Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mary Burke, Professor of Psychology, Carlow University

With the NFL draft taking place in Pittsburgh and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 people expected to attend the events downtown and on the North Shore, conversations about sex trafficking have resurfaced – as they often do when major events draw large crowds to a city.

But how much of what people believe about trafficking and big events is actually supported by evidence? Mary Burke, a psychology professor at Carlow University who studies this intersection, breaks down what the data shows.

Burke partners with local nonprofit groups that fight human trafficking, such as Eden’s Farm. The organization offered three community training sessions ahead of the NFL draft that focused on recognizing the signs of exploitation, understanding grooming tactics and strengthening prevention strategies.

With Pittsburgh hosting the NFL draft, what does research show about how large events can influence sex trafficking activity?

Researchers have not found conclusive evidence that large events such as the NFL draft, the World Cup or other similarly sized, temporary events cause an increase in sex trafficking. However, experts do believe the crime of sex trafficking is underestimated in general due to a number of factors. Because so much effort goes into concealing trafficking, the crime goes unreported and undetected more often than it’s discovered. The true scale of the problem is likely much larger than the data reflects.

Large events that draw crowds even on a smaller scale than the draft, such as motorcycle rallies and large business conferences, often create opportunities traffickers may try to exploit, according to a 2016 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University.

Also, we do see an increased demand for commercial sex with events that draw a large male audience. Some of this demand is met through consensual means and some through force, fraud and coercion, which is the definition of sex trafficking.

How are organizations like Eden’s Farm working on the ground to prevent trafficking during the draft?

Eden’s Farm as well as the Social Impact Institute and Carlow University have led training. The hope is that this will equip citizens and those on the ground – law enforcement, ride share drivers and hotel and restaurant employees, for example – to know how to identify and respond to potential trafficking situations.

Additionally, these groups teach the public how to recognize signs of exploitation, how grooming works and how to strengthen online safety. The training also help families, educators, service providers and community members prevent people they know from being trafficked.

What are common misconceptions people have about sex trafficking during events like this?

One of the most common misconceptions about sex trafficking is the idea that trafficking includes abduction or physical captivity. While kidnapping can occur, many trafficking situations are carried out through psychological coercion rather than physical force. Victims may be controlled through grooming, fraud, intimidation, fear of retaliation against loved ones, or deep emotional dependency on the trafficker.

This translates into a victim not appearing to be restrained physically, which can make identification of a person in distress more difficult.

What signs should the general public look for that might indicate trafficking is happening?

This is tricky, as some of the indicators would be revealed through conversation, rather than observation at a distance. With that said, people should be on the lookout for patterns of control – for example, someone who does not seem to be able to speak freely or move about freely, has money or identification that is controlled by another person, or appears fearful.

In our training, we explain how to become aware of signs that someone is being pressured into commercial sex through manipulation rather than overt violence or consent. No single sign is definitive on its own, but there are some common situational red flags the public can take notice of regarding potential victims: They are coming and going from a hotel room at unusual hours with multiple different people, they are dressed in a way that seems inconsistent with the weather or setting, or they don’t seem to know basic details about where they are or where they’re going.

What are some prevention strategies Pittsburgh could adopt?

For this event and going forward, trafficking prevention should include a city- and county-level plan that can be implemented in relevant agencies. Pennsylvania’s plan focuses on prevention through public awareness and training, especially by equipping transportation workers and the public to recognize and report trafficking.

Prevention plans could include recommendations for the service and hospitality industries that require staff training on recognizing trafficking indicators, such as signs of coercion or restricted movement, and how to report to law enforcement or 911 for a rapid response. There are also a variety of ways to report suspected sex trafficking activity through the National Human Trafficking Hotline. When businesses and service workers interact with people who may be trafficking victims, they should do so in a way that is sensitive, nonjudgmental and doesn’t put the person in danger.

For example, a hotel employee who suspects a guest may be a trafficking victim shouldn’t confront the trafficker directly or make a scene – instead, they should know how to quietly offer help or alert the right people without escalating the situation or making the victim feel ashamed or accused.

Mary Burke is also the Director of the Social Impact Institute.

Rachel Seamans volunteers with the Social Impact Institute and Eden’s Farm.

– ref. What to know about sex trafficking as Pittsburgh hosts the NFL draft – https://theconversation.com/what-to-know-about-sex-trafficking-as-pittsburgh-hosts-the-nfl-draft-278641

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

The Justice Department has identified 384 foreign-born Americans whose citizenship it wants to revoke as “the first wave” of such measures, according to recent reporting by The New York Times. These cases are being assigned to prosecutors in 39 U.S. attorney’s offices across the country.

The administration has ordered Department of Homeland Security staffers to refer upward of 200 denaturalization cases per month to the Justice Department as part of its crackdown on immigration, compared to an average of 11 cases per year between 1990 and 2017.

This shift comes as the Justice Department faces a severe staffing crisis, having lost nearly 1,000 assistant U.S. attorneys in resignations and firings. The strategy of distributing cases to regional offices appears designed both to increase capacity and to work around the expertise gap created by staff departures.

As we document in recent research, denaturalization risks becoming a tool of political control and intimidation. The lack of any statute of limitations in civil denaturalization gives prosecutors what the Supreme Court in 2017, in Maslenjak v. United States, warned against: “nearly limitless leverage” over naturalized citizens – creating permanent vulnerability for over 20 million naturalized Americans.

A brief history

Denaturalization is different from deportation, which removes noncitizens from the country. With civil denaturalization, the government files a lawsuit to strip people’s U.S. citizenship after they have become citizens, turning them back into noncitizens who can then be deported.

The government can only do this in specific situations. It must prove someone “illegally procured” citizenship by not meeting the requirements, or that they lied or hid important facts during the citizenship process.

The Trump administration’s “maximal” enforcement approach, outlined in a June 2025 Justice Department memo, means pursuing any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, regardless of priority level or strength of evidence. As our earlier research documented, this has already led to cases like that of Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked based on a name discrepancy that could easily have resulted from a translator’s error rather than intentional fraud.

For most of American history, taking away citizenship has been rare. But it increased dramatically during the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare period characterized by intense suspicion of communism. The United States government targeted people it thought were communists or Nazi supporters. Between 1907 and 1967, over 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship this way.

Everything changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Afroyim v. Rusk. The court said the government usually cannot take away citizenship without the person’s consent. It left open only cases involving fraud during the citizenship process.

After this decision, denaturalization became extremely rare. From 1968 to 2013, fewer than 150 people lost their citizenship, mostly war criminals who had hidden their past.

How the process works

In criminal lawsuits, defendants get free lawyers if they can’t afford one. They get jury trials. The government must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” – the highest standard of proof.

But in most denaturalization cases, the government files a civil suit, where none of these protections exist.

People facing denaturalization get no free lawyer, meaning poor defendants often face the government alone. There’s no jury trial – just a judge deciding whether someone deserves to remain American. The burden of proof is lower – “clear and convincing evidence” instead of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Most important, there’s no time limit, so the government can go back decades to build cases.

As law professors who study citizenship, we believe this system violates basic constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court has called citizenship a fundamental right. Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 described it as the “right to have rights.”

In our reading of the law, taking away such a fundamental right through civil procedures that lack basic constitutional protection – no right to counsel for those who can’t afford it, no jury trial, and a lower burden of proof – seems to violate the due process of law required by the Constitution when the government seeks to deprive someone of their rights.

The bigger problem is what citizenship-stripping policy does to democracy.

When the government can strip citizenship from naturalized Americans for decades-old conduct through civil procedures with minimal due process protection – pursuing cases based on evidence that might not meet criminal standards – it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. This creates a system where naturalized citizens face ongoing vulnerability that can last their entire lives, potentially chilling their full participation in American democracy.

The Justice Department memo establishes 10 priority categories for denaturalization cases. They range from national security threats and war crimes to various forms of fraud, financial crimes and, most importantly, any other cases it deems “sufficiently important to pursue.” This “maximal enforcement” approach means pursuing not just clear cases of fraud, but also any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, no matter how weak or old the evidence is.

This creates fear throughout immigrant communities.

About 20 million naturalized Americans now must worry that any mistake in their decades-old immigration paperwork could cost them their citizenship.

A 2-tier system

This policy effectively creates two different types of American citizens. Native-born Americans never have to worry about losing their citizenship, no matter what they do. But naturalized Americans face ongoing vulnerability that can last their entire lives.

This has already happened. A woman who became a naturalized citizen in 2007 helped her boss with paperwork that was later used in fraud. She cooperated with the FBI investigation, was characterized by prosecutors as only a “minimal participant,” completed her sentence, and still faced losing her citizenship decades later because she didn’t report the crime on her citizenship application – even though she hadn’t been charged at the time.

The Justice Department’s directive to “maximally pursue” cases across 10 broad categories – combined with the first Trump administration’s efforts to review over 700,000 naturalization files – represents an unprecedented expansion of denaturalization efforts.

The Trump administration’s strategy of distributing denaturalization cases across 39 U.S. attorney’s offices – many now staffed by less-experienced prosecutors handling unfamiliar constitutional terrain – may prove counterproductive.

These cases will come before dozens of federal judges, creating opportunities for multiple courts to rule against the policy. This pattern has already been seen with the administration’s detention policy: Federal courts have systematically rejected the administration’s attempt to drastically expand immigrant detention without hearings, with immigrants prevailing in 350 out of 362 cases decided by over 160 judges nationwide.

Denaturalization cases raise even more serious constitutional concerns and could face similar widespread judicial pushback.

The Supreme Court, in Afroyim v. Rusk, was focused on protecting existing citizens from losing their citizenship. The constitutional principle behind that decision – that citizenship is a fundamental right which can’t be arbitrarily taken away by whoever happens to be in power – applies equally to how the government handles denaturalization cases today.

The Trump administration’s directive, combined with court procedures that lack basic constitutional protections, risks creating a system that the Afroyim v. Rusk decision sought to prevent – one where, as the Supreme Court said, “A group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.”

This is an updated version of an article originally published on July 10, 2025.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Justice Department’s effort to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans could face widespread judicial pushback – https://theconversation.com/justice-departments-effort-to-strip-citizenship-from-naturalized-americans-could-face-widespread-judicial-pushback-281413

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian Jay Tang, Ph.D. Candidate in Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan

Hundreds of millions of people consult artificial intelligence chatbots on a daily basis for everything from product recommendations to romance, making them a tempting audience to target with potentially below-the-radar advertising. Indeed, our research suggests AI chatbots could easily be used for covert advertising to manipulate their human users.

We are computer scientists who have been tracking AI safety and privacy for several years. In a study we published in an Association for Computing Machinery journal, we found that chatbots trained to embed personalized product ads in replies to queries influenced people’s choices about products. And most participants didn’t recognize that they were being manipulated.

These findings come at a pivotal moment. In 2023, Microsoft started running ads in Bing Chat, now called Copilot. Since then, Google and OpenAI have experimented with advertisements in their own chatbots. Meta has started to send people customized ads on Facebook and Instagram based on their interactions with Meta’s generative AI tools.

The major companies are competing for an edge: In late March, OpenAI lured away Meta’s longtime advertising executive, Dave Dugan, to lead OpenAI’s advertising operations.

Tech companies have made ads part of nearly every large free web service, video channel and social media platform. But the latest AI models could take this practice to a new level of risk for consumers.

People don’t simply use chatbots to search for information and media or to produce content. They turn to the bots for a great variety of tasks, as complex as life advice and emotional support. People are increasingly treating chatbots as companions and therapists, with some users even developing deep relationships with AI.

In these circumstances, people can easily forget that companies ultimately create chatbots to turn a profit. And to that end, AI companies are motivated to thoroughly profile users so ads become more effective and profitable.

Chatbot ads have added power

A single prompt to a chatbot can reveal a lot more about a user than the person might expect.

A 2024 study showed that large language models can infer a wide range of personal data, preferences and even a person’s thinking patterns during routine queries. “Help me write an essay on the history of American fiction” could indicate that the user is a high school student. “Give me recipe suggestions for a quick weeknight dinner” could indicate that the user is a working parent. A single conversation can provide a surprising amount of detail. Over time, a full chat history could create a remarkably rich profile.

To show how this might happen in practice, we built a chatbot that quietly wove ads into its conversations with people, suggesting products and services based on the conversation itself. We asked 179 people to complete everyday online tasks using one of three chatbots: one typical of those on the web today, one that slipped in undisclosed ads and one that clearly labeled sponsored suggestions. Participants didn’t know the experiment was about advertising.

For example, when participants asked our chatbot for a diet and exercise plan, the ad version would suggest using a specific app for tracking calories. It presented that sponsored content as an unbiased recommendation, even though it was meant to manipulate people. Many participants indicated that they had been influenced by the AI and that it had affected their decisions. Some participants even said they had completely “outsourced” their decision-making to the chatbot.

Half of the participants who received sponsored and disclosed ads indicated they did not notice the presence of advertising language in the responses they received. This led to a concerning result: Although ads made the chatbot perform 3% to 4% worse on many tasks, numerous users indicated they preferred the advertising chatbot responses over the nonadvertising responses. They even said the ad-infused responses felt more friendly and helpful.

Knowing you to persuade you

This kind of subtle influence can have larger consequences when it arises in other areas of life, such as political and social views. Profiling users, and using psychology to target them, has been part of social media algorithms and web advertising for more than a decade.

But in our view, chatbots are likely to deepen these trends. That’s because the first priority of social media algorithms is to keep you engaged with the content. They personalize ads based on your search history.

Chatbots, however, can go further by trying to persuade you directly, based on your expressed beliefs, emotions and vulnerabilities. And chatbots that can reason and act on their own are far more effective than conventional algorithms at autonomously soliciting information from users. A chatbot with a purpose can keep probing someone until it gets the information it wants, resulting in a more accurate profile of them.

This type of autonomous interrogation is feasible, aligns with AI companies’ business models and has raised concern among regulators. Right now OpenAI is rolling out ads in ChatGPT, but the company said that it will not allow ad placement to alter the AI chatbot’s replies.

But permitting personalized ads within chatbot responses is just a step away. Our research suggests that if AI companies take that step, many human users may not even recognize when it happens.

Here are some steps you can take to try to detect AI chatbot advertising.

• Look for any disclosure text – words such as “ad,” “advertisement” and “sponsored” – even if it is faint or otherwise hard to see. These are mandatory under Federal Trade Commission regulations. Amazon, Google and other major online platforms have these as well.

• Think about whether that product or brand mention makes sense and is widely known. AI learns from text and images on the internet, so popular brands are likely to be ingrained in the models. If it’s a new product or small-name product, it is more likely that it could be advertising.

• An unusual shift in intent or tone is a potential sign of an advertisement. An analogy to this on YouTube is the often abrupt or jarring transition to a sponsored section on videos made by content creators.

This article’s research was supported by a $10,000 Microsoft Azure & OpenAI cloud credit grant from the National Science Foundation NAIRR Pilot.

Brian Jay Tang has previously been supported by funding from General Motors, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Army Research Office, Office of Naval Research, and Y Combinator.

This article’s research was supported by a $10,000 Microsoft Azure & OpenAI cloud credit grant from the National Science Foundation NAIRR Pilot. Kang G. Shin has previously been supported by funding from General Motors, Army Research Office, and National Science Foundation.

– ref. You probably wouldn’t notice if an AI chatbot slipped ads into its responses – https://theconversation.com/you-probably-wouldnt-notice-if-an-ai-chatbot-slipped-ads-into-its-responses-276010

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Caroline Wagner, Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

China’s rapid rise in science has hit a milestone. The country’s investment in research and development has reached parity with – and by purchasing power measures has surpassed – that of the United States, according to a March 2026 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Both nations have crossed the US$1 trillion threshold on research spending.

For 80 years, the U.S. operated the most productive scientific and technological enterprise in human history. Breakthroughs and advances that came from American labs included the internet; the mRNA vaccine; the transistor and its children, semiconductors and microprocessors; the Global Positioning System; and many more.

U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II.

In contrast, China had previously spent little to nothing on research and development. Some estimates show that China was among the lowest research spenders worldwide in 1980.

As a policy analyst and public affairs researcher, I study international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public and foreign policy. I have tracked China’s rise across every major database for more than a decade.

The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question.

China’s systematic and unrelenting rise

China’s R&D spending milestone caps a series of achievements that have arrived in rapid succession.

In 2019, China surpassed the U.S. in its share of the top 1% most-highly cited papers – what some call the Nobel class of research. By 2022, it had taken first place globally in most-cited papers overall.

In 2024, China overtook the United States in total scientific publications – the first time any nation has displaced American dominance since the U.S. itself surpassed the United Kingdom in 1948. Researchers found that China overtook the United States in scientific output even earlier. That same year, China pulled ahead in the Nature Index, which tracks publications in the world’s most selective scientific journals, posting a 17% advantage over the U.S. in outlets long considered the gold standard of scientific excellence.

In 2024, Chinese entities also filed roughly 1.8 million patent applications, compared to the U.S.’s 603,191 applications.

Given these milestones, it’s possible to argue that China is quickly taking the lead in global science and technology. These are not isolated data points. They mark a structural shift in where the world’s scientific frontier is being built.

More science is good – the problem lies elsewhere

China’s ascent is, in one sense, good news. More knowledge, generated by more researchers across more institutions, expands the global pool of discovery from which everyone can draw. The world benefits when science thrives.

The problem is not that China is investing, but that the U.S. is not.

First, the U.S. is divesting from basic, open science. Federal R&D spending in the U.S. peaked in 2010 at roughly $160 billion and fell by more than 15% over the following five years. Federal investment in research and development has been in a long, slow slide – from a peak of 1.86% of gross domestic product in 1964 to about 0.66% in 2021.

The federal government is no longer the largest spender in R&D: It funded about 40% of basic research in 2022, while the business sector performed roughly 78% of U.S. R&D. While not a problem in itself, industry has simultaneously withdrawn from open scientific publication over the past four decades, shifting from research toward development. The result is a shrinking pool of openly shared scientific knowledge precisely as public investment in it also contracts.

Under the second Trump administration, U.S. government science agencies have been slow-walking proposals for new research. Current budget cuts from the White House threaten to deepen cuts to government spending significantly.

The second is the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.

I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect.

Disinvestment cuts deeper than it appears

The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.

Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.

A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access.

Talent compounds the problem. The U.S. built its scientific dominance partly by being the destination of choice for the world’s most ambitious researchers. The U.S. leads the world in Nobel Prizes, but, notably, 40% of the Nobel Prizes in chemistry, medicine and physics that were awarded to Americans since 2000 were won by immigrants. The flow of foreign talent is not guaranteed. It follows opportunity, funding and openness.

Researchers who might once have come to American universities are finding welcoming alternatives in Europe, China and elsewhere.

A decision point, not a trend line

China’s milestone in research funding arrives at a moment when the U.S. is deciding whether to maintain its scientific leadership.

Scientific infrastructure does not decline gradually and recover on demand. Doctoral scientists represent a decade or more of training; tacit laboratory knowledge lives in working research groups, not in documents. Once talented young researchers leave the pipeline – or international talent redirects to other countries – the capacity is very hard to rebuild. Early warning signs are already visible in the U.S. system: thousands of NIH grants terminated, a collapse in international applications and an exodus of early-career scientists.

What is at stake is not a ranking. It is whether the U.S. maintains the institutional capacity – the universities, the federal laboratories, the graduate pipelines, the culture of open inquiry – that made those returns on scientific investment possible in the first place.

China’s rise did not create this decision point, although it brings it into sharp relief. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.

That is a lot to lose.

Caroline Wagner 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.

– ref. China surpasses US in research spending – the consequences extend far beyond scientific ranking and clout – https://theconversation.com/china-surpasses-us-in-research-spending-the-consequences-extend-far-beyond-scientific-ranking-and-clout-280543

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Valerie Morkevicius, Associate Professor, Political Science, Colgate University

Since the beginning of the Iran war, Pope Leo XIV has frequently called for peace, cautioning that the “delusion of omnipotence” makes military force seem preferable to diplomacy. Although U.S. Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, criticized some of the pope’s comments, a growing choir of Catholic voices has criticized the conflict by invoking the concept of “just war” – an evolving tradition that has guided Christian thinking about war and peace for 1,500 years.

In March, the archbishop of Washington said the war failed “to meet the just war threshold.” A month later, the prelate leading the U.S. military’s Catholic chaplaincy delivered a stark assessment: The war was not justified. The Vatican’s secretary of state raised similar concerns.

Many faiths have teachings about when war is or is not considered justified, including Judaism, Islam and Hinduism. In the Christian just war tradition, battle is never holy – “God does not bless any conflict,” in Leo’s words – but it is sometimes considered necessary.

That tradition traces its roots to the fifth-century theologian St. Augustine. A millennium later, St. Thomas Aquinas systematized the church’s just war teachings, establishing three basic criteria to assess the justifiable use of force: authority, cause and intention. Over time, three more principles emerged: proportionality, last resort and likelihood of success.

Here’s how they could apply today:

1. Legitimate authority

Historically, the conversation about a war’s justness began by asking whether a responsible sovereign had declared it.

Today, some just war scholars argue only the United Nations holds this authority, since the U.N. charter forbids the use of force against another nation except for self-defense.

In the United States, the boundary between presidential and congressional authority for war is contested. According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war, and Congress controls military funding. Yet the Constitution simultaneously grants the president broad authority to command military operations.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution attempted to balance these principles by requiring presidents to seek congressional authorization for any use of force lasting more than 60 days.

2. Just cause

Traditionally, Christian theologians argued that self-defense and righting wrongs could justify war.

Some causes can never be just. For example, the 16th-century scholar Francisco de Vitoria explicitly ruled out “difference of religion” and “enlargement of the empire” as legitimate causes for war.

The Trump administration has offered numerous and shifting rationales for the Iran war – even humanitarian ones, telling Iranians suffering under a brutally oppressive regime that “the hour of your freedom is at hand” – which makes it difficult to assess the justness of its cause.

One of the main explanations U.S. officials have offered, for example, is self-defense. On the war’s first day, Trump declared the objective was to eliminate “imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” International law and the just war tradition uphold states’ right to self-defense.

But the law permits force only when necessary to end an ongoing attack or to avert an imminent one. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. attacked because of a planned Israeli strike, casting doubt on the idea of imminent threat: “We knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after (Iran) before (Israel) launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” Pentagon briefers also told Congress the Iranian threat was not imminent.

In addition to self-defense, Trump claimed a need to prevent future threats – otherwise called preventive war – such as nuclear weapons or longer-range missiles that could reach the United States.

Iran has a history of covert nuclear research, which it claims is for civilian use. Experts debate how long it would take for the country to produce a nuclear weapon. In 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency declared Iran was not complying with agreements on nuclear nonproliferation. However, international law prohibits preventive war.

Trump has also stated that the war would ensure Iran cannot support “terrorist proxies” abroad. The regime funds and equips Hamas and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

This is a gray area of international law, but providing financial and material aid alone is generally not considered sufficient justification for an attack.

3. Right intent

Just cause alone is insufficient to render a war just.

Aquinas cautioned that even a war declared by a “legitimate authority, and for a just cause” could “be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention.” Augustine saw love of violence, cruelty or power as evil intents. “The common good of the commonwealth” should motivate the decision to go to war, wrote Vitoria, the 16th-century theologian – not the leader’s personal gain or honor.

Assessing right intent is hard, but a government’s conduct and rhetoric can offer clues. Attacks on civilian infrastructure, for example, cast doubt on the Trump administration’s humanitarian claims.

In March, the president told the Financial Times that “my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran.” In an April post on Truth Social, he wrote, “With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A ⁠FORTUNE.” Pursuing economic interests, however, would violate right intent.

4. Proportionality

War is always destructive. But today’s Catholic Catechism, a summary of the church’s teachings, states that the “use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” In other words, the just war tradition holds that a war is justified only if the harm it causes is proportional to the good it seeks to achieve.

As of April 7, 2026, more than 1,600 Iranian civilians have been killed, including more than 200 children. An estimated 3 million Iranians have been displaced. Schools and health care facilities have been destroyed.

The disruption of oil production and trade translates into higher energy and fertilizer prices, which raise food prices – hitting the world’s poorest the hardest.

Whether the costs of the Iran war are proportionate depends on which of the administration’s stated aims one believes.

5. Last resort

The Catholic Catechism declares war can be legitimate only if “all other means” of putting an end to an aggressor’s harms “have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.”

Arguably, U.S. officials did not give diplomacy sufficient time to work. Days before the war began, some analysts believed that a deal was close. Oman’s foreign minister, who hosted negotiations in February, said “it was a shock but not a surprise” that the U.S. and Israel attacked, after peace “had briefly appeared really possible.” The Guardian reported that the U.K.’s national security adviser, who was also present at those February talks, expressed similar sentiments.

Experts suggest that the U.S. negotiating team’s lack of technical expertise and the tight timeline contributed to failure.

6. Likelihood of success

To be justified, the use of force must be likely to accomplish the war’s aims. Ethicists debate the exact bar but agree that success must be “more likely than a mere ‘hope,’ ‘chance,’ or ‘possibility,’” as international relations scholar Frances V. Harbour put it. Limited goals are more likely to succeed than expansive ones.

The war has degraded Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. But the knowledge needed to build them remains, and without a diplomatic solution, Iran is likely to continue its efforts to develop such technologies.

Similarly, force can disrupt Iran’s proxy networks and raise the costs of maintaining them, but regional diplomacy and cooperation have a better chance of resolving such long-running concerns.

Ultimately, I believe a lack of clarity about the war’s goals diminishes the likelihood of success. Wars require more than military victories; there must be a coherent plan for ending the fighting such that a “better peace” is established.

Valerie Morkevicius 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.

– ref. ‘Just war’ has guided Catholic thinking on conflict for centuries – including criticism of Iran war – https://theconversation.com/just-war-has-guided-catholic-thinking-on-conflict-for-centuries-including-criticism-of-iran-war-280016

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Thomas Tweed, Professor Emeritus of American Studies and History, University of Notre Dame

On the Fourth of July 1776, the congressional delegates in Philadelphia adopted the Declaration of Independence, then ordered that it be widely “proclaimed.” Couriers carried the printed version by stagecoach and horseback to every colony, where officials posted it and newspapers circulated it.

But the declaration was also meant to be read aloud. Thomas Jefferson’s rough draft has marks signaling where the reader should pause briefly, or take a longer pause. And there were ceremonial public readings: first in Philadelphia and then in town squares, courthouses, churches and taverns up and down the Eastern Seaboard.

Not everyone listening would have agreed with the declaration, and religion was one dividing point. Loyalists who sided with England and the official Church of England dissented on both spiritual and political grounds. Two-thirds of its ministers left for England after the Revolution began. Members of the historic pacifist churches like the Quakers, the Mennonites and the Brethren had tough choices to make after hearing the declaration’s call to arms. Even some who clearly sided with the patriots might have wondered if all the truths the document proclaimed were as “self-evident” as the delegates presumed – for example, that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Americans have continued to debate the declaration’s claims. In recent decades, its few references to God have been especially polarizing, as Americans defend starkly contrasting views of the United States. Some say the country is a secular republic founded on 18th-century conceptions of human reason and natural law. Others suggest that it is a Christian nation, chosen by God and founded on biblical principles.

In July 2026, Americans will celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. As a historian who has written about the Revolutionary Era, I thought it might help to clarify what the declaration does and doesn’t say about God – and what the readings of 1776 add to our understanding.

Four references to God

The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee of five delegates to write the declaration. Jefferson, the main author, penned the first draft in his rented room in central Philadelphia. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin offered suggestions before they sent the document to Congress for further revision and approval.

The document that delegates adopted listed 27 complaints against King George III and explained the reasons for revolt. It used four terms for God as it made its case.

In its opening paragraph, Jefferson proposed that “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” grant humans equal status and entitle Americans to dissolve “the political bands” with Britain. As historians have shown, Franklin added a phrase to suggest that those rights had been “endowed by their Creator.”

Congress then added two phrases to the final paragraph that portray God as a moral judge and a guiding hand. The delegates mention “the Supreme Judge of the world,” who punishes evil and rewards good – a description that almost all political and religious leaders would have agreed with.

They end by announcing that “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Leaving room for disagreement

The reference to “Providence” doesn’t specify how divine influence works, however, leaving room for the founders’ diverging religious interpretations. The more conventionally Christian delegates, like John Witherspoon, believed that God intervenes directly in human history.

Others were less conventionally Christian. Rationalists like Jefferson, for example, believed in a creator but rejected biblical miracles and Jesus’ divinity. They thought that God’s influence can be seen indirectly, in nature’s order and humans’ capacity to discern God-given rights.

Generic theism

As I show in my 2025 book, “Religion in the Lands That Became America,” the declaration became one of the “sacred texts” of U.S. civil religion: the loosely linked beliefs, symbols and rituals that many American leaders use to interpret political life in spiritual terms. But the revered text affirmed a generic theism – belief in a creator god – without mentioning Jesus or Christianity.

Nor did the declaration cite the Bible as a source for government policy or say that America is a Christian nation. Its central purpose was to explain the reasons for separation from Britain, not to detail the new republic’s governing principles.

Governing principles came in 1789 with the U.S. Constitution, which did not mention God. In 1791, states then ratified the First Amendment, with its “establishment” clause rejecting an official state church and its “free exercise” clause protecting personal religious liberty.

What the public readings reveal

Eyewitness accounts offer a few more details about religious language heard at ceremonial public readings of the declaration in 1776.

Some sources show that the declaration was read in churches and discussed by the clergy. Massachusetts, for example, ordered that ministers read it in every congregation. And a soldier’s letter to his father noted that his brigade’s chaplain offered “an excellent prayer” after the declaration was read in New York on July 9, though he gave no other details.

After the second public reading in Philadelphia on July 8 at the State House, now called Independence Hall, eyewitnesses said the crowd gave “three cheers.” And, as the editor of Philadelphia’s German newspaper reported, those cheers were followed by “the cry ‘God bless the Free States of North America.’”

The pattern apparently repeated at other public readings. Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John, one of the drafters of the declaration, to report that the official reading at Boston’s State House ended with the speaker proclaiming, “God Save our American States.” After a reading for soldiers in Ticonderoga, New York, on July 28, an officer added, “God save the Free, Independent States of America.”

A prominent newspaper circulated a firsthand account from Savannah, Georgia, describing four public readings and a mock “funeral” for the king on Aug. 10. The presiding official ended by suggesting that “America is free and independent, that she is, and will be, with the blessing of the Almighty, great among the nations of the earth.”

In short, attendees at the public readings did hear mentions of God – but apparently didn’t hear the potentially divisive theological language of sermons or creeds.

1776 and 2026

During the 2026 anniversary celebrations, too, the declaration will be read aloud – including in a simultaneous reading on July 8 in Philadelphia and in every U.S. state, commonwealth and territory.

Today, Americans might be even more sharply divided about religion than the colonists of 1776. According to the General Social Survey, 14% of Americans say they don’t believe in God or aren’t sure if there is a God, and 25% have “no religion.” About 11% now embrace a non-Christian faith. When asked if the federal government should proclaim that the U.S. is a Christian nation, Americans are almost evenly divided, a Pew study found, with most evangelicals agreeing and most atheists disagreeing.

Knowing what the declaration actually says, and how its first listeners reacted, might not sway Americans at the extremes. But it provides evidence for less polarizing, more nuanced views about the founding generation’s convictions and compromises as Americans commemorate their nation’s 250th anniversary.

Thomas Tweed 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.

– ref. What the Declaration of Independence does – and doesn’t – say about God – https://theconversation.com/what-the-declaration-of-independence-does-and-doesnt-say-about-god-271078

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Selena E. Ortiz, Associate professor of Health Policy and Administration and Demography, Penn State

Pittsburgh is widely regarded as a relatively affordable place to live. Overall, housing and living costs remain below national averages for midsize cities in the United States.

Along with low home prices, Pittsburgh offers stable employment rates and close proximity to leading universities and high-quality hospitals.

However, data from a March 2026 survey shows that a single adult needs to earn about $95,000 to live comfortably in Pittsburgh. This is well above the city’s median household income of $67,000. A family of four needs nearly $239,000.

My peer‑reviewed work examines how housing affordability affects a community’s health. It also documents how well policy holds up over time in terms of affordable housing efforts.

Inclusionary zoning explained

Inclusionary zoning requires developers to reserve a portion of new housing units for lower-income residents at below-market rents. A city might require, for example, that a new residential complex reserve or set aside 10% of units for households that earn 80% or less of the area median income.

Also referred to as a “mandatory set-aside,” inclusionary zoning is often done in exchange for developer incentives, such as density bonuses, which allow developers to build additional units. Other incentives could be expedited permitting or relaxed parking minimums, allowing developers to build fewer parking spaces than normally required.

In 2025, Pittsburgh adopted the Affordable Housing Bonus Program, a largely voluntary, incentive-based policy that applies inclusionary zoning requirements only within designated overlay districts. An overlay district is an extra layer of rules that apply to a specific area on top of the neighborhood’s regular zoning rules – such as a special zone within a zone.

The goal is to encourage developers to include a percentage of affordable units within specific geographic areas, such as Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Polish Hill and parts of Oakland. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program emerged after legal challenges and public opposition derailed inclusionary zoning citywide.

The Affordable Housing Bonus Program is now being tested by a University of Pittsburgh student housing project called The Caroline at University Commons. University Commons is situated in Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood, an inclusionary zoning overlay district. However, the developer, Walnut Capital, is seeking to exempt the project from inclusionary zoning overlay requirements altogether. This would reduce the number of affordable units set aside from 16 to 0. Walnut Capital believes it’s exempt from inclusionary zoning because it meets all other bonus requirements.

Short on homes, split on solutions

The fragility of the Affordable Housing Bonus Program matters not only for the neighborhoods that it affects but for what it reveals about Pittsburgh’s housing affordability.

Pittsburgh faces a persistent shortage of affordable housing. This is especially true for extremely low-income residents, or those who earn less than 30% of an area’s median income. That’s roughly one-quarter of all Pittsburgh residents.

Local estimates from The Pittsburgh Foundation show a deficit of more than 11,000 affordable units for residents at the lowest income levels. This shortage leaves many of these renters cost-burdened and vulnerable to eviction.

The debate about inclusionary zoning in Pittsburgh is heated. Among advocates, community organizations and some policymakers, it’s seen as an effective policy lever. They say it keeps neighborhoods affordable and diverse while giving residents a voice in how their neighborhoods change.

Conversely, developers and some policymakers argue that inclusionary zoning can reduce new construction and lead to higher rents overall. They also warn it can undermine equity goals by slowing housing production or concentrating affordable units in just a few areas.

Why Pittsburgh struggles to provide affordable housing

Pittsburgh’s housing challenges stem from a combination of rising construction and administrative costs; dependency on fragmented financing structures; housing market shifts and demographic change; a constrained tax base and a complex zoning and permitting system.

These supply-side challenges are compounded by demand-side barriers. In 2025, Pittsburgh added “housing status” as a protected class to prevent discrimination against the unhoused population, those with disabilities, and families fleeing domestic violence. But widespread landlord refusal of Section 8 vouchers shows how affordability policies can fall apart without real enforcement. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program similarly faces compliance problems.

Pittsburgh’s housing crisis is a health crisis

Pittsburgh’s uncertain housing affordability policies have far-reaching implications for public health, equity and neighborhood stability.

Research shows 2 in 5 Pittsburgh renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing, and 1 in 4 spend over half. This increases eviction risk and housing instability, with cascading health effects, such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, anxiety and depression.

Housing burdens can also force people to make trade-offs between housing and health care, medications, nutritious food or transportation.

Displacement and aging, poorly maintained housing stock compound these problems, making Pittsburgh’s affordable housing crisis a public health crisis as much as a housing one.

Pittsburgh’s path forward

No single policy can resolve Pittsburgh’s housing challenges. But the city has taken meaningful steps.

Since the city budget was approved in March 2026, Pittsburgh has streamlined its permitting processes, increased local funding commitments for community investments and strengthened support for nonprofit developers and community organizations.

Treating housing affordability as a serious policy priority will require more innovation, not only in regulation and financing, but in how policies are evaluated, adapted and sustained over time.

Selena E. Ortiz receives funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

– ref. ‘Affordable’ Pittsburgh doesn’t have enough affordable housing – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/affordable-pittsburgh-doesnt-have-enough-affordable-housing-heres-why-280113