor in Syria, is not allowed to work in Lebanon and can only receive a few patients off the books. Adding to their anticipated costs in Syria is the difficulty of integrating into the job market as her husband approaches retirement age. “He will need to open a practice or find one, and we don’t have this kind of money,” she said.
A plot of empty caravans in Azraq camp’s ‘Village 5’ which has been under security lockdown since 2016 until recently. Melissa Gatter
After the Israeli bombing near their home last October, the family moved into a school sheltering other displaced families in Beirut. Umm Ayman feels that going back to Syria – even with the accompanying price tag – might offer a brighter future.
On the other hand, Rasha, a recent divorcee living in Turkey with her two children, is not ready to take the risk. “I cannot go back now,” she said. “My boys need to finish school first.” Her teenage sons, who are enrolled in Turkish schools, have become fluent in Turkish. Going back to Syria would mean adapting to a new curriculum – and having to learn formal Arabic.
Many Syrians around the age of Rasha’s sons who are enrolled in school also prefer to earn their high school diplomas before making the journey back to Syria. Maryam explained to us that this is not always a straightforward decision for her students because it depends on how many years of schooling remain: “The students are feeling a little lost.”
For Syrian students currently studying the first year of tawjihi (the final two years of high school in Jordan, assessed by exams that determine the direction of a student’s career) they must decide whether to stay in the country for one more year to complete their studies, and if this will be possible. For high school and university students alike, it is unclear how their studies will transfer to the Syrian system.
“But most of my students tell me they don’t want to return at all because they honestly don’t remember anything about Syria,” Maryam said. Like Rasha’s teenagers, Maryam’s students were only toddlers at the start of the war and have spent the majority of their life outside their home country. Maryam wishes for her own daughter to grow up in Syria and receive the same education she and her husband did.
But what kind of future would Syria offer them? A young mother of a toddler explained that there are no nurseries in her hometown of Daraa. As the only woman of her generation from her social circle left in the city, she was struggling to find childcare support and discourages her sister from returning with her children. “At least if she goes to Damascus she will find nurseries and good schools, but here there is nothing.”
Crossing into a ‘void’
For those who do wish to go home, returning to Syria involves committing to a one-way ticket – once you cross the border, there is little possibility of coming back. Host countries have introduced rules that ban re-entry for Syrians without legal status and residency permits (the case for most refugees).
“You exit into a void,” Lina, who returned to Damascus from Beirut, explained. “No one can guarantee you’ll be able to come back.” In December, Syrians returning from Lebanon received only an exit stamp as there was still no one working on the Syrian side of the border.
Ghada, a mother in her mid-30s, fled Shatila camp last October after Israeli bombing in southern Beirut intensified, returning to her village near Aleppo while her husband stayed behind to work in Beirut. She said:
My children are so scared of the jet sound … We left Syria so they would not go through the war there and these horrifying sounds, so I did not want them to live here.
Ghada was among the half a million people who fled Israeli bombing in Lebanon to Syria between October and November. Israel shelled all but one crossing point between Lebanon and Syria. In January, incidents between the Lebanese and newly established authorities in Damascus led to the temporary closing of the border, pushing Syrians to look for other routes back.
By then, Ghada was already planning to come back to Lebanon. She said: “We have a home, my husband works, and the kids have a good school in Beirut.” Life in her Syrian village had been difficult, as access to everyday services was severely limited.
But the Israeli war in Lebanon has not ended, as Israel refuses to respect the ceasefire agreement and parts of the country are still occupied.
In Turkey, crossing the border without the required authorisation to return means losing temporary protection status, as was the case with Umm Ahmad once she left Gaziantep for east Aleppo. She won’t be able to see her daughter, who is as a Turkish passport-holder, for the foreseeable future as she is not allowed entry to Syria.
At the moment, Syrians holding Turkish temporary status (kimlik) or residence permits can enter Syria if they apply for a permit. But the border crossing rules are constantly changing.
Syrians returning from Jordan must pay a US$50 fee and sign an agreement consenting to being banned from re-entry to Jordan for five years. But many in Azraq camp are scared they will be forced to return, even after the UNHCR sent an SMS message to camp residents reassuring them that the decision to return to Syria would continue to be “voluntary, safe, and dignified.”
The full SMS translation reads: “Refugees have the right to return to their homeland when they choose to of their own free will. The return will continue to be voluntary, safe, and dignified. The UNHCR works in cooperation with all concerned parties to address obstacles to refugee return in order to end their displacement.”
SMS message from UNHCR sent to Zaatari residents on December 8. Melissa Gatter
Fear is not a new emotion in Azraq, where a quarter of the camp’s nearly 40,000 residents lived under security lockdown for as many as six of the last ten years while the Jordanian government processed security clearance for each individual, deciding whether to accept or deport them.
Shamsa noted that, while Azraq camp has become less stringent in recent years, “Everyone is still very afraid of forced returns.” Shamsa, who has spent the past eight years trying to find ways out of Azraq, said that staying there would be “more comfortable than it would be to go back right now”.
A dignified return
In January, the town of Darayya, 90% of which had been destroyed by the Assad regime, was alive with people rebuilding their homes. A man perched on the third floor of a very damaged building was putting concrete blocks together, laundry hung to dry on washing lines, and brand new windows sparkled on seemingly uninhabited homes. Lines of cars and minivans packed with bags and furniture entered from the Jordanian border and winded up Syrian roads – Syrians were returning and ready for a fresh start.
Other cities have also seen their inhabitants return. Mohammad, a revolutionary who lived in exile in Turkey until Aleppo’s liberation on December 2, returned looking to reclaim justice and dignity – the core demands of the 2011 revolution. He said:
I can finally seek justice, I can finally look people in the eye, I am going back home with my head held high.
For those who supported the revolution, going back to a free Syria is an immense political and personal victory.
Internally displaced Syrians living in camps in the northwestern region of Idlib have also begun to return to their homes, bringing their tents to live among the rubble as they rebuild. Iman, a woman in her 50s travelling to her home city of Idlib, said that the tents offered more dignified living than the camps: “You have to imagine that in the camps you have no intimacy, you hear everything your neighbours do and say in their tents.”
But even in the relief of Assad’s absence, fear and mistrust is still rampant among refugees living in camps in Jordan. “People are expecting another downfall,” Qasim said, pointing to the number of coups preceding the Assad regime’s nearly 50-year history. What would happen if, upon returning, they must flee again?
“There is still no hope,” Shamsa said wearily over a WhatsApp voice note from Azraq camp. She repeated the words her mother had told her almost ten years ago in their home in northern Syria, encouraging her to try a new life outside: “There’s nothing for us in Syria.”
Drying laundry in the rubble of Darayya in January. Charlotte Al Khalili
Shamsa and her family await a final decision on their resettlement application to the US, which they expect to receive in April, just after the 14th anniversary of the start of the Syrian revolution. Assad’s departure has not changed their plans.
Despite the danger and uncertainty, some people are hopeful about the future of Syria and are taking a leap into the unknown to go back home. Umm Ahmad, a woman in her fifties, had been living in the city of Gaziantep, in southern Turkey, since 2012. She was among the first to go back to Syria. A mother of two martyred and three disappeared sons from the suburbs of Aleppo, Umm Ahmad decided to cross just a day after the fall of the regime, ecstatic to be able to reunite with her siblings who had not left Syria and whom she hadn’t seen for 13 years. With excitement in her voice, she told us:
This is our country, there is no reason to leave it again now that we got rid of Bashar al-Assad. Inshallah [God-willing] we are staying here.
Umm Ahmad’s life in Turkey, where she and her son’s family lived without residence permits, had been laced with hardship and financial insecurity. It did not matter to her that she would not be able to re-enter Turkey – she is happy to be home: “We visited our old flat yesterday. It is damaged but we will work on it with my husband and it should be ready to welcome my son and his family next month.” Back in Syria, Umm Ahmad can begin her quest to find her missing sons.
A few others we spoke to rushed to return to Syria in the same way: revolutionaries who had waited at the border for years to be reunited with family who had stayed behind; relatives of the detained and forcibly disappeared trying to find their loved ones; people with nothing to lose being banned from re-entering a host country who had not given them legal status to begin with.
A new blueprint for the return
Although the figures presented by the UNHCR are high – more than half a million expected to return in six months – the number of returnees from neighbouring countries has reached around 235,000 as of February, with 35,000 coming from Turkey and 22,000 from Jordan, while figures from Lebanon remain unclear.
The decision to return will not be a simple one for most, and the return will probably involve more than a single one-way trip. In many cases, young, single men are making this journey alone to test the waters on behalf of their families.
Syrians abroad have been starting over for the past decade, and an entire generation has grown up in displacement. Kept on a hamster wheel of survival and deprived of the opportunity to prosper in exile, Syrian refugees must be able to make their own informed decisions about making the return – or not – in their own time.
The idea of a “safe, voluntary, and dignified” return must account for the complicated logistical reality that repatriation to a country recovering from 50 years of an oppressive regime will not be a one-way journey for most. Rather than halting refugee programs and attempting to send as many Syrians back as quickly as possible, host countries should grant Syrian refugees freedom of movement to and from Syria.
The return to Syria will ultimately only be possible with international support in rebuilding the country’s infrastructure, services and economy to see a peaceful political transition. Returnees will need financial and material assistance as they re-establish themselves, especially in the fallout of the drastic cuts to US-funded humanitarian aid. Western countries must lift their sanctions and hold Israel to account if they are genuinely interested in the long-term sustainability of Syria and the surrounding region.
This moment is not only an opportunity for exiled Syrians to turn the page on displacement, it is also a rare opportunity for the international community to design a new blueprint for refugee returns in an age of criminalised migration. It is also a rare opportunity, then, for a cautious hope.
“As for me, I’m thinking of getting my PhD from Damascus University,” Maryam said. While living in the camp, she earned a master’s degree at Al Al-Bayt University in the nearby city of Mafraq.
Going back to Syria, her husband could return to his job as an IT engineer, and they could rent a flat while rebuilding their home in Daraa. Her daughter could start first grade in the Syrian school system. She is hopeful.
“We’re seriously considering going back. It’s just a matter of time.”
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
…
Charlotte Al-Khalili receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust
Melissa Gatter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
On Perranporth beach in Cornwall, UK, a local outdoor swimming group called the Perranporth Bluetits is out in force. This group are determined to make the most of another chilly day as they plunge into the Atlantic for a dip. They emerge smiling. Their camaraderie and collective sense of achievement is clear to see.
Invigorating experiences like these have motivated community groups and the voluntary sector to begin to design “blue care” programmes connecting people with the water, and sometimes even more formalised prescriptions of “bluespace” activities from doctors or health professionals.
I, admittedly, stay drier than the Perranporth Bluetits. But my interest in open water swimming and its health benefits has motivated me and a team of researchers to look into these experiences. Previous research shows that open-water swimming and similar activities can be therapeutic.
But might certain swimming activities be particularly beneficial for mental wellbeing? With an international team of environmental psychologists, I have carried out the biggest survey of open-water swimmers to date, looking at data from across the globe. Our recent study, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, outlines the mental wellbeing benefits of wild swimming, and suggests that satisfying psychological needs might underlie this.
As part of the EU-funded BlueHealth project, we surveyed around 20,000 adults in 19 countries across Europe, the US, Hong Kong, Australia and Canada about their interactions with blue spaces (outdoor aquatic environments) and their health and wellbeing. One thousand two hundred of these people reported swimming on their most recent visit to a blue space – some in open-air pools, others in more natural bodies of water such as lakes, rivers and the sea.
Any kind of outdoor swimming was associated with a wellbeing boost. However, wild swimming seemed to deliver significant benefits. Our study suggests that the key to this effect lies in experiencing feelings of autonomy and competence – freedom and mastery over the swimmer’s environment – two factors that are strongly linked to wellbeing.
Surprisingly though, social connection did not play as big a role in these mental wellbeing effects as we had expected, despite the proliferation of community swimming groups like the Perranporth Bluetits. At least in this international sample, personal achievement seemed to be more influential than community bonding.
There was another surprising nuance too. More skilled swimmers, drawn to adventurous and riskier locations, sometimes reported higher anxiety levels. This suggests that while wild swimming can be deeply rewarding, it may also push people into situations that challenge their comfort zones. As other research has noted, such challenging situations can be part of the appeal.
The findings extend previous research on open-water swimming by showing wellbeing benefits across an international sample of adults, the mechanisms by which these benefits come about and the magnitude of difference between natural waters and man-made outdoor pools. So, should we all be jumping in and prescribing such experiences for a mental health lift?
The research does not quite support that yet. We need to be realistic about some of the other challenges our oceans face in providing such experiences. Alongside ever-present risks such as drowning, polluted waters pose infection risks, something that any swimmer has to carefully negotiate to embrace their hobby.
Perhaps the main takeaway though is in how wild swimming delivers its mental wellbeing benefits – essentially through enhanced feelings of freedom. Perhaps, in a world of growing external pressures, this is the reason wild swimming is becoming so popular.
Swimming, sailing, even just building a sandcastle – the ocean benefits our physical and mental wellbeing. Curious about how a strong coastal connection helps drive marine conservation, scientists are diving in to investigate the power of blue health.
This article is part of a series, Vitamin Sea, exploring how the ocean can be enhanced by our interaction with it.
Lewis Elliott received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 666773.
The UK’s 2015 Modern Slavery Act is ten years old on March 26. When it was passed, it was billed as “world-leading” legislation – the first of its kind to introduce a dedicated legal framework to deal with modern slavery.
But ten years on, the evidence tells a different story. The numbers of people identified as potential victims are higher than they have ever been. Yet very few people have been prosecuted. What went wrong with this “groundbreaking” law?
The Modern Slavery Act was the final piece of legislation under the 2010-15 coalition government. Championed by then home secretary Theresa May, the act was primarily about beefing up the criminal justice approach. While criminal offences like human trafficking, forced labour, slavery and servitude were previously dealt with in different pieces of legislation, the act consolidated them into one place.
The aim was to make it easier to identify and prosecute traffickers (who May referred to as “the slave-drivers”), while offering some protection to their victims.
It also included a role for the private sector through a “transparency” clause. This required bigger businesses to report what they are doing to prevent modern slavery in their supply chains. And, it created an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to “encourage good practice”. Other new measures included a legal defence to victims who had been forced to commit crimes, and giving law enforcement new powers to confiscate assets from traffickers.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
However, the act did little to stop modern slavery happening in the first place. The prevention strategy mainly consisted of poster campaigns in airports and immigration processing centres.
Some argued that the act dodged the big issues around work and immigration. For example, by not addressing weaknesses in labour protections and the additional vulnerabilities migrant workers faced thanks to May’s “hostile environment” migration policies.
As prime minister, May touted the UK’s “world-leading” efforts on modern slavery to the global stage at the UN General Assembly. But a decade later, the impacts have been less than stellar.
What has been its impact?
The act has certainly raised the issue’s profile in the last ten years. Businesses now have to report on what steps they are taking to tackle modern slavery. But there are no penalties if they do not comply, and there has been limited progress on exploitation in supply chains. Recent cases involving McDonald’s and other supermarkets prove that businesses are not spotting the signs or acting effectively to prevent the issue.
The number of people identified as potential victims of modern slavery has increased significantly in the last ten years: 19,125 in 2024, nearly six times as many as in 2015. That’s at least partly because the act has improved awareness among frontline responders (organisations who refer potential victims for support).
But while more people who may have experienced modern slavery are being identified, prosecutions are very low. Only 64 adult offenders were sentenced between 2017-19 for over 22,756 potential victims of modern slavery identified over the same period. There are many reasons for this, but one is that victims may not come forward, fearing they may be detained or deported.
Immigration policies passed by the last Conservative government have also rolled back protections for modern slavery victims. In passing the Nationality and Borders Act and Illegal Migration Act, the government argued that people arriving on small boats were abusing the protections offered through the Modern Slavery Act to evade deportation. Far from world-leading, the UK became non-compliant with international anti-trafficking and human rights laws.
Many of the concerns raised during the drafting of the legislation have proven accurate. Despite repeated commitments to create a unified labour inspectorate, successive governments have dodged reform of labour market regulation.
The UK’s immigration and work visa system has also led to the potential for exploitation. Even legal migration routes and the sponsorship visa scheme have created conditions for people to be exploited. For example, in sectors such as agriculture or social care, where intermediaries sell false promises regarding employment and conditions in the UK.
Added to this, the system of support which recognised victims of modern slavery can access is creaking under pressure. It has expanded beyond what was envisaged in its original design, and there are backlogs in decision-making and questions over how appropriate it is. Thousands have declined formal identification and support because they do not feel it is worthwhile or appropriate for them.
Research has also shown that victims are not necessarily getting the support or legal defence they are entitled to. An unknown number of victims are likely to be in the UK’s prisons, where they may be subject to further exploitation.
Stopping modern slavery
The theory behind the Modern Slavery Act was that if you “get tough” on criminals and improve support for victims, you can reduce exploitation. But that hasn’t worked – modern slavery is still a huge problem in the UK.
Changing this means taking prevention seriously, and addressing the conditions and inequalities that lead to exploitation in the first place. Like other global challenges, modern slavery stems from issues like poverty, inequality and discrimination and gender-based violence.
My colleagues and I at the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre recently noted in our report on policy priorities that the government has an opportunity to prevent modern slavery through some of its other crime prevention efforts, as well as in forthcoming legislation such as the employment rights bill.
Without a clear and evidence-based strategy, modern slavery in the UK will persist or even grow, and the Modern Slavery Act will remain an innovative, but ultimately ineffective tool in the fight against exploitation.
Alex Balch is Professor of Politics at the University of Liverpool and is Research Director of the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC) based at the University of Oxford. The Modern Slavery PEC is supported by the UK’s Arts and Humanities Research Council and funds research to improve understanding of modern slavery and inform better policies to address it.
