Part of the appeal of the 2023 horror flick, M3gan, was that its titular antagonist managed to be two of the scariest villains of the genre in one – a killer robot, and a child’s doll come to life.
After nine-year-old Cady (Violet McGraw) tragically lost her parents, her roboticist aunt Gemma (Allison Williams of Get Out fame) brought M3gan home to help her niece with the traumatic transition. M3gan was to be Cady’s teacher, playmate and above all, protector. In classic horror style, she soon embarked on a murderous rampage in the name of “protecting” her ward.
The film was an instant cult hit, dubbed a “camp classic” thanks to M3gan’s TikTok dance moves and determination to destroy the nuclear family.
In M3gan 2, in cinemas from today, the filmmakers have leaned into that campiness even more. But, as horror expert Adam Daniel explains that doesn’t completely neutralise the terror. Instead, it reformulates it, offering a cathartic release that makes the subject matter more digestible.
If you’re looking for more traditional jump scares, 28 Years Later has you covered. Danny Boyle has returned to the franchise with this instant-classic of the zombie genre, which muses on both post-Brexit Britain and our collective experiences of the COVID pandemic. In this film, Europe has contained a “rage virus” to Britain. There are French boats on quarantine patrols, Swedish soldiers mocking remaining mainlanders and St George’s flags burning.
For COVID storytelling expert Lucyl Harrison: “The film ushers in a new age of ‘Vi-Fi’” (that’s virus fiction) “without succumbing to pulpy pandemic storytelling”. Ralph Fiennes offers a typically strong performance as the “mad” Dr Kelson, the only person determined to commemorate the virus’s ever-mounting dead.
I confess, I’m a bit of a baby when it comes to horror. So, I’ll need to follow up any zombie fare with something a little more comforting. My choice for this week is The Ballad of Wallis Island, which romcom giant Richard Curtis has dubbed “one of the great British films of all time”.
It takes place on the fictional Wallis Island, home to millionaire Charles (Tim Key), an almost obsessive fan of former folk-rock duo played by Tom Basden and Carey Mulligan. Invited to the island to play a private gig, they must face their musical and romantic past, all under the gaze of an ecstatic Charles.
The film was made in just 18 days on a tight budget in a typical Welsh summer – a doctor was on hand to stop the actors getting hypothermia when they filmed in the sea. It reminded our reviewer of another British comedy classic, Victoria Wood’s sitcom Dinnerladies, with its breadcrumb trail of slipped in details that provide laughter in the moment but which return to make the audience think twice.
When Poor Things won the Golden Globe for best picture last year, director Yorgos Lanthimos thanked everybody, from the cast and crew to his hero Bruce Springsteen. But one person who didn’t get a mention was Alasdair Gray, the Scottish artist and writer who wrote the novel the film was based on.
Now Gray is rightly being celebrated at Glasgow’s Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum. The unseen paintings in the new show Alasdair Gray: Works from the Morag McAlpine Bequest come from a donation of works he made after the death of his wife in 2014.
Highlights of the show include his original artwork for his novel Poor Things and the streetscape Gray called “my best big oil painting”, depicting Cowcaddens in Glasgow.
Pride month is coming to an end, but you can enjoy the movies in our Hidden Gems of Queer Cinema series year round. These articles highlight brilliant films that should be more widely known and firmly part of the canon of queer cinema. I’d particularly recommend Saving Face (2004), complicated romcom that tenderly depicts the experiences of queer Asian people.
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.
Once asbestos enters the lungs, it doesn’t leave. Its sharp, microscopic fibres scar tissues, trigger inflammation and can cause deadly diseases like mesothelioma, lung cancer and laryngeal cancer. That’s why over 60 countries have banned it – and why the US mostly phased it out.
In 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to ban all industrial uses. But on June 17, the agency said it would revisit the Biden‑era ban.
Asbestos is a naturally occurring silicate mineral made of thin, fibrous crystals. It is fire-resistant, durable, lightweight, flexible and insulating. This unique blend of properties resulted in its widespread use over millennia. Indeed, asbestos fibres have been found woven into pottery and textiles from 2500BC.
Its resistance to friction and electricity made it desirable during the Industrial Revolution for use in boilers and steam engines. In the 20th century, the useful mix of physical properties resulted in asbestos becoming ubiquitous in the construction and automotive industries, peaking in the 1970s.
Although the properties of asbestos at the macroscopic level are beneficial, at the microscopic level it’s anything but. When dust from asbestos (0.1 to tens of microns) is inhaled, it deposits throughout the respiratory system, causing inflammation and scarring of lung tissue.
While the adverse health effects associated with asbestos exposure were observed in ancient Rome, it wasn’t until the 20th century that the full extent of harm was realised. Specifically, asbestos exposure is linked to numerous respiratory diseases, including mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis.
It took a long time for people to understand how dangerous asbestos really is. The main reason is that the illnesses it causes often don’t show up for decades. This long delay makes it very hard to link exposure to the disease it causes.
Making this connection is also made more difficult when those most familiar with it, including manufacturers such as Johns-Manville and industry groups such as the Asbestos Information Association (AIA) were actively denying the connection, and suppressing reports demonstrating the link.
By the 1970s, the volume of evidence showing the harms of asbestos had become overwhelming. The AIA evolved its argument, claiming that the practices in the industry had changed and that the risks were from a bygone era “when the dust control equipment in use was not as efficient or as sophisticated”. Although the association never explicitly admitted that asbestos caused harm.
Since it can take decades for the health effects of asbestos exposure to fully manifest, the full extent of the damage caused by asbestos exposure from the 1970s and onward, an era where the dust control equipment was claimed to be “efficient and sophisticated”.
The Asbestos Information Association, once a key industry group promoting the safe use of asbestos, quietly disbanded in the early 2000s as litigation and public health evidence mounted.
History of asbestos.
What type of asbestos is the US considering unbanning?
The EPA is considering unbanning chrysotile asbestos, also called white asbestos. This type of asbestos is often used in things like brake pads, gaskets and industrial equipment. In March 2024 the EPA banned it, stopping new uses and imports. The ban also included a gradual phase-out plan.
Who is pushing for the unbanning and why now?
From the outset, industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC) raised concerns about the EPA’s ban, warning that “a prohibition of an estimated 52% of annual production volume … that rapidly, could have substantial supply chain impacts”, particularly if manufacturers were bound by existing contracts or chose to cease production entirely.
According to former ACC employee and current senior official in EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Lynn Ann Dekleva, they want to consider if the ban “went beyond what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk and whether alternative measures — such as requiring permanent workplace protection measures – would eliminate the unreasonable risk”.
What industries still want to use this type of asbestos?
Each year, around 40,000 deaths in the US and about 5,000 in the UK are attributed to asbestos exposure. If lifted, it’s possible that the number in the US could increase over the coming decades while those in the UK will continue to fall.
Does this mean asbestos could make a comeback elsewhere too?
Unlikely. While global consensus moves toward stricter regulation, the US now finds itself at a crossroads, between scientific evidence and pressure from industry.
Allen Haddrell 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.
Nato leaders agreed to ramp up defence spending to 5% of their countries’ economic output by 2035 at a summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25. US president Donald Trump, who has spent months saying Europe should take more responsibility for its own security, described the pledge as “a monumental win for the US” and a “big win” for western civilisation.
A few months earlier, in March, the EU also launched its long-awaited white paper on defence. This provides a blueprint for improving Europe’s readiness to respond to military threats by 2030. On top of the fact that global military spending has surged in the past ten years, these developments indicate that the world’s largest nations now prioritise military over economic diplomacy.
One of the main ideas behind military diplomacy is that increased defence spending acts as a deterrent to future conflicts. The nuclear arms race between the US and Soviet Union during the cold war provides some support for this argument. The prospect of mutual destruction was so great that it acted as a deterrent to nuclear war.
But is increased defence spending really the necessary price for greater peace and prosperity? My research on interactions between firms, geopolitics and the political economy of defence indicates that this is no “big win” for society or economic productivity.
Deterrence requires a level of brinkmanship if it is to work. But as American economist Thomas Schelling pointed out in his 1960 book, The Strategy of Conflict, the problem with brinkmanship is that it relies on deliberately allowing a situation to get somewhat out of hand, with the intention of forcing the other party to back down.
This can result in strategic blunders. Efforts by the former US president, Richard Nixon, to engineer such a situation in 1969 by threatening to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam failed to gain credibility with the Soviets and North Vietnamese. This undoubtedly helped convince North Vietnam that it could survive the war and locked the US into a much longer conflict.
The recent confrontation between Israel and Iran also showed that brinkmanship can produce situations where there are significant casualties and no clear long-term resolution. Iran has long recognised that keeping itself near the threshold of nuclear weapons capability would offer a deterrent against external threats.
But this strategy created many opportunities for error. Israel claimed that Iran was too close to building a nuclear weapon and, alongside the US, launched strikes that they say inflicted significant damage on Iranian nuclear enrichment capabilities and military leadership.
Beyond this, it is unclear just how much military spending is needed to deter aggression. Nato allies have now committed to a big increase in defence spending – thanks largely to pressure from Trump.
However, even Nato’s previous objective that countries commit 2% of their national income to defence has proved unattractive for many governments. This has even been the case in post-conflict areas such as the Balkans, where Nato has had a heavy involvement.
A costly alternative
Boosting defence spending falls short on delivering economic prosperity, too. Analysing US military spending in the Vietnam war, economist Les Fishman noted in 1967 that military diplomacy was far more costly than its economic equivalent.
Military production requires continuously high levels of investment to maintain technological progress. This sucks public investment from other parts of the economy.
That’s not to say defence spending has an entirely negative effect on the economy. Studies have found evidence that US federal funding of military research and development results in significant increases in private business research in sectors such as chemicals and aerospace.
And, over the past decade, the value of venture capital deals in the US defence industry has grown 18-fold. This far outstrips sectors such as energy and healthcare. But such investment in military-related research and development is also often acknowledged as inefficient and not necessarily the best way to boost productivity.
Fishman pointed out that the Marshall Plan, which provided substantial economic aid to western Europe after the second world war, had a far higher return for the US.
Economic stabilisation kept the Soviet Union at bay for relatively small outlay compared to the Vietnam war, where casualties were of such a magnitude that it made any cost-benefit analysis meaningless.
Boosting defence spending also represents a lost opportunity to invest in more socially beneficial projects. This will worsen the climate crisis.
According to a study shared with the Guardian in May, the initial rearmament planned by Nato alone could have increased greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200 million tonnes a year. The expanded defence commitment will only increase this further.
Unlike defence, where the repurposing of civilian technologies for military uses carries a cost to society, many green investments involve beneficial substitutions that reduce the cost of a green transition.
The substitution of conventional fossil fuel heating and transport systems with heat pumps and electric vehicles, for example, is far more socially beneficial than repurposing civilian satellites for missile systems.
A final point is that military diplomacy is itself geopolitically destabilising. US efforts to contain communism in Asia during the 1950s and 1960s are a good example. Not only did such efforts see China align its trade with other communist states, it also ensured that self-reliance became a cornerstone of China’s economic strategy.
This all suggests that the current drive for deterrence-based military spending carries with it a huge cost for society that could ultimately prove economically wasteful and geopolitically destabilising.
Damian Tobin 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.
Nato leaders agreed to ramp up defence spending to 5% of their countries’ economic output by 2035 at a summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25. US president Donald Trump, who has spent months saying Europe should take more responsibility for its own security, described the pledge as “a monumental win for the US” and a “big win” for western civilisation.
A few months earlier, in March, the EU also launched its long-awaited white paper on defence. This provides a blueprint for improving Europe’s readiness to respond to military threats by 2030. On top of the fact that global military spending has surged in the past ten years, these developments indicate that the world’s largest nations now prioritise military over economic diplomacy.
One of the main ideas behind military diplomacy is that increased defence spending acts as a deterrent to future conflicts. The nuclear arms race between the US and Soviet Union during the cold war provides some support for this argument. The prospect of mutual destruction was so great that it acted as a deterrent to nuclear war.
But is increased defence spending really the necessary price for greater peace and prosperity? My research on interactions between firms, geopolitics and the political economy of defence indicates that this is no “big win” for society or economic productivity.
Deterrence requires a level of brinkmanship if it is to work. But as American economist Thomas Schelling pointed out in his 1960 book, The Strategy of Conflict, the problem with brinkmanship is that it relies on deliberately allowing a situation to get somewhat out of hand, with the intention of forcing the other party to back down.
This can result in strategic blunders. Efforts by the former US president, Richard Nixon, to engineer such a situation in 1969 by threatening to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam failed to gain credibility with the Soviets and North Vietnamese. This undoubtedly helped convince North Vietnam that it could survive the war and locked the US into a much longer conflict.
The recent confrontation between Israel and Iran also showed that brinkmanship can produce situations where there are significant casualties and no clear long-term resolution. Iran has long recognised that keeping itself near the threshold of nuclear weapons capability would offer a deterrent against external threats.
But this strategy created many opportunities for error. Israel claimed that Iran was too close to building a nuclear weapon and, alongside the US, launched strikes that they say inflicted significant damage on Iranian nuclear enrichment capabilities and military leadership.
Beyond this, it is unclear just how much military spending is needed to deter aggression. Nato allies have now committed to a big increase in defence spending – thanks largely to pressure from Trump.
However, even Nato’s previous objective that countries commit 2% of their national income to defence has proved unattractive for many governments. This has even been the case in post-conflict areas such as the Balkans, where Nato has had a heavy involvement.
A costly alternative
Boosting defence spending falls short on delivering economic prosperity, too. Analysing US military spending in the Vietnam war, economist Les Fishman noted in 1967 that military diplomacy was far more costly than its economic equivalent.
Military production requires continuously high levels of investment to maintain technological progress. This sucks public investment from other parts of the economy.
That’s not to say defence spending has an entirely negative effect on the economy. Studies have found evidence that US federal funding of military research and development results in significant increases in private business research in sectors such as chemicals and aerospace.
And, over the past decade, the value of venture capital deals in the US defence industry has grown 18-fold. This far outstrips sectors such as energy and healthcare. But such investment in military-related research and development is also often acknowledged as inefficient and not necessarily the best way to boost productivity.
Fishman pointed out that the Marshall Plan, which provided substantial economic aid to western Europe after the second world war, had a far higher return for the US.
Economic stabilisation kept the Soviet Union at bay for relatively small outlay compared to the Vietnam war, where casualties were of such a magnitude that it made any cost-benefit analysis meaningless.
Boosting defence spending also represents a lost opportunity to invest in more socially beneficial projects. This will worsen the climate crisis.
According to a study shared with the Guardian in May, the initial rearmament planned by Nato alone could have increased greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200 million tonnes a year. The expanded defence commitment will only increase this further.
Unlike defence, where the repurposing of civilian technologies for military uses carries a cost to society, many green investments involve beneficial substitutions that reduce the cost of a green transition.
The substitution of conventional fossil fuel heating and transport systems with heat pumps and electric vehicles, for example, is far more socially beneficial than repurposing civilian satellites for missile systems.
A final point is that military diplomacy is itself geopolitically destabilising. US efforts to contain communism in Asia during the 1950s and 1960s are a good example. Not only did such efforts see China align its trade with other communist states, it also ensured that self-reliance became a cornerstone of China’s economic strategy.
This all suggests that the current drive for deterrence-based military spending carries with it a huge cost for society that could ultimately prove economically wasteful and geopolitically destabilising.
Damian Tobin 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 Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Press release
Over 4,000 school-based childcare places this September
Nearly 200 school-based nurseries planning to open this September, with next wave of rollout – backed by almost £370 million – to launch in the Autumn.
Thousands of families across the country will soon benefit from new childcare places in local schools closer to where they live, as the government’s school-based nurseries rollout is on track to deliver over 4,000 places this September.
Nearly 200 schools with spades in the ground, that are planning to open in just two months’ time, have reported they are set to exceed the government’s initial projections on places, meaning more high-quality, accessible and affordable childcare options for parents.
Thanks to the brilliant work from school and early years leaders, these new school-based nursery places and thousands more across the provider sector are set to be available in time for working parents to take up the 30 government-funded hours, saving them up to £7,500 on average every year.
On top of cash back in parents’ pockets, the upcoming milestone will break down barriers to opportunity for families by enabling more parents to return to work – increasing choices for parents, and life chances for children. According to a recent government survey, of the 2,723 respondents who are planning to increase their childcare hours in September, over half (1,425) are intending to up their work hours too.
With savings from the government’s free breakfast club rollout – which has already delivered over two million meals – and school uniform cap, this rises to up to £8,000 for working parents who also have school-aged children, every year.
As part of its Plan for Change, delivering on its promise of high-quality childcare to the children who need it most is a government priority. That’s why schools were chosen in places currently underserved by the market, to increase choices for parents that need it, in their local area. On average, 20 places will be available per site – and up to 6,000 new places in total across the 300 schools taking part in the first phase of the rollout.
Last month, the government announced almost £370 million of further funding to support the future of the programme, with the next phase due to launch in the Autumn.
School-based nurseries, private, voluntary and independent nurseries, as well as childminders, all have an important role to play in the government’s mission to get tens of thousands more children school ready every year and put more cash in working parents’ pockets.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said:
Giving every child the best start in life is my number one priority, and making sure hard-working parents are able to benefit from this rollout is a promise made, and promise kept.
Every corner of the early years sector has a vital role to play, and the progress made so far, in the face of an enormous inherited delivery challenge, is testament to their dedication to children and families up and down the country.
This September is only the beginning. This government has a clear Plan for Change to get tens of thousands more children school ready each year so that every child, from any background, gets the opportunities they need to get on in life.
Alongside the benefits to family finances, high-quality early education builds children’s confidence, social skills, and prepares them for school. That’s why the government is backing programmes to provide early years educators with the bespoke tools, training and resources they need to help young minds to thrive.
Already, 11,000 primary schools are registered to deliver the Nuffield Early Language Intervention, and 800 more settings have been recruited to the Maths Champions professional development programme. In the coming days, the Education Secretary will set out the government’s vision for Reception and next phase of action on school readiness.
Minet Infant and Nursery School in Hayes is one of the nearly 200 schools set to roll out new early years places from this September. Headteacher Wayne Wathen-Howell said:
We’re proud to be opening a new nursery right here in our school – it’s a big moment for our community.
Parents have told us how important it is to have affordable, high-quality childcare close to home, and this new nursery will make a real difference. Not only will it help families balance work and family life, it also gives our youngest children the best possible start in a familiar, supportive environment.
Being based on a school site means children can settle in early, build confidence, and feel ready for the step into Reception. We’re excited to welcome them through our doors this September.
Next year, the government will work with the sector to go further and faster, increasing funding to over £9 billion, building on £75 million already delivered to help providers grow places, and a record uplift to the Early Years Pupil Premium.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 2
News story
David Hill appointed as Interim Defra Permanent Secretary
David Hill will lead the department as the recruitment process for a Permanent Secretary continues.
David Hill has been appointed as Interim Permanent Secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
David Hill has been appointed as Interim Permanent Secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
David’s term will begin on 30 June 2025 and will run until a new Permanent Secretary is in post. The recruitment process for a new Permanent Secretary is ongoing.
David brings a wealth of experience to the position, having held several Director General roles at Defra since 2019.
This appointment follows outgoing Permanent Secretary Tamara Finkelstein’s decision earlier this year to step down after six years in the role.
Members reappointed to National Park Authority and National Landscape boards
Members will continue protecting England’s landscapes through the North York Moors National Park Authority and the Cotswolds Conservation Board.
A series of reappointments have been made to the boards of the North York Moors National Park Authority (NPA) and the Cotswolds Conservation Board.
Abida Nayyar has been reappointed to the North York Moors NPA for a second term of four years, from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2029.
Katherine Chesson and Ellie Fujioka have both been reappointed to the Cotswolds Conservation Board for a second term of three years, from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2028.
All reappointments have been made in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments published by the Cabinet Office. All appointments are made on merit and political activity plays no part in the selection process.
England’s National Parks and National Landscapes are home to some of our most important habitats and wildlife. The overall role of a board member is to contribute to the leadership, scrutiny, and direction of the National Park Authority or Conservation Board, and further its statutory purposes.
Agradezco al Gobierno y al pueblo de España por su cálida acogida en Sevilla para esta importante conferencia.
Durante décadas, la misión del desarrollo sostenible ha unido a países grandes y pequeños, desarrollados y en desarrollo.
Juntos, hemos logrado avances.
Reduciendo la pobreza y el hambre en el mundo.
Salvando vidas con sistemas sanitarios más sólidos.
Llevando más niños a la escuela.
Ampliando las oportunidades para mujeres y niñas.
Y fortaleciendo las redes de seguridad social.
Pero hoy, el desarrollo y su gran impulsor – la cooperación internacional –enfrentan fortísimos vientos en contra.
Vivimos en un mundo donde la confianza se está desmoronando y el multilateralismo está bajo tensión.
Un mundo con una economía en desaceleración, tensiones comerciales crecientes y presupuestos de ayuda diezmados.
Un mundo sacudido por desigualdades, caos climático y conflictos devastadores.
El vínculo entre paz y desarrollo es evidente.
Nueve de los diez países con los Indicadores de Desarrollo Humano más bajos se encuentran actualmente en situación de conflicto.
Excelencias,
La financiación es el motor del desarrollo.
Y, ahora mismo, ese motor se está ahogando.
Mientras nos reunimos, la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible – nuestra promesa global de transformar nuestro mundo para lograr un futuro mejor y más justo – está en peligro.
Dos tercios de las metas de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible están rezagadas.
Alcanzarlos requiere una inversión de más de 4 billones de dólares al año.
Pero no se trata sólo de una crisis de cifras.
Es una crisis de personas.
De familias que pasan hambre.
De niños que no reciben vacunas.
De niñas obligadas a abandonar la escuela.
Estamos aquí en Sevilla para cambiar el rumbo.
Para reparar y poner en marcha el motor del desarrollo y acelerar la inversión a la escala y velocidad necesarias.
Y restaurar equidad y justicia – para todas y todos.
Excellencies,
The Sevilla Commitment is a global promise to fix how the world supports countries as they climb the development ladder.
I see three areas of action.
First — we must get resources flowing. Fast.
Countries must lead by mobilizing domestic resources and investing in areas of greatest impact: schools, health care, social protection, decent work, and renewable energy.
Unlocking these investments requires strengthening tax systems, and tackling illicit financial flows and tax evasion.
And helping developing countries dedicate a greater share of their tax revenues to the systems people need.
The Sevilla Commitment’s call on developed countries to double their aid dedicated to domestic resource mobilization to support this.
Multilateral and national development banks must unite to finance major investments.
This includes tripling the lending capacity of Multilateral Development Banks — and rechanneling Special Drawing Rights that can unlock lending capacity and help developing countries boost investment.
We also need innovative funding solutions to unlock private capital.
Solutions that mitigate currency risks;
That combine public and private finance more effectively, and ensure the risks and rewards of development projects are shared by both the public and the private sectors;
And that ensure financial regulations assess risk appropriately and support investments in frontier markets.
Second — we must fix the global debt system which is unsustainable, unfair and unaffordable.
With annual debt service at $1.4 trillion, countries need — and deserve — a system that lowers borrowing costs, enables fair and timely debt-restructuring, and prevents debt crises in the first place.
The Sevilla Commitment lays the groundwork:
With other aspects, by also creating a single debt registry for transparency, and promoting responsible lending and borrowing;
By lowering the cost of capital through debt swaps and debt management support;
And through debt service pauses in times of emergency.
And third — we must increase the participation of developing countries in the institutions of the global financial architecture. The present major shareholders have a role to play recognizing the importance of correcting injustices and adapting to a changing world.
A new borrowers forum will give voice to borrowers for fairer debt resolution and to foster transparency, shared learning and coordinated debt action.
And we need a fairer global tax system shaped by all, not just by a few.
Excellences, Mesdames et Messieurs,
Cette conférence n’est pas une affaire de charité.
Il s’agit de rétablir la justice – et de permettre à chacun de vivre dans la dignité.
Cette conférence n’est pas une affaire d’argent.
Il s’agit d’investir dans l’avenir que nous voulons construire – ensemble.
Merci – à toutes et à tous – de participer à cet effort essentiel et ambitieux.
****
DECLARACIONES DEL SECRETARIO GENERAL CON OCASIÓN DE LA INAUGURACIÓN DE LA CUARTA CONFERENCIA SOBRE LA FINANCIACIÓN PARA EL DESARROLLO
Majestades,
Excelencias, señoras y señores:
Agradezco al Gobierno y al pueblo de España por su cálida acogida en Sevilla para esta importante conferencia.
Durante décadas, la misión del desarrollo sostenible ha unido a países grandes y pequeños, desarrollados y en desarrollo.
Juntos, hemos logrado avances.
Reduciendo la pobreza y el hambre en el mundo.
Salvando vidas con sistemas sanitarios más sólidos.
Llevando más niños a la escuela.
Ampliando las oportunidades para mujeres y niñas.
Y fortaleciendo las redes de seguridad social.
Pero hoy, el desarrollo y su gran impulsor – la cooperación internacional –enfrentan fortísimos vientos en contra.
Vivimos en un mundo donde la confianza se está desmoronando y el multilateralismo está bajo tensión.
Un mundo con una economía en desaceleración, tensiones comerciales crecientes y presupuestos de ayuda diezmados.
Un mundo sacudido por desigualdades, caos climático y conflictos devastadores.
El vínculo entre paz y desarrollo es evidente.
Nueve de los diez países con los Indicadores de Desarrollo Humano más bajos se encuentran actualmente en situación de conflicto.
Excelencias,
La financiación es el motor del desarrollo.
Y, ahora mismo, ese motor se está ahogando.
Mientras nos reunimos, la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible – nuestra promesa global de transformar nuestro mundo para lograr un futuro mejor y más justo – está en peligro.
Dos tercios de las metas de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible están rezagadas.
Alcanzarlos requiere una inversión de más de 4 billones de dólares al año.
Pero no se trata sólo de una crisis de cifras.
Es una crisis de personas.
De familias que pasan hambre.
De niños que no reciben vacunas.
De niñas obligadas a abandonar la escuela.
Estamos aquí en Sevilla para cambiar el rumbo.
Para reparar y poner en marcha el motor del desarrollo y acelerar la inversión a la escala y velocidad necesarias.
Y restaurar equidad y justicia – para todas y todos.
Excelencias:
El documento del Compromiso de Sevilla es una clara promesa global de reparar la forma en que el mundo apoya a los países que suben la escalera del desarrollo.
Veo tres esferas de acción.
En primer lugar, tenemos que hacer fluir los recursos. Rápido.
Los países deben dirigir el proceso movilizando recursos nacionales e invirtiendo en las esferas de mayor impacto: escuelas, atención sanitaria, protección social, trabajo decente y energía renovable.
Para favorecer estas inversiones es necesario reforzar los sistemas tributarios y combatir los flujos financieros ilícitos y la evasión fiscal.
Y ayudar a los países en desarrollo a que puedan dedicar una mayor parte de sus ingresos tributarios a los sistemas que necesitan las personas.
El llamamiento del Compromiso de Sevilla a los países desarrollados para que dupliquen la ayuda dedicada a la movilización de recursos nacionales para servir de apoyo.
Los bancos multilaterales y nacionales de desarrollo deben unirse para financiar grandes inversiones.
Para ello, hay que triplicar la capacidad de préstamo de los bancos multilaterales de desarrollo y reorientar los derechos especiales de giro para aumentar la capacidad de préstamo y ayudar a los países en desarrollo a impulsar la inversión.
También necesitamos soluciones de financiación innovadora para facilitar el capital privado:
Que mitiguen los riesgos cambiarios;
Que combinen más eficazmente la financiación pública y privada, y garanticen que los riesgos y las recompensas de los proyectos de desarrollo sean compartidos por el sector público y el sector privado;
Y que garanticen que la reglamentación financiera evalúa los riesgos adecuadamente y apoya las inversiones en mercados frontera.
En segundo lugar, debemos reparar el sistema mundial de la deuda, que es insostenible, injusto e inasequible.
Con un servicio de la deuda que asciende a 1,4 billones de dólares al año, los países necesitan — y merecen — un sistema que abarate el costo del endeudamiento, facilite la reestructuración justa y oportuna de la deuda, y prevenga las crisis de deuda en primer lugar.
El Compromiso de Sevilla sienta las bases:
Con otros factores, creando también un registro único de la deuda en aras de la transparencia, y promoviendo prácticas responsables de préstamo y endeudamiento;
Reduciendo el costo del capital mediante canjes de deuda y el apoyo a la gestión de la deuda;
Y suspendiendo el servicio de la deuda en épocas de emergencia.
Y en tercer lugar debemos incrementar la participación de los países en desarrollo en las instituciones de la arquitectura financiera global. Los principales accionistas tienen un papel que desempeñar al reconocer la importancia de corregir las injusticias y adaptarse a un mundo cambiante.
Las partes principales deben apoyar reformas que les den una voz más potente.
Un foro de prestatarios puede fomentar el aprendizaje común y la acción coordinada en materia de deuda.
Un nuevo foro de prestatarios dará voz a los prestatarios para una resolución de la deuda más justa y puede fomentar el aprendizaje compartido y la acción coordinada en materia de deuda.
Y necesitamos un sistema tributario mundial más justo, conformado por todos, no solo por unos pocos.
Excelencias, señoras y señores:
Esta conferencia no trata de caridad.
Trata de restablecer la justicia y permitir que todos vivan con dignidad.
Esta conferencia no trata de dinero.
Trata de invertir en el futuro que queremos construir, juntos.
Gracias a todos por participar en este importante y ambicioso esfuerzo.
******
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL REMARKS AT THE OPENING OF THE 4TH FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Your Majesties,
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
I thank the Government and people of Spain for welcoming us to Sevilla for this important conference.
For decades, the mission of sustainable development has united countries large and small, developed and developing.
Together, we achieved progress.
Reducing global poverty and hunger.
Saving lives with stronger health care systems.
Getting more children into school.
Expanding opportunities for women and girls.
And strengthening social safety nets.
But today, development and its great enabler — international cooperation — are facing massive headwinds.
We are living in a world where trust is fraying and multilateralism is strained.
A world with a slowing economy, rising trade tensions, and decimated aid budgets.
A world shaken by inequalities, climate chaos and raging conflicts.
The link between peace and development is clear.
Nine of the ten countries with the lowest Human Development Indicators are currently in a state of conflict.
Excellencies,
Financing is the engine of development.
And right now, this engine is sputtering.
As we meet, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — our global promise to transform our world for a better, fairer future — is in danger.
Two-thirds of the Sustainable Development Goals targets are lagging.
Achieving them requires an investment of more than $4 trillion a year.
But this is not just a crisis of numbers.
It’s a crisis of people.
Of families going hungry.
Of children going unvaccinated.
Of girls forced to drop out of school.
We are here in Sevilla to change course.
To repair and rev up the engine of development to accelerate investment at the scale and speed required.
And to restore a measure of fairness and justice for all.
Excellencies,
The Sevilla Commitment document is a global promise to fix how the world supports countries as they climb the development ladder.
I see three areas of action.
First — we must get resources flowing. Fast.
Countries must lead by mobilizing domestic resources and investing in areas of greatest impact: schools, health care, social protection, decent work, and renewable energy.
Unlocking these investments requires strengthening tax systems, and tackling illicit financial flows and tax evasion.
And helping developing countries dedicate a greater share of their tax revenues to the systems people need.
The Sevilla Commitment’s call on developed countries to double their aid dedicated to domestic resource mobilization to support this.
Multilateral and national development banks must unite to finance major investments.
This includes tripling the lending capacity of Multilateral Development Banks — and rechanneling Special Drawing Rights that can unlock lending capacity and help developing countries boost investment.
We also need innovative funding solutions to unlock private capital.
Solutions that mitigate currency risks;
That combine public and private finance more effectively, and ensure the risks and rewards of development projects are shared by both the public and private sectors;
And that ensure financial regulations assess risk appropriately and support investments in frontier markets.
Second — we must fix the global debt system which is unsustainable, unfair and unaffordable.
With annual debt service at $1.4 trillion, countries need — and deserve — a system that lowers borrowing costs, enables fair and timely debt-restructuring, and prevents debt crises in the first place.
The Sevilla Commitment lays the groundwork:
With other aspects, by also creating a single debt registry for transparency, and promoting responsible lending and borrowing;
By lowering the cost of capital through debt swaps and debt management support;
And through debt service pauses in times of emergency.
And third — we must increase the participation of developing countries in the institutions of the global financial architecture. The present major shareholders have a role to play recognizing the importance of correcting injustices and adapting to a changing world.
A new borrowers forum will give voice to borrowers for fairer debt resolution and can foster transparency, shared learning and coordinated debt action.
And we need a fairer global tax system shaped by all, not just a few.
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
This conference is not about charity.
It’s about restoring justice and lives of dignity.
This conference is not about money.
It’s about investing in the future we want to build, together.
Thank you all for being part of this important and ambitious effort.
Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén, Research Fellow at the School of Cinematic Arts, University of Southern California
Jennifer Lawrence and Robert Pattinson appear on the red carpet prior to the screening of ‘Die, My Love’ at the 78th annual Cannes Film Festival on May 17, 2025.Kristy Sparow/Getty Images
Cannes reminded guests to follow the standard black-tie dress code for evening events at the Grand Theatre Lumière – “long dresses and tuxedos” – while highlighting acceptable alternatives, such as cocktail dresses and pantsuits for women, and a black or navy suit with a tie for men.
The real stir, however, came from two additions to the formal guidelines: a ban on nudity “for decency reasons” and a restriction on oversize garments.
But I study the cultural and economic forces behind fashion and media, and I think a lot of the criticism of Cannes is unfounded. To me, the festival isn’t changing its identity. It’s reasserting it.
Red carpet control
Concerns about indecency on the red carpet have appeared before – most notably during the first televised Academy Awards in 1953.
In 1952, the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters adopted a censorship code in response to concerns about television’s influence on young audiences. Among its rules for “decency and decorum” were guidelines against revealing clothing, suggestive movements or camera angles that emphasized body parts – all to avoid causing “embarrassment” to the viewers.
Actress Inger Stevens at the 39th Academy Awards in 1967, a year before she was reprimanded for her skimpy attire. Bettmann/Getty Images
In my book “Fashion on the Red Carpet,” I explain how Head equipped backstage staff with kits to deal with any sartorial emergencies that might arise. That same year, the balcony cameras at the Pantages Theatre accidentally peeked down into the actresses’ cleavage as they walked to the stage. From then on, a supply of tulle – a type of versatile fabric that can easily cover revealing openings that expose too much skin – was kept backstage.
However, in the 1970s, the Oscars eliminated Head’s fashion consultant position. Despite maintaining its black-tie dress code, the absence of a fashion consultant opened the door to some provocative attire, ranging from Cher’s see-through, sheer outfits, to Edy Williams’ provocative, barely-there getups.
Once the fashion consultant position was eliminated for the Oscars, many attendees – like actress Edy Williams – tried to stand out from the crowd with provocative attire. Fotos International/Getty Images
Old rules in a new era
Racy red carpet appearances have since become a hallmark of awards shows, particularly in the digital age.
And in an era when red carpet looks are carefully curated ahead of time through partnerships with fashion brands, many celebrities expressed frustration about being unable to sport the outfits they had planned to wear at Cannes.
Stylist Rose Forde lamented the restrictions, saying, “You should be able to express yourself as an artist, with your style however you feel,” while actress Chloë Sevigny described the code as “an old-fashioned archaic rule.”
But I still can’t see the Cannes rules as part of any sort of broader conservative backlash.
Cape Verdean model Leila Depina arrives for the screening of the film ‘Asteroid City’ during the 2023 Cannes Film Festival. Christophe Simon/AFP via Getty Images
The festival has routinely reminded guests of its dress code, regardless of the cultural zeitgeist.
The “decency” rule, for example, is actually required by French law. Article 222-32 of the French Criminal Code classifies showing private parts in public as a sexual offense, and can lead to a year in prison and a fine. While the legal definition hinges on intent and setting, the festival, as a public event, technically has to operate within that framework.
Compared to white-tie events like the Nobel Prize ceremony or a state banquet, Cannes’ black-tie requirement is relatively flexible. It allows for cocktail-length dresses and even accommodates pants and flat sandals for women.
Meanwhile, the worry about voluminous clothes points to a practical issue: the movement of bodies in tight spaces.
Unlike the Met Gala – where the fashion spectacle is the focus, and its red carpet is a stage for photo-ops – Cannes is a film festival. The red carpet is the main path thousands of people use to enter the theater.
A dramatic gown – like the one worn at the Met Gala by Cardi B in 2024 – could block others and cause delays. While a photo-op may be the primary goal for celebrities and the brands they promote, the festival has a screening schedule to stick to, and attendees must be able to easily access the venue and their seats.
Red carpet rules are fluid. Sometimes they adapt to cultural shifts. Sometimes they resist them. And sometimes, they’re there to make sure you can fit in your seat in the movie theater.
Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén received funding from Fulbright (2023-2024)
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Katherine LeMasters, Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado Boulder
The people most impacted by Colorado’s fentanyl criminalization bill have divergent views on the role of the legal system in curbing the opioid epidemic.Erik McGregor/GettyImages
Colorado passed the Fentanyl Accountability and Prevention Bill in May 2022. The legislation made the possession of small amounts of fentanyl a felony, rather than a misdemeanor.
Felonies are more likely than misdemeanors to result in a prison sentence.
In 2023, lawmakers in 46 states passed legislation similar to Colorado’s. They introduced more than 600 bills related to fentanyl criminalization and enacted over 100 other laws to attempt to curb the opioid epidemic.
Possession of small amounts of ketamine, GHB and other criminalized drugs is also a felony in Colorado.
I’m an assistant professor of medicine, social epidemiologist and community researcher who studies mass incarceration as a public health threat. I am a member of the Right Response Coalition, which advocates for community rather than criminal-legal responses to behavioral health needs in Colorado. Recently, my work has focused on how increasing criminal penalties for fentanyl possession in Colorado affects the individuals and communities most impacted by such laws.
Our team conducted 31 interviews with Colorado policymakers, peer support specialists, law enforcement, community behavioral health providers and people providing behavioral health in prisons and jails to explore a variety of perspectives on Colorado’s Fentanyl Accountability and Prevention Bill and the role of the criminal-legal system in addressing substance use and overdose.
Most of our interviewees agreed that criminalization alone wouldn’t solve the opioid epidemic.
“You can’t incarcerate yourself to sobriety,” said a rural law enforcement officer. “You can’t incarcerate yourself out of the drug problem in America.”
People recently released from incarceration are more likely to overdose than the general public because their tolerance is greatly reduced following forced abstinence and there are not enough community-based treatment options. Erik McGregor/GettyImages
All 31 of the participants in our study supported policies to prevent fentanyl overdoses. However, most thought that use of police and incarceration as avenues to do so was misguided.
“It just seems like there’s no getting away from [the police], they’re everywhere,” said an urban peer support specialist. “I got arrested by the same cops, I don’t know how many times. And then it makes you want to try to be avoidant or run because they’re not going to help you.”
Participants worried that the policy has an inadvertent chilling effect, deterring individuals from calling 911 when an overdose occurs.
“Most people with substance abuse are not trying to report anything or get help for fear of going to jail,” one rural provider said. “It’s so stigmatized that everyone’s just scared to do that.”
Study participants worried that the Colorado fentanyl criminalization bill will deter people from reporting an overdose for fear of being arrested. Spencer Platt/GettyImages
Participants largely thought that counties were using incarceration as a default treatment setting and that it wasn’t an ideal solution.
“[I] don’t want to see [people] incarcerated, but I don’t want ‘em to die either,” said an urban peer support specialist.
Colorado’s fentanyl bill did more than just increase penalties. It also provided additional funding for a state naloxone program and required that all jails provide medications for opioid use disorder.
Along with increasing penalties, Colorado’s bill increased access to naloxone, an opioid-reversal drug. Hyoung Chang/GettyImages
Based on our study’s findings, my study co-authors and I believe increased criminal penalties should not be the solution for linking individuals to treatment. Instead, there should be more investment in long-term community solutions.
One such solution is Denver’s Substance Use Navigation Program. The program sends behavioral health specialists to emergency calls to prevent legal involvement when someone is experiencing distress related to mental health, poverty, homelessness or substance use. In many cases, those individuals are then routed to services rather than jails.
Our findings also lead us to believe there is a need for more participatory policymaking processes when it comes to fentanyl legislation, and that policymakers should more closely work with the people who will be most impacted by new legislation. Most of our participants agree.
“[I] don’t think that [the] state realized how difficult it is,” said a rural provider about giving medication-assisted treatment in jail, an increasing need as more people are arrested for fentanyl possession. “They probably should come here and visit us.”
Katherine LeMasters received funding from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Behavioral Health Administration. Katherine LeMasters is part of the Right Response Coalition.
In the early days of the second Trump administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took down data and documents that included sexual orientation and gender identity from its webpages. For example, data codebooks for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were replaced with versions that deleted gender identity variables. The Trump administration also ordered the CDC to delete gender identity from the National Violent Death Reporting System, the world’s largest database for informing prevention of homicide and suicide deaths.
For many people, sexual orientation and gender identity may seem private and personal. So why is personal information necessary for public health?
Decades of research have shown that health problems affect some groups more than others. As someone who has studied differences in health outcomes for over 15 years, I know that one of the largest health disparities for LGBTQ+ people is suicide risk. Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, public health cannot do the work to sound the alarm on and address issues that affect not just specific communities, but society as a whole.
Clinicians are concerned about the purging of health data that is essential to patient care.
Alarms and benchmarks
Health is determined by the interplay of several factors, including a person’s genetics, environment and personal life. Of these types of health information, data on personal lives can be the most difficult to collect because researchers must rely on people to voluntarily share this information with them. But details about people’s everyday lives are critical to understanding their health.
Consider veteran status. Without information that identifies which Americans are military veterans, the U.S. would never have known that the rate of suicide deaths among veterans is several times higher than that of the general population. Identifying this problem encouraged efforts to reduce suicide among veterans and military service personnel.
Studying the rates of different conditions occurring in different groups of people is a vital role of public health monitoring. First, rates can set off alarm bells. When people are counted, it becomes easier to pick up a problem that needs to be addressed.
Second, rates can be a benchmark. Once the extent of a health problem is known, researchers can develop and test interventions. They can then determine if rates of that health problem decreased, stayed the same or increased after the intervention.
My team reviewed available research on how sexual orientation and gender identity are related to differences in mortality. The results were grim.
Of the 49 studies we analyzed, the vast majority documented greater rates of death from all causes for LGBTQ+ people compared with people who aren’t LGBTQ+. Results were worse for suicide: Nearly all studies reported that suicide deaths were more frequent among LGBTQ+ people. A great deal of other research supports this finding.
Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, these issues are erased.
Lost data costs everyone
Higher death rates among LGBTQ+ people affect everyone, not just people in the LGBTQ+ community. And when suicide is a major driver of these death rates, the costs increase.
There are societal costs. Deaths from suicide result in lost productivity and medical services that cost the U.S. an estimated $484 billion per year. There are also human costs. Research suggests that for every suicide death, about 135 people are directly affected by the loss, experiencing grief, sadness and anger.
President Donald Trump’s targeting of research on sexual orientation and gender identity comes at a time when more Americans than ever – an estimated 24.4 million adults – identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. That’s more than the entire population of Florida.
Stopping data collection of sexual orientation and gender identity does not protect women, or anyone else, as the Trump administration claims. Rather, it serves to weaken American public health. I believe counting all Americans is the path to a stronger, healthier nation because public health can then do its duty of detecting when a community needs help.
John R. Blosnich receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), however all time and effort into writing this piece was done outside of his work with the VA. The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Blosnich and do not necessarily represent those of his institution, funders, or any affiliations.
When you lose your health insurance or switch to a plan that skimps on preventive care, something critical breaks.
The connection to your primary care provider, usually a doctor, gets severed. You stop getting routine checkups. Warning signs get missed. Medical problems that could have been caught early become emergencies. And because emergencies are both dangerous and expensive, your health gets worse while your medical bills climb.
As gerontologyresearchers who study health and financial well-being in later life, we’ve analyzed how someone’s ties to the health care system strengthen or unravel depending on whether they have insurance coverage. What we’ve found is simple: Staying connected to a trusted doctor keeps you healthier and saves the system money. Breaking that link does just the opposite.
And that’s exactly what has us worried right now. Members of Congress are debating whether to make major cuts to Medicaid and other social safety net programs. If the Senate passes its own version of the tax-and-spending package that the House approved in May 2025, millions of Americans will soon face exactly this kind of disruption – with big consequences for their health and well-being.
And those who buy their own coverage may find that they can no longer afford the premiums. In 2024, average premiums on the individual market exceeded more than US$600 per month for many adults, even with subsidies.
Medicaid was established in the 1960s, explains a scholar of the program’s history.
Consequences of becoming uninsured
Health insurance is more than a way to pay medical bills; it’s a doorway into the health care system itself. It connects people to health care providers who come to know their medical history, their medications and their personal circumstances.
When that door closes, the effects are immediate. Uninsured people are much less likely to have a usual source of care – typically a doctor or another primary care provider or clinic you know and trust. That relationship acts as a foundation for managing chronic conditions, staying current with preventive screenings and getting guidance when new symptoms arise.
Researchers have found that adults who go uninsured for even six months become significantly more likely to postpone care or forgo it altogether to save money. In practical terms, this means they’re less likely to be examined by someone who knows their medical history and can spot red flags early.
Our research team analyzed how their experiences changed when they lost, and sometimes later regained, a regular source of care during those six years.
Many of the participants in this study had multiple chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.
Those who didn’t see the same provider on a regular basis were far less likely to feel heard or respected by health care professionals. They had fewer medical appointments, filled fewer prescriptions and were less likely to follow through with recommended treatments.
Their health also deteriorated considerably over the six years. Their blood pressure and blood sugar levels rose, and they had more elevated indicators of kidney impairment compared with their counterparts who had regular care providers.
The longer they went without consistent health care, the worse these clinical markers became.
Warning signs
Preventive care is one of the best tools that both patients and their health care providers have to head off major health problems. This care includes screenings like cholesterol and blood pressure checks, mammograms, PAP smears and prostate exams, as well as routine vaccinations. But most people only get preventive care when they stay engaged with the health care system.
Our research team also examined what happened to preventive care based on whether the participants had a regular doctor. We found that those who kept seeing the same providers were almost three times more likely to get basic preventive services than those who did not.
Over time, these missed preventive care opportunities can add up to a big problem. They can turn what could have been a manageable issue into an emergency room visit or a long, expensive hospital stay.
For example, imagine a man in his 50s who no longer gets cholesterol screenings after losing insurance coverage. Over several years, his undiagnosed high cholesterol leads to a heart attack that could have been prevented with early medication. Or a woman who skips mammograms because of out-of-pocket costs, only to face a late-stage cancer diagnosis that might have been caught years earlier.
Waiting too long to deal with a health condition can mean you make a trip to the emergency room, increasing the cost of care for you and others. FS Productions/Tetra images via Getty Images
Shifting the costs
Patients whose conditions take too long to be diagnosed aren’t the only ones who pay the price.
We also studied how stable care relationships affect health care spending. To do this, we linked Medicare claims cost data to our original study and tracked the medical costs of the same adults age 50 and older from 2014 to 2020. One of our key findings is that people with regular care providers were 38% less likely to incur above-average health care costs.
These savings aren’t just for patients – they ripple through the entire health care system. Primary care stability lowers costs for both public and private health insurers and, ultimately, for taxpayers.
But when people lose their health care coverage, those savings disappear.
Emergency rooms see more uninsured patients seeking care that could have been handled earlier and more cheaply in a clinic or doctor’s office. While hospitals are legally required to provide emergency care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, much of the resulting cost goes unreimbursed.
Hospitals foot the bill for about two-thirds of those losses. They pass the other third along to private insurance companies through higher hospital fees. Those insurers, in turn, raise their customers’ premiums. Larger taxpayer subsidies can then be required to keep hospitals open.
It contributes to the health care stability our research shows is critical for good health. Medicaid makes it possible for many Americans with serious medical conditions to have a regular doctor, get routine preventive services and have someone to turn to when symptoms arise – even when they have low incomes. It helps prevent health care from becoming purely crisis-driven.
As Congress considers cutting Medicaid funding by hundreds of billions of dollars, we believe that lawmakers should realize that scaling back coverage would break the fragile links between millions of patients and the providers who know them best.
Jane Tavares receives funding from the SCAN Foundation, the RRF Foundation for Aging, and Milbank Memorial Fund .
Marc Cohen receives funding from the SCAN Foundation, the RRF Foundation for Aging and Milbank Memorial Fund .
On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly approved the tax, spending and immigration bill. The legislation, which passed without any support from Democrats, is designed to reduce federal Medicaid spending by requiring anyone enrolled in the program who appears to be able to get a job to either satisfy work requirements or lose their coverage. It’s still unclear, however, whether Senate Republicans would support that provision.
As I explain in my book, “Living Off the Government? Race, Gender, and the Politics of Welfare,” work requirements place extra burdens on low-income families but do little to lift them out of poverty.
Work requirements for TANF
TANF gives families with very low incomes some cash they can spend on housing, food, clothing or whatever they need most. The Clinton administration launched it as a replacement for a similar program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, in 1996. At the time, both political parties were eager to end a welfare system they believed was riddled with abuse. A big goal with TANF was ending the dependence of people getting cash benefits on the government by moving them from welfare to work.
Many people were removed from the welfare rolls, but not because work requirements led to economic prosperity. Instead, they had trouble navigating the bureaucratic demands.
TANF is administered by the states. They can set many rules of their own, but they must comply with an important federal requirement: Adult recipients have to work or engage in an authorized alternative activity for at least 30 hours per week. The number of weekly hours is only 20 if the recipient is caring for a child under the age of 6.
The dozen activities or so that can count toward this quota range from participating in job training programs to engaging in community service.
Some adults enrolled in TANF are exempt from work requirements, depending on their state’s own policies. The most common exemptions are for people who are ill, have a disability or are over age 60.
To qualify for TANF, families must have dependent children; in some states pregnant women also qualify. Income limits are set by the state and range from US$307 a month for a family of three in Alabama to $2,935 a month for a family of three in Minnesota.
Complying with these work requirements generally means proving that you’re working or making the case that you should be exempt from this mandate. This places what’s known as an “administrative burden” on the people who get cash assistance. It often requires lots of documentation and time. If you have an unpredictable work schedule, inconsistent access to child care or obligations to care for an older relative, this paperwork is hard to deal with.
What counts as work, how many hours must be completed and who is exempt from these requirements often comes down to a caseworker’s discretion. Social science research shows that this discretion is not equally applied and is often informed by stereotypes.
Some of this decline happened because recipients got jobs that paid them too much to qualify. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan office that provides economic research to Congress, attributes, at least in part, an increase in employment among less-educated single mothers in the 1990s to work requirements.
Not everyone who stopped getting cash benefits through TANF wound up employed, however. Other recipients who did not meet requirements fell into deep poverty.
Regardless of why people leave the program, when fewer low-income Americans get TANF benefits, the government spends less money on cash assistance. Federal funding has remained flat at $16.5 billion since 1996. Taking inflation into account, the program receives half as much funding as when it was created. In addition, states have used the flexibility granted them to direct most of their TANF funds to priorities other than cash benefits, such as pre-K education.
Lawmakers in Congress and in statehouses have debated whether to add work requirements for Medicaid before. More than a dozen states have applied for waivers that would let them give it a try.
Georgia is currently the only state with Medicaid work requirements in effect, after implementing a waiver in July 2023. The program has experienced technical difficulties and has had trouble verifying work activities.
Other states, including Idaho, Indiana and Kentucky, are already asking the federal government to let them enforce Medicaid work requirements.
Then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson speaks during a news conference in 2017, in Little Rock, Arkansas, calling for Medicaid work requirements. AP Photo/Andrew DeMillo
But most people covered by Medicaid in that age range are already working, and those who are not would likely be eligible for work requirement waivers. An analysis by KFF – a nonprofit that informs the public about health issues – shows that in 2023, 44% of Medicaid recipients were working full time and another 20% were working part time. In 2023, that was more than 16 million Americans.
About 20% of the American adults under 65 who are covered by Medicaid are not working due to illness or disability, or because of caregiving responsibilities, according to KFF. This includes both people caring for young children and those taking care of relatives with an illness or disability. In my own research, I read testimony from families seeking work exemptions because caregiving, including for children with disabilities, was a full-time job.
The rest of the adults under 65 with Medicaid coverage are not working because they are in school, are retired, cannot find work or have some other reason. It’s approximately 3.9 million Americans. Depending on what counts as “work,” they may be meeting any requirements that could be added to the program.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that introducing Medicaid work requirements would save around $300 billion over a decade. Given past experience with work requirements, it is unlikely those savings would come from Americans finding jobs.
My research suggests it’s more likely that the government would trim spending by taking away the health insurance of people eligible for Medicaid coverage who get tangled up in red tape.
This article was updated on May 22, 2025, with details about the House of Representatives’ passage of the budget bill.
In the early hours of June 22, 2025, local time, the United States attacked three nuclear facilities in Iran with “bunker buster” bombs and Tomahawk missiles.
The Conversation U.S. turned to Javed Ali, an expert on Middle East affairs at the University of Michigan and a former senior official at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration, to talk through why Trump chose now to act and what the potential repercussions could be.
What do we know about the nature and timing of US involvement?
President Trump has been forcefully hinting for days days that such a strike could happen, while at the same time opening up a window of negotiation by suggesting as late as June 20 that he would make a decision “within the next two weeks.” We know Trump can be very unpredictable, but he must have assessed that the current conditions presented an opportunity for U.S. action.
Trump met with the National Security Council twice in the days leading up to the strike. Typically at such meetings the president is presented with a menu of military options, which usually boil down to three: a narrow option, a middle ground and a “if you really want to go big” strike.
The one he picked, I would argue, is somewhere between the narrow option and the middle ground one.
The “go big” options would have been an attack on nuclear sites and Iranian leadership – be that senior members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, or possibly the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The more narrow approach would have been just one facility, likely to have been Fordo – a deeply fortified uranium enrichment site buried within a mountain.
What did occur was a strike there, but also at two other sites – Isfahan and Natanz.
U.S. military chiefs confirmed that that 12 GBU-57s – the so-called 30,000-pound bunker busters – were dropped by B-2 bombers on Fordo, and two on Isfahan.
That suggests to me that the military goal of the operation was to destroy Iran’s ability to produce and or store highly enriched uranium in a one-time strike rather than drag the U.S. into a more prolonged conflict.
Has the strike achieved Trump’s objectives?
It will take some time to properly assess the extent to which Iran’s ability to produce or store highly enriched uranium has been damaged.
Certainly we know that the bombs hit their targets, and they have been damaged – but to what extent is not immediately clear. General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that all three target sites had suffered “extremely severe damage and destruction” – possibly rolling back from Trump’s “fully obliterated” assessment. Perhaps most tellingly, Iran has not commented yet on the extent of the damage.
But to Trump, the objective was not just military but political, too. Trump has long said “no” to a nuclear Iran while at the same time has expressed that he has no desire to drag the U.S. into another war.
And this strike may allow Trump to achieve those seemingly contradictory goals. If U.S. initial assessments are correct, Iran’s nuclear program will have been severely compromised. But the strikes won’t necessarily pull U.S. into the conflict fully – unless Iran retaliates in such a way that necessitates further U.S. action.
And that is what Iran’s supreme leader and his military generals will need to work out: Should Iran retaliate and, if so, is it prepared to deal with a heavier U.S. military response – especially when there is no end in sight to its current conflict with Israel.
An operational timeline of a strike on Iran is displayed during a news conference with U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 22, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
What options does Iran have to retaliate against US?
Iran has in the past tried to respond proportionately to any attack. But here is the problem for Iran’s leaders: There is no feasible proportionate response to the United States. Iran has no capability to hit nuclear plants in the U.S. – either conventionally or through unconventional warfare.
But there are tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the region, stationed in Iraq, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Jordan. All are in range of Iran’s ballistic, drones or cruise missiles.
But that military inventory has been depleted – both by using ballistic missiles in waves of attacks against Israel and by Israel hitting missile launch and storage sites in Iran.
Similarly, Tehran’s capacity to respond through one of its proxy or aligned groups in the region has been degraded. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Gaza’s Hamas – both of whom have ties to Iran – are in survival mode following damaging attacks from Israel over the past 18 months.
The Houthis in Yemen are in many ways the “last man standing” in Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance.” But the Houthis have limited capability and know that if they do attack U.S. assets, they will likely get hit hard. During Operation Rough Rider from March to May this year, the Trump administration launched over 1,000 strikes against the Houthis.
Meanwhile Shia militias in Iraq and Syria that could be encouraged to attack U.S. bases haven’t been active in months.
Of course, Iran could look outside the region. In the past the country has been involved in assassinations, kidnappings and terror attacks abroad that were organized through its Quds Force or via operatives of MOIS, its intelligence service.
But for Iran’s leaders, it is increasingly looking like a lose-lose proposition. If they don’t respond in a meaningful way, they look weak and more vulnerable. But if they do hit U.S. targets in any meaningful way, they will invite a stronger U.S. involvement in the conflict, as Trump has warned.
On that occasion, Iran promised a strong retaliation. Its retaliatory attack against the U.S. Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq involved 27 ballistic missiles and caused the physical destruction of some of the facilities on base as well as traumatic brain injury-type symptoms to dozens of troops and personnel, but no deaths. Nevertheless, after this both the U.S. and Iran then backed off from deepening the conflict.
The circumstances now are very different. Iran is already at war with Israel. Moreover, the U.S. went after Iran’s crown jewels – its nuclear program – and it was on Iranian territory. Nonetheless, Khameini knows that if he retaliates, he risks provoking a larger response.
Trump suggested ‘further attacks’ could occur. What could that entail?
The U.S. has suggested that it has the intelligence and ability to hit senior leadership in Iran. And any “go big option” would have likely involved strikes on key personnel. Similarly there could be plans to hit the Iranian economy by attacking oil and gas targets.
A satellite image of the Fordo nuclear facility in Iran prior to the U.S. strike on June 22, 2025. Maxar/Getty
But such actions risk either damaging the global economy or drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict – it would evolve from a “one and done” strike to a cycle of attacks and responses. And that could widen political cracks between hawks in the administration and parts of Trump’s MAGA faithful who are against the U.S. being involved in overseas wars.
Is there any opportunity of a return to diplomacy?
Trump has not closed his “two weeks” window for talks – theoretically it is still open.
But will Iran come to table? Leaders there had already said they were not willing to entertain any deal while under attack from Israel. Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said after the U.S. strikes that the time for diplomacy had now passed.
In any event, you have to ask, what can Iran come to the table with? Do they have much of a nuclear program anymore? And if not, what would they try to negotiate? It would seem, using one of Trump’s phrases, they “don’t have the cards” to make much of a deal.
Javed Ali does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
But there is one recent decision where the court was unanimous in its ruling, perhaps because its holding should not be controversial: National Rifle Association v. Vullo. In that 2024 case, the court said that it’s a clear violation of the First Amendment’s free speech provisions for government to force people to speak and act in ways that are aligned with its policies.
The second Trump administration has tried to wield executive branch power in ways that appear to punish or suppress speech and opposition to administration policy priorities. Many of those attempts have been legally challenged and will likely make their way to the Supreme Court.
The somewhat under-the-radar – yet incredibly important – decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo is likely to figure prominently in Supreme Court rulings in a slew of those cases in the coming months and years, including those involving law firms, universities and the Public Broadcasting Service.
Will the Supreme Court continue to protect free speech rights, as it did unanimously in 2024? Geoff Livingston/Getty Images
Why the NRA sued a New York state official
In May 2024, in an opinion written by reliably liberal Sonia Sotomayor, a unanimous court ruled that the efforts of New York state government officials to punish companies doing business with the NRA constituted clear violations of the First Amendment.
Following its own precedent from the 1960s, Bantam Books v. Sullivan, the court found that government officials “cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”
Many of the current targets of the Trump administration’s actions have claimed similar suppression of their First Amendment rights by the government. They have fought back, filing lawsuits that often cite the National Rifle Association v. Vullo decision in their efforts.
While these cases may still be working their way through the lower courts, it is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately consider legal challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts in a range of areas.
The court could also hear disputes over the government terminating contracts with a family of companies that provides satellite and communications support to the U.S. government generally and the military in particular.
Despite the variety of organizations and government actions involved in these lawsuits, they all can be seen as struggles over free speech and expression, like Vullo.
Whether it is private law firms, multinational corporations, universities or members of the media, all have one thing in common: They have all been targeted by the Trump administration for the same reason – they are engaged in actions or speech that is disfavored by President Donald Trump.
Protecting speech, regardless of politics
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, front, took leave to help prosecute war criminals at the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II. Bettman/Getty Images
But just because the groups that have been targeted by the Trump administration are across the political divide from the NRA does not mean the outcome in decisions relying on the court’s opinion will be different. In fact, these groups can rely on the same arguments advanced by the NRA, and are, I believe, likely to win.
Vullo isn’t the only decision on which the court can rely when considering challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts targeting these groups.
Jackson’s opinion is a forceful rejection of government attempts to control what people say: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
In the wake of World War II, Jackson took a leave from the court and served as a prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders. Prosecuting them for their atrocities, Jackson saw how the Nuremberg defendants wielded government authority to punish enemies who resisted their rise and later opposed their rule.
If some of the cases testing the state’s power to force fidelity to the executive branch reach the Supreme Court, the cases could offer the justices the opportunity to, once again, speak with one voice as they did in NRA v. Vullo, to demonstrate it can be evenhanded and will not play politics with the First Amendment.
This story has been updated with the correct year for the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
Ray Brescia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology
President Donald Trump is seen on a monitor in the White House press briefing room on June 21, 2025, after the U.S. military strike on three sites in Iran. AP Photo/Alex Brandon
In the wake of the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, many congressional Democrats and a few Republicans have objected to President Donald Trump’s failure to seek congressional approval before conducting military operations.
They note that Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and say that section required Trump to seek prior authorization for military action.
The Trump administration disagrees. “This is not a war against Iran,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, implying that the action did not require approval by Congress. That’s the same view held by most modern presidents and their lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel: Article 2 of the Constitution allows the president to use the military in certain situations without prior approval from Congress.
By this reading of the text, presidents, as commander in chief, claim the power to unilaterally order the military to initiate small-scale operations for a short duration. Members of Congress may object to that claim, but they have done little to limit presidents’ unilateralism. What little they have done has not been effective.
As I’ve demonstrated in my research, even though the 1973 War Powers Resolution attempted to constrain presidential power after the disasters of the Vietnam War, it contains many loopholes that presidents have exploited to act unilaterally. For example, it allows presidents to engage in military operations without congressional approval for up to 90 days. And more recent congressional resolutions have broadened executive control even further.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the U.S. declaration of war against Japan on Dec. 8, 1941. U.S. National Archives
A long tradition of executive authority
Presidents can even overcome the loopholes in the War Powers Resolution if the operation lasts longer than 90 days. In 2011, a State Department lawyer argued that airstrikes in Libya could continue beyond the War Powers Resolution’s 90-day time limit because there were no ground troops involved. By that logic, any future president could carry out an indefinite bombing campaign with no congressional oversight.
President Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites without consulting Congress falls in line with precedent from both Democratic and Republican leaders for decades.
Much like his predecessors, Trump did not, and likely will not, provide Congress with more concrete information about the legality of his actions. Nor are congressional lawmakers effectively holding him accountable.
After 9/11, Congress quickly gave up more of its power. A week after those attacks, Congress passed a sweeping Authorization for Use of Military Force, giving the president permission to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
Congress regularly discusses terminating those authorizations, but has yet to do so. If Congress did, the loopholes in the original War Powers Resolution would still exist.
Those actions may have ruffled congressional feathers, but they were in keeping with a long U.S. tradition of targeting members of terrorist groups and protecting members of the military serving in a conflict zone.
Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol in January 2020 call on Congress to limit the president’s powers to use the military. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana
Now, the U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites have revived both fears of war and renewed questions about the president’s authority to unilaterally engage in military action. Presidents since the 1970s, however, have effectively managed to dodge definitive answers to those questions – demonstrating both the power inherent in their position and the unwillingness among members of the legislative branch to reclaim their coequal status.
Sarah Burns does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Retention and recruitment efforts designed to boost diversity in engineering programs often fall short of their goals.gorodenkoff/Getty Images
For decades, colleges, government agencies and foundations have experimented with recruitment and retention efforts designed to increase diversity in engineering programs.
However, the efforts have not significantly boosted the number of women, students of color, individuals with disabilities and other underrepresented groups studying and earning degrees in STEM and engineering fields.
Latino, Black, Native American and Alaska Native students are underrepresented among science and engineering degree recipients at the bachelor’s degree level and above. The groups are also underrepresented among STEM workers with at least a bachelor’s degree.
I study equity and social justice in STEM learning. In my recent study, I found that more students from diverse backgrounds could excel in engineering programs if course content were tailored to a wider variety of learning preferences.
Why it matters
Focusing on learning preferences could boost diversity in engineering courses and careers. Morsa Images/Getty Images
During my time as a program officer at the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency that supports science and engineering, I reviewed plenty of research focused on broadening participation and diversifying student enrollment in STEM fields.
Progress can stall on efforts to boost diversity because college instructors do not consider the synergistic relationship between the content and the learner.
Teachers are the mediators, and it is students’ experiences with the curriculum that matter.
It was long a common belief that students have different learning styles. These included kinesthetic, learning through hands-on experiences and physical activity; auditory, learning by listening to information; and visual, learning by seeing information.
More recent research does not support the idea that teaching students according to their learning style leads to improved learning.
That’s why I prefer the term “learning preferences” rather than learning styles. We all have preferences – whether for ice cream flavors, home decor or how we receive information, including how we learn.
Learning preferences are broader and more flexible, allowing multiple ways of engaging with content.
For example, let’s say a teacher always presented equations in a classroom and the student just could not get it. However, it was the only way the information was presented. To the individual learner, they have failed. Some people would say, “These kids can’t learn,” and subsequently counsel the student out of the class.
Then, years are spent repeating the same cycle.
Students should have opportunities to connect with engineering content in multiple ways. 10’000 hours/Getty Images
However, educators can broaden their viewpoints if they look at the students as customers. If a customer is shopping for a shirt, they look for one that catches their eye. Ultimately, they find one they like.
Instructors need to take the same approach when trying to help students understand what is happening in class. For instance, if I have trouble with equations, I should be provided with options to engage with the lesson in ways that align with my learning preferences.
What’s next?
Learning styles have been heavily researched. However, content preferences have not been well explored.
In a truly democratic education system, curriculum design should reflect the voices of all stakeholders and not just those in positions of power, namely instructors.
Using data mining and artificial intelligence, educators have a variety of options for creating content for the various preferences a learner may want or need. For example, if a student prefers other representational content, such as word problems, graphics or simulations, AI can create diverse representations so that the learner is exposed to a variety of representations.
I argue that future studies need to consider the use of technologies such as adaptive learning applications to understand students’ learning preferences.
Prioritizing diverse learning perspectives in STEM could help create a more inclusive and responsive learning environment.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Sharon Tettegah received funding from the National Science Foundation for this work. Award Abstract # 1826632
Coordinating Curricula and User Preferences to Increase the Participation of Women and Students of Color in Engineering
The directive from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resulting lawsuit from Harvard have escalated the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and the Ivy League institution.
It’s also the latest step in a White House campaign to ramp up vetting and screening of foreign nationals, including students.
Homeland Security officials accused Harvard of creating a hostile campus climate by accommodating “anti-American” and “pro-terrorist agitators.” The accusation stems from the university’s alleged support for certain political groups and their activities on campus.
In early April, the Trump administration terminated the immigration statuses of thousands of international students listed in a government database, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. The database includes country of citizenship, which U.S. school they attend and what they study.
Barring Harvard from enrolling international students could have significant implications for the campus’s climate and the local economy. International students account for 27% of the university’s enrollment.
Here are four stories from The Conversation’s archive about the Trump administration’s battle with Harvard and the economic impact of international students.
1. A target on Harvard
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has targeted the university.
The White House has threatened to end the university’s tax-exempt status, and some media outlets have reported that the Internal Revenue Service is taking steps in that direction.
“Before the IRS can do that, tax law requires that it first audit that charity,” they wrote. “And it’s illegal for U.S. presidents or other officials to force the IRS to conduct an audit or stop one that’s already begun.”
Several U.S. senators, all Democrats, have urged the IRS inspector general to see whether the IRS has begun auditing Harvard or any nonprofits in response to the administration’s requests or whether Trump has violated any laws with his pressure campaign.
Hackney and Mittendorf wrote that the Trump administration’s moves are part of a larger push to exert control over Harvard, including its efforts to increase its diversity and its response to claims of discrimination on campus.
University of Michigan students on campus on April 3, 2025, in Ann Arbor, Mich. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images
2. International students help keep ‘America First’
The U.S. has long been the global leader in attracting international students. But competition for these students is increasing as other countries vie to attract the scholars.
Di Maria wrote that such efforts could hamper the Trump administration’s ability to achieve its “America First” priorities related to the economy, science and technology, and national security.
Trump administration officials have emphasized the importance of recruiting top global talent. And Trump has said that international students who graduate from U.S. colleges should be awarded a green card with their degree.
Research shows that international students launch successful startups at a rate that is eight to nine times higher than their U.S.-born peers. Roughly 25% of billion-dollar companies in the U.S. were founded by former international students, Di Maria noted.
Indeed, international students have a tremendous economic impact on local communities.
If these global scholars stay home or go elsewhere, that’s bad economic news for cities and towns across the United States, wrote Barnet Sherman, a professor of multinational finance and trade at Boston University.
With the money they spend on tuition, food, housing and other other items, international students pump money into the local economy, but there are additional benefits.
On average, a new job is created for every three international students enrolled in a U.S. college or university. In the 2023-24 academic year, about 378,175 jobs were created, Sherman wrote.
In Greater Boston, where Harvard is located, there are about 63,000 international students who contribute to the economy. The gains are huge – about US$3 billion.
A common claim, they wrote, is the flawed assumption that “cash-strapped public universities” aggressively recruit more affluent students from abroad who can afford to pay rising tuition costs. The pair wrote that, historically, shifting demographics on college campuses result from social and economic changes.
In today’s context, Miller-Idriss and Streitwieser maintain that the argument that colleges prioritize international students fails to account for the global role of U.S. universities, which help support national security, foster international development projects and accelerate the pace of globalization.
Texas children’s performance on an annual reading test was basically flat from 2012 to 2021, even as the state spent billions of additional dollars on K-12 education.
I recently did a peer-reviewed deep dive into the test design documentation to figure out why the reported results weren’t showing improvement. I found the flat scores were at least in part by design. According to policies buried in the documentation, the agency administering the tests adjusted their difficulty level every year. As a result, roughly the same share of students failed the test over that decade regardless of how objectively better they performed relative to previous years.
From 2008 to 2014, I was a bilingual teacher in Texas. Most of my students’ families hailed from Mexico and Central America and were learning English as a new language. I loved seeing my students’ progress.
Yet, no matter how much they learned, many failed the end-of-year tests in reading, writing and math. My hunch was that these tests were unfair, but I could not explain why. This, among other things, prompted me to pursue a Ph.D. in education to better understand large-scale educational assessment.
Ten years later, in 2024, I completed a detailed exploration of Texas’s exam, currently known as the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, or STAAR. I found an unexpected trend: The share of students who correctly answered each test question was extraordinarily steady across years. Where we would expect to see fluctuation from year to year, performance instead appears artificially flat.
The STAAR’s technical documents suggest that the test is designed much like a norm-referenced test – that is, assessing students relative to their peers, rather than if they meet a fixed standard. In other words, a norm-referenced test cannot tell us if students meet key, fixed criteria or grade-level standards set by the state.
In addition, norm-referenced tests are designed so that a certain share of students always fail, because success is gauged by one’s position on the “bell curve” in relation to other students. Following this logic, STAAR developers use practices like omitting easier questions and adjusting scores to cancel out gains due to better teaching.
Ultimately, the STAAR tests over this time frame – taken by students every year from grade 3 to grade 8 in language arts and math, and less frequently in science and social studies – were not designed to show improvement. Since the test seems designed to keep scores flat, it’s impossible to know for sure if a lack of expected learning gains following big increases in per-student spending was because the extra funds failed to improve teaching and learning, or simply because the test hid the improvements.
Why it matters
Ever since the federal education policy known as No Child Left Behind went into effect in 2002 and tied students’ test performance to rewards and sanctions for schools, achievement testing has been a primary driver of public education in the United States.
Texas’ educational accountability system has been in place since 1980, and it is well known in the state that the stakes and difficulty of Texas’ academic readiness tests increase with each new version, which typically come out every five to 10 years. What the Texas public may not know is that the tests have been adjusted each and every year – at the expense of really knowing who should “pass” or “fail.”
Students who are marginalized by racism, poverty or language have historically tended to underperform on standardized tests. I believe STAAR’s design makes this problem worse.
On May 28, 2025, the Texas Senate passed a bill that would eliminate the STAAR test and replace it with a different, shorter test or a norm-referenced test. As best as I can tell, this wouldn’t address the problems I uncovered in my research.
What still isn’t known
I plan to investigate if other states or the federal government use similarly designed tests to evaluate students.
My deep dive into Texas’ test focused on STAAR before its 2022 redevelopment. The latest iteration has changed the test format and question types, but there appears to be little change to the way the test is scored. Without substantive revisions to the scoring calculations “under the hood” of the STAAR test, it is likely Texas will continue to see flat performance.
This article was updated on May 31, 2025, to clarify some language and the type of data used in the chart, replace a link and add a comment from the Texas Education Agency.
The Texas Education Agency responded to a pre-publication request for comment after the piece was published. A spokesman refuted several of the scholar’s research conclusions, including that it behaved like a norm-referenced test. However, the scholar stands by them.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Jeanne Sinclair receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada.
Funding cuts to trans health research are part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to medically and legally restrict trans rights.AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson
Given the Trump administration’s systematic attempts to medically and legally disenfranchise trans people, and its abrupt termination of grants focused on LGBTQ+ health, we can’t say that the notice of termination we received regarding our federally funded research on transgender and nonbinary people’s health was unexpected.
However, our project on trans health became one of the hundreds of grants that have been terminated on ideological grounds. The termination notice stated that the grant no longer fit agency priorities and claimed that this work was not based on scientific research.
Termination notice sent to the authors from the National Institutes of Health. Jae A. Puckett and Paz Galupo, CC BY-ND
The effects of ending research on trans health ripple throughout the scientific community, the communities served by this work and the U.S. economy.
Studying resilience
Research focused on the mental health of trans and nonbinary people has grown substantially in recent years. Over time, this work has expanded beyond understanding the hardships these communities face to also study their resilience and positive life experiences.
Resilience is often understood as an ability to bounce back from challenges. For trans and nonbinary people experiencing gender-based stigma and discrimination, resilience can take several forms. This might look like simply continuing to survive in a transphobic climate, or it might take the form of being a role model for other trans and nonbinary people.
Studies show anti-trans legislation is harming the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth.
With the support of the NIH, we began our work in earnest in 2022. The project was built on many years of research from our teams preceding the grant. From the beginning, we collaborated with trans and nonbinary community members to ensure our research would be attuned to the needs of the community.
At the time our grant was terminated, we were nearing completion of Year 3 of our four-year project. We had collected data from over 600 trans and nonbinary participants across the U.S. and started to follow their progress over time. We had developed a new way to measure resilience among trans and nonbinary people and were about to publish a second measure specifically tailored to people of color.
The termination of our grant and others like it harms our immediate research team, the communities we worked with and the field more broadly.
Loss of scientific workforce
For many researchers in trans health, the losses from these cuts go beyond employment.
Our project had served as a training opportunity for the students and early career professionals involved in the study, providing them with the research experience and mentorship necessary to advance their careers. But with the termination of our funding, two full-time researchers and at least three students will lose their positions. The three lead scientists have lost parts of their salaries and dedicated research time.
These NIH cuts will likely result in the loss of much of the next generation of trans researchers and the contributions they would have made to science and society. Our team and other labs in similar situations will be less likely to work with graduate students due to a lack of available funding to pay and support them. This changes the landscape for future scientists, as it means there will be fewer opportunities for individuals interested in these areas of research to enter graduate training programs.
The Trump administration has directly penalized universities across the country for ‘ideological overreach.’ Zhu Ziyu/VCG via Getty Images
As universities struggle to address federal funding cuts, junior academics will be less likely to gain tenure, and faculty in grant-funded positions may lose their jobs. Universities may also become hesitant to hire people who work in these areas because their research has essentially been banned from federal funding options.
Loss of community trust
Trans and nonbinary people have often been studied under opportunistic and demeaning circumstances. This includes when researchers collect data for their own gains but return little to the communities they work with, or when they do research that perpetuates theories that pathologize those communities. As a result, many are often reluctant to participate in research.
To overcome this reluctance, we grounded our study on community input. We involved an advisory board composed of local trans and nonbinary community members who helped to inform how we conducted our study and measured our findings.
Our work on resilience has been inspired by feedback we received from previous research participants who said that “[trans people] matter even when not in pain.”
Abruptly terminating projects like these can break down trust between researchers and the populations they study.
Loss of scientific knowledge
Research that focuses on the strengths of trans and nonbinary communities is in its infancy. The termination of our grant has led to the loss of the insights our study would have provided on ways to improve health among trans and nonbinary people and future work that would have built off our findings. Resilience is a process that takes time to unfold, and we had not finished the longitudinal data collection in our study – nor will we have the protected time to publish and share other findings from this work.
Despite claims that there is insufficient research on gender-affirming care and more data is needed on the health of trans and nonbinary people, the government has chosen to divest from actual scientific research about trans and nonbinary people’s lives.
Loss of taxpayer dollars
The termination of our grant means we are no longer able to achieve the aims of the project, which depended on the collection and analysis of data over time. This wastes the three years of NIH funding already spent on the project.
Scientists and experts who participated in the review of our NIH grant proposal rated our project more highly than 96% of the projects we competed against. Even so, the government made the unscientific choice to override these decisions and terminate our work.
Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been invested in these grants to improve the health of not only trans and nonbinary people, but also American society as a whole. With the termination of these grants, few will get to see the benefits of this investment.
Jae A. Puckett has received funding from the National Institutes of Health.
Paz Galupo has received funding from the National Institutes of Health.
On June 11, 2025, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a slate of eight new members to serve on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on national vaccine policy.
The announcement, made on the social media platform X, comes two days after Kennedy removed all 17 of the serving committee members. Kennedy called their replacements “a bold step in restoring public trust” rooted in “radical transparency and gold standard science.”
The Conversation U.S. asked Santosh Kumar Gautam, an expert in global health policy at the University of Notre Dame, to explain how the vaccine committee’s guidance has shaped vaccine recommendations for the public, and what the changes might mean for peoples’ ability to access vaccines in the future.
What is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices?
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, is a panel of experts appointed to advise the CDC on how to use vaccines to protect the health of people in the U.S. The committee’s job is to review multiple strands of scientific evidence to recommend which vaccines should be used, who should get them and when they should be given. Its guidance affects vaccine schedules for both children and adults, insurance coverage and public health policy across the country.
The committee was formed in 1964 to establish national vaccine policy as federal immunization programs began to expand. It can have up to 19 voting members, who are appointed by the secretary of Health and Human Services. Members are experts in areas such as medicine, public health and immunology. Member usually serve overlapping four-year terms to ensure continuity. All 17 previous members were appointed at different times during the Biden administration. Removing all members of the committee at once is unprecedented.
The group also includes nonvoting members from government health agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health. There are also representatives from more than 30 medical and public health organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Physicians.
These nonvoting members share useful information and real-world experience such as practical issues in administering vaccines in hospitals, management of vaccine side effects and insights into adverse events. Their input helps the committee make recommendations that reflect both science and practical needs.
The committee meets three times a year to review new data on vaccine safety and effectiveness. Its next meeting is scheduled for June 25-27 and is expected to include discussions on COVID-19 and HPV vaccines, with recommendation votes planned for COVID-19 boosters, human papilloma virus and influenza vaccines. The meeting is open to the public and will be telecast live online.
What is the committee’s role in vaccine policy?
The committee makes its recommendations to the CDC by reviewing scientific evidence about a vaccine’s safety and efficacy, as well as practical issues, such as how easy a vaccine is to use, how it affects different groups, its side-effects and how it fits into the health system. The recommendations don’t just consider whether a vaccine works, but how it can be most effectively deployed to protect the American public from disease outbreaks.
The committee looks at data from clinical trials and other research to examine the most recent data on a vaccine’s safety, efficacy and use in everyday settings. When new vaccines come out or a change occurs in the way a disease spreads or behaves, the committee often revises its advice. It also responds to public health emergencies such as recent measles outbreaks in the U.S.
What was the committee’s role during the COVID-19 pandemic?
The committee played a vital role in evaluating vaccine safety and effectiveness and authorizing the use of vaccines for different age groups by reviewing clinical trial data, from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and other vaccine manufacturers.
The committee also developed step-by-step guidelines for who should get vaccinated first, based on how likely people were to catch the virus, their risk of serious disease, the type of work they did and whether they came from a population that was historically underserved or at higher risk. It also issued tailored guidance for pregnant and breastfeeding women, immunocompromised people and children and adolescents as more trial data became available.
Public health experts have expressed concern that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to replace all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee will erode its ability to provide evidence-based guidance.
Who are the new members that Kennedy appointed?
Although Kennedy promised more transparency, he handpicked the advisory committee’s new members without revealing how they were selected. Historically, the body’s members are selected after an extensive vetting process that can take two years.
The committee’s new makeup and Kennedy’s decades-long anti-vaccine stance threaten to erode the integrity of scientific decision-making and commitment to ethical standards in vaccine recommendations.
Kennedy’s overhaul of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely affect how insurers, doctors and the public make decisions about vaccines – and vaccine policy generally. For example, the advisory committee’s decisions directly affect which vaccines are covered by health insurance. If a vaccine is not recommended by the committee, many insurance plans, including those under the Affordable Care Act, are not required to cover it. This means families could face out-of-pocket costs, making it harder for children to access routine immunizations.
The advisory committee also plays a key role in shaping the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule. Given Kennedy’s long-held skepticism about childhood vaccines — including those for measles and polio — some public health experts worry that the newly appointed members could push to revisit or revise vaccine recommendations, especially for newer and more debated vaccines like those for COVID-19 or HPV.
States usually base their school entry vaccine requirements on the committee’s guidelines, and insurers often use them to determine which vaccines are covered. As a result, shifts in policy to childhood vaccinations could influence both school vaccination mandates and access to vaccines for millions of children.
Santosh Kumar Gautam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Holy See Press Office Press Release: Audience with the President of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, 30.06.2025
Today, 30 June 2025, the Holy Father Leo XIV received in audience, in the Apostolic Palace, the President of the Democratic Republic of São Tome and Príncipe, His Excellency Mr. Carlos Manuel Vila Nova, who subsequently met with His Excellency Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, Secretary for Relations with States and International Organizations.
During the cordial talks held at the Secretariat of State, the good relations between the Holy See and São Tome and Príncipe were evoked, and several aspects of the country’s political and socio-economic situation were discussed, especially the collaboration with the local Church in the fields of healthcare and education, with particular attention to the formation of young people in the archipelago.
The conversation continued with an exchange of opinions on matters of a regional and international nature, highlighting the importance of promoting dialogue and cooperation between nations.
From the Vatican, 30 June 2025
SHANGHAI, China, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Qifu Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN; HKEx: 3660) (“Qifu Technology” or the “Company”), a leading AI-empowered Credit-Tech platform in China, today announced that the following proposed resolutions submitted for shareholder approval have been duly adopted at its annual general meeting of shareholders held today:
as a special resolution, THAT, the English name of the Company be changed from “Qifu Technology, Inc.” to “Qfin Holdings, Inc.”;
as a special resolution, THAT, the Third Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company currently in effect be amended and restated by the deletion in their entirety and by the substitution in their place of the Fourth Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association in the form attached as Appendix I to the Notice of the Annual General Meeting;
as an ordinary resolution, THAT, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Certified Public Accountants LLP shall be re-appointed as the auditor of the Company to hold office until the conclusion of the next annual general meeting of the Company and to authorize the Board to fix their remuneration for the year ending December 31, 2025; and
as an ordinary resolution, THAT, Mr. Xiangge Liu shall be re-elected as a director of the Company at the Annual General Meeting and retain office until his retirement pursuant to the Company’s memorandum and articles of association.
AboutQifu Technology
Qifu Technology is a leading AI-empowered Credit-Tech platform in China. By leveraging its sophisticated machine learning models and data analytics capabilities, the Company provides a comprehensive suite of technology services to assist financial institutions and consumers and SMEs in the loan lifecycle, ranging from borrower acquisition, preliminary credit assessment, fund matching and post-facilitation services. The Company is dedicated to making credit services more accessible and personalized to consumers and SMEs through Credit-Tech services to financial institutions.
For more information, please visit: https://ir.qifu.tech.
Safe Harbor Statement
Any forward-looking statements contained in this announcement are made under the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “will,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates” and similar statements. Among other things, the business outlook and quotations from management in this announcement, as well as the Company’s strategic and operational plans, contain forward-looking statements. Qifu Technology may also make written or oral forward-looking statements in its periodic reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), in announcements made on the website of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Hong Kong Stock Exchange”), in its annual report to shareholders, in press releases and other written materials and in oral statements made by its officers, directors or employees to third parties. Statements that are not historical facts, including the Company’s business outlook, beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement, which factors include but not limited to the following: the Company’s growth strategies, changes in laws, rules and regulatory environments, the recognition of the Company’s brand, market acceptance of the Company’s products and services, trends and developments in the credit-tech industry, governmental policies relating to the credit-tech industry, general economic conditions in China and around the globe, and assumptions underlying or related to any of the foregoing. Further information regarding these and other risks and uncertainties is included in Qifu Technology’s filings with the SEC and announcements on the website of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. All information provided in this press release is as of the date of this press release, and Qifu Technology does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, except as required under applicable law.
SHANGHAI, China, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Qifu Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN; HKEx: 3660) (“Qifu Technology” or the “Company”), a leading AI-empowered Credit-Tech platform in China, today announced that the following proposed resolutions submitted for shareholder approval have been duly adopted at its annual general meeting of shareholders held today:
as a special resolution, THAT, the English name of the Company be changed from “Qifu Technology, Inc.” to “Qfin Holdings, Inc.”;
as a special resolution, THAT, the Third Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company currently in effect be amended and restated by the deletion in their entirety and by the substitution in their place of the Fourth Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association in the form attached as Appendix I to the Notice of the Annual General Meeting;
as an ordinary resolution, THAT, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Certified Public Accountants LLP shall be re-appointed as the auditor of the Company to hold office until the conclusion of the next annual general meeting of the Company and to authorize the Board to fix their remuneration for the year ending December 31, 2025; and
as an ordinary resolution, THAT, Mr. Xiangge Liu shall be re-elected as a director of the Company at the Annual General Meeting and retain office until his retirement pursuant to the Company’s memorandum and articles of association.
AboutQifu Technology
Qifu Technology is a leading AI-empowered Credit-Tech platform in China. By leveraging its sophisticated machine learning models and data analytics capabilities, the Company provides a comprehensive suite of technology services to assist financial institutions and consumers and SMEs in the loan lifecycle, ranging from borrower acquisition, preliminary credit assessment, fund matching and post-facilitation services. The Company is dedicated to making credit services more accessible and personalized to consumers and SMEs through Credit-Tech services to financial institutions.
For more information, please visit: https://ir.qifu.tech.
Safe Harbor Statement
Any forward-looking statements contained in this announcement are made under the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “will,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates” and similar statements. Among other things, the business outlook and quotations from management in this announcement, as well as the Company’s strategic and operational plans, contain forward-looking statements. Qifu Technology may also make written or oral forward-looking statements in its periodic reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), in announcements made on the website of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Hong Kong Stock Exchange”), in its annual report to shareholders, in press releases and other written materials and in oral statements made by its officers, directors or employees to third parties. Statements that are not historical facts, including the Company’s business outlook, beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement, which factors include but not limited to the following: the Company’s growth strategies, changes in laws, rules and regulatory environments, the recognition of the Company’s brand, market acceptance of the Company’s products and services, trends and developments in the credit-tech industry, governmental policies relating to the credit-tech industry, general economic conditions in China and around the globe, and assumptions underlying or related to any of the foregoing. Further information regarding these and other risks and uncertainties is included in Qifu Technology’s filings with the SEC and announcements on the website of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. All information provided in this press release is as of the date of this press release, and Qifu Technology does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, except as required under applicable law.
To promote low-carbon industrial transformation and corporate integrity governance simultaneously, the Bureau of Industrial Parks (BIP) of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) has held four “Green Energy Transparency, Integrity in Action” seminars across the Taipei, Taichung, Tainan, and Kaohsiung-Pingtung branches. The first session was held on May 22 at the Taichung Branch, focusing on the challenges and opportunities of SMEs in energy transformation. The seminar was hosted by Ji Shih-Tsung, Director of the Taichung Branch, and gathered representatives from government, industry, and academia to explore how to implement transparency and integrity in the process of green energy development and work together to establish a corporate model that combines integrity and sustainability. In his opening remarks, Ji Shih-Tsung, director of the Taichung Branch, stated that promoting integrity and green energy development in tandem has been a key objective of the BIP. By integrating the forces of industry, government, and academia through the practical sharing platform, BIP could not only assist companies in strengthening their ESG concepts, but also guide the park towards a green development path with greater international competitiveness. The Bureau of Industrial Parks pointed out that enterprises in the parks are increasingly focused on carbon fees, green electricity procurement, and carbon neutrality models. In response to this trend, the seminar spotlighted how SMEs can effectively implement low-carbon transformation while ensuring transparency and integrity in corporate governance. Through diverse case studies and expert insights, the event offered participants actionable strategies for achieving sustainable development. The seminar invited many heavyweight speakers and benchmark companies in the green energy industry to participate in the event, including Transparency International Chinese Taipei (TICT), which has long been deeply involved in promoting corporate integrity, as well as Sunny Founder and TCC Green Energy Corporation, which have outstanding performance in the field of solar energy and renewable energy. These corporate representatives shared their achievements in green power trading, integrity governance, and corporate social responsibility practices, covering practical experience from development process transparency to supply chain ESG management. Through experience exchange, participants were able to gain a deeper understanding of how green power introduction and ethical management reinforce one another to create a win-win development model for businesses and society. The topics discussed at the seminar also align closely with Taiwan’s recent sustainable policies. As global supply chains impose stricter requirements on environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) standards, companies are placing greater emphasis on the integrity and transparency of their suppliers when making decisions on green electricity procurement and energy usage. The ability of green energy companies to disclose openly sustainability data has now become a crucial factor in corporate partnerships and procurement strategies. In addition, TICT delivered an in-depth analysis of monitoring mechanisms in the green energy sector, helping attending companies better understand current regulations and potential risks while enhancing their institutional resilience. This cross-sector collaboration and knowledge sharing also contribute to the industry’s deeper grasp of sustainable governance practices. Looking ahead, the Bureau of Industrial Parks stated that BIP would continue to uphold principles of integrity and efficiency, actively building cross-disciplinary exchange platforms. By doing so, it seeks to support enterprises in parks in meeting the challenges of international sustainability and equip them for a stable and successful transition.
Spokesman: Mr. Liu Chi-Chuan (Deputy Director General, BIP) Contact Number: 886-7-3613349, 0911363680 Email: lcc12@bip.gov.tw
Source: Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association
Headline: Media release: East coast gas market review an opportunity to strengthen investment and increase supply – Australian Energy Producers
Australian Energy Producers welcomes the Federal Government’s review of the east coast gas market to deliver the natural gas needed to power the economy, put downward pressure on prices, and remain a reliable export partner.
Australian Energy Producers Chief Executive Samantha McCulloch said industry supported the Government’s commitment to consolidating and streamlining regulations and creating a long-term stable regulatory environment to facilitate investment in new supply.
“The review is an opportunity to future-proof the east coast gas market and ensure reliable and affordable gas supply for Australian households and manufacturers,” Ms McCulloch said.
“Natural gas will play a critical role in Australia’s energy mix for decades to come. The east coast gas market needs to be fit-for-purpose to support continued investment in our abundant gas resources and avoid projected shortfalls.
Ms McCulloch said the review should focus on delivering new gas supply by streamlining regulation, restoring market signals, and eliminating duplicative and onerous reporting requirements.
“The Government’s Future Gas Strategy makes clear that natural gas will remain critical to Australia’s energy security through to 2050 and beyond. This requires a strong, stable and competitive east coast gas market that encourages investment and timely supply.”
The ACCC’s latest report on the east coast gas market released today underscores the urgent need to remove barriers to new gas supply to avoid forecast gas shortfalls. It found “the east coast has sufficient gas reserves and resources to meet projected domestic demand for at least the next decade”, but “a combination of policy, technical and commercial factors over the past 15 years has impeded their development”.
“Australian gas producers are committed to delivering the reliable and affordable gas supply Australians need, and we look forward to working constructively with government, gas users and stakeholders throughout the review,” Ms McCulloch said.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Press release
Fuel margins remain high despite lower fuel prices, CMA finds
Today’s monitoring report sets out the Competition and Market Authority’s (CMA) observations on developments in the UK’s road fuel retail market since the previous update in March 2025.
Dan Turnbull, Senior Director of Markets at the CMA, said:
While there is uncertainty over how global events will impact the price of oil, our report shows fuel margins remain high compared to historic levels despite lower prices at the pump in recent months.
The government committed to launching a ‘fuel finder’ scheme following our recommendation to help drivers compare real time prices and boost competition. Once launched, it will make it easier than ever to shop around and find the best deals.
Fuel prices
Fuel prices across the UK decreased for both petrol and diesel from end of February 2025 to end of May 2025. These movements reflect in part changing crude oil prices and refining spreads, both of which are driven by global factors.
The average petrol and diesel prices at the end of May 2025 were 132.0 and 138.4 pence per litre (ppl) respectively. This represents a decrease of 7.6 ppl and 8.4 ppl in petrol and diesel prices compared to the end of February 2025.
Fuel margins
A retailer’s fuel margin is the difference between what it pays for fuel and what it sells it at. The CMA found that fuel margins were similar to the high levels seen during its road fuel market study – a review of the market to understand the factors influencing fuel prices undertaken in 2023 – which suggests overall competition in the UK’s road fuel retail market remains weak.
Supermarket fuel margins fell from 8.9% in December 2024 to 7.9% in February 2025, before rising to 8.3% in March 2025. Non-supermarket fuel margins fell from 9.9% in December 2024 to 8.9% in January 2025, before rising to 10.4% in March 2025.
This report does not consider developments in operating costs since the road fuel market study. The CMA will undertake a review of fuel retailer operating costs in its first annual road fuel monitoring report later this year to assess whether operating cost changes are impacting fuel margins for large retailers.
Retail spreads
The CMA also looked at the retail spread – the average price that drivers pay at the pump compared to the benchmarked price that retailers buy fuel at – across the UK from March 2025 to May 2025.
Petrol retail spreads averaged 15.4 ppl, which was 1.5 ppl higher than the previous 4 months period – and still more than double the average of 6.5 ppl over 2015-19. Diesel retail spreads averaged 18.8 ppl, which was 4.6 ppl higher than the previous 4 months period and more than double the average of 8.6 ppl in 2015 – 2019.
While spread analysis can give a quick overview of trends in the sector, it is a less reliable indicator of competitive intensity than individual retailers’ fuel margins. Retail spreads increase and decrease in response to the volatility of wholesale prices but should return to a normal range over time, if the market is working well.
The CMA has taken on the new statutory monitoring function, which will provide ongoing scrutiny of prices to encourage effective competition between retailers and help keep prices low for drivers. This update is based on data provided to the CMA by fuel retailers using its new information gathering powers granted under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act.
The ‘fuel finder’ scheme will allow drivers to compare real-time fuel prices, via navigation apps, in-car devices and comparison websites. The government’s aim is to launch the scheme by the end of this year, subject to legislation and parliamentary time.
Further details about the CMA’s road fuel monitoring function, including previous reports and guidance, can be found on the collection page.
Notes to editors
The CMA issued section 311 Information Notices to the following retailers: Applegreen PLC; Arthur Foodstores Limited, Asda Express Limited, and Asda Stores Limited (Asda); BP Oil UK Limited; Esso Petroleum Company Limited; Moto Hospitality Limited; Motor Fuel Group; Rontec Roadside Retail Limited; J Sainsbury PLC; Shell PLC; Tesco PLC; and Welcome Break Group Limited.
Motor Fuel Group announced the completed acquisition of Morrisons PFSs in the UK on 30 April 2024.
All enquiries from journalists should be directed to the CMA press office by email on press@cma.gov.uk or by phone on 020 3738 6460.
