Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kristina Mani, Professor of Politics, Oberlin College and Conservatory

In his second term as president, Donald Trump has deployed U.S. military forces in rarely used roles in domestic law enforcement.

Besides sending military troops to Los Angeles to counter protests over immigration raids, Trump sent the National Guard to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C., claiming crime in the city is “out of control.”

As a political scientist who studies civil-military relations, I recognize the fundamental problems of militarizing domestic law enforcement, which the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits.

Militarizing law enforcement risks using excessive force against civilians by troops trained for warfare. And it undermines a constitutional principle, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that limits the coercive power of the state against its citizens.

A more menacing problem, however, is politicizing the military through association with partisan politics. That erodes public trust in the armed forces.

With continued militarization of law enforcement, the United States is entering largely uncharted waters.

But in other countries, including Chile and Argentina, this is familiar territory. There, established democracies broke down in the 1970s into military dictatorships.

In the years before these breakdowns, the militaries in both countries were broadly opposed to meddling in politics.

However, civilian elites could not resolve their own governance failures. They exacerbated civil unrest and economic instability and successfully encouraged the military to intervene.

Trump administration tactics

Three Trump administration tactics mirror those of officials in Chile and Argentina who politicized their militaries.

The first is priming the public to focus on exaggerated threats to society. Trump administration officials have sought to “liberate” Los Angeles. They have touted arrests of the “… Worst of the Worst Criminal Illegal Aliens” in Los Angeles.

Priming the public this way establishes a danger so great that ordinary – civilian – resources are an insufficient response. Military resources become the solution.

Emblematic of this tactic is Trump’s executive order deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C. He falsely declared a “crime emergency” in the capital so great as to “undermine critical functions of Government and thus the well-being of the entire Nation.”

The D.C. deployment has opened the door to Guard deployments in other cities. Deployment to multiple cities has the potential to normalize the presence of troops in communities nationwide.

Latin American conditions in the 1970s were far more dire. Yet there, too, rather than find political solutions, elected leaders sounded alarms and looked to the military.

The months before Chile’s coup in 1973 were marked by rationing, strikes and street protests.

That led the opposition-dominated lower house of Congress to pass a resolution calling on the military to “put an end to” the government of President Salvador Allende, whom they lacked sufficient votes to constitutionally impeach.

Although Congress and Allende had months to work for compromise solutions to the nation’s problems, both remained intransigent. With the resolution, Congress handed the military a blank check to intervene. The military took over just three weeks later.

Using the military as backup

A second tactic is to place military forces in prominent missions as backup for nonmilitary personnel. The expectation is that they will reinforce each other seamlessly.

The Trump administration’s deployment of Marines in Los Angeles required that they protect federal immigration agents without engaging in law enforcement. In practice, however, lines may not be so clear.

Military troops may be tasked into law enforcement support operations where they directly confront civilians. This happened in Los Angeles, where Marines detained a civilian who had entered an unauthorized zone. Such detention is by law the job of local law enforcement.

Yet more worrisome is when federal troops back up operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE, created after 9/11 to support domestic anti-terrorism efforts and enforce federal immigration laws, has broad territorial jurisdiction. It also has greater enforcement power and fewer use-of-force limitations than police. Its most striking methods – masked agents, arrests without court warrants – have brought comparisons to Nazi Germany’s Gestapo secret police.

At least 19 states have authorized National Guard deployments to collaborate with ICE in targeting illegal immigration. All this raises the question of what ICE methods military troops may absorb through the collaboration.

Argentina reflects a worst-case scenario of how the military can absorb practices from nonmilitary agents that erode its professionalism.

In the two years before the 1976 coup, the army was prepared to counter two guerrilla groups – Montoneros and ERP – that orchestrated bombings and attacked police and military installations. Yet senior officers were deeply divided over any collaboration with the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance, a paramilitary group created by the civilian government that eliminated the government’s rivals.

The military repeatedly resisted the government’s requests to work with the AAA, considering it a loose cannon and competitor aligned with the police. As political violence escalated, public support for the military to take the lead in counterinsurgency grew.

The growing crisis galvanized an interventionist sector in the military, enabling the 1976 coup. Once in power, it adopted the AAA’s horrific methods, including enforced disappearance and clandestine murder. In short, the military eliminated the group and adopted its death squad methods.

Demanding political litmus tests

The third tactic may be the most debilitating within the military itself. It involves publicly shaming and firing military personnel for allegedly being woke.

The Trump administration seeks to eradicate wokeness from the military. Firings initially targeted officers at the highest ranks. Yet any misstep that can be deemed political – such as contradicting the president’s claims with intelligence assessments – appears to qualify for removal.

Yet while seeking to eliminate diversity, the tactic is likely to encourage a culture of institutional policing and concealment. This erodes military norms of merit-based promotion and professional trust.

In both Chile and Argentina, it was professedly apolitical officers who led the coups of the 1970s. Chile’s Gen. Augusto Pinochet and Argentina’s Gens. Jorge Rafael Videla and Roberto Viola had established reputations as officers opposed to intervention.

Yet while their appearance of being apolitical facilitated promotion to the highest ranks, it was no guarantee of moderation.

On the eve of the coup in Chile, the CIA reported uncertainty that Pinochet would “actively support” other leaders of the coup in the military.

Yet two months later, Pinochet had not only taken charge but was plotting to eliminate rival officers by arrest and even assassination. He also created a specialized intelligence agency to carry out political repression.

Similarly, Argentina’s Videla and Viola were long viewed as moderates. The CIA reported that Argentine officials and business leaders preferred Videla lead the coup, believing his moderate stance would leave political parties and labor organizations “unchanged.”

Yet after coups brought them to power, they endorsed repression and presided over the shuttering of all representative institutions. Systematic repression through extrajudicial executions and thousands of enforced “disappearances” followed.

The dangers of a partisan military

To be sure, none of these tactics destine the United States to democratic breakdown or military takeover. But Americans ignore the partisan use of the armed forces at their peril.

Fortunately, for Argentina and Chile there was a pathway out of dictatorship. But it took decades of concerted work by democratic leaders and citizens to restore full rule of law and rebuild democratic institutions.

To this day, their armed forces remain tainted by the weight of their misrule and repression some 50 years ago. This is not a path that other democracies can afford to take.

Kristina Mani 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. Politicizing federal troops in US mirrors use of military in Latin America in the 1970s and ’80s – https://theconversation.com/politicizing-federal-troops-in-us-mirrors-use-of-military-in-latin-america-in-the-1970s-and-80s-263874

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Betty Medsger, Professor Emeritus of Journalism, San Francisco State University

As a candidate last year, Donald Trump promised retribution against his perceived enemies. As president, he is doing that.

At the Department of Justice, a “Weaponization Working Group” has a long list of Trump’s perceived enemies to investigate. At the FBI, director Kash Patel has conducted a political purge, firing the highest officials at the bureau and thousands of FBI agents who investigated alleged crimes by Trump as well as investigated participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riots.

It marks the first time since J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year reign as FBI director that the FBI has targeted massive numbers of people perceived to be political enemies.

Trump’s recent fury showed how much he expects top officials in federal law enforcement to carry out his retribution.

He was enraged when Erik S. Siebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, decided there was insufficient evidence to charge two people Trump regards as enemies: former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“I want him out,” Trump angrily told reporters on Sept. 19, 2025. Siebert resigned, although Trump claimed he had fired him.

Trump’s most recent demands for retribution came soon after top adviser Stephen Miller’s vow to prosecute leftists in the “vast domestic terror movement” – that the administration blames, without evidence, for Charlie Kirk’s assassination – using “every resource we have.”

As the director of the FBI, Patel will likely be in charge of the investigations of perceived enemies generated by the Department of Justice and the White House. He already has sacrificed the bureau’s independence, making it essentially an arm of the White House.

This isn’t the first time an FBI director has been driven by a desire to suppress the rights of people perceived to be political enemies. Hoover, director until his death in 1972, operated a secret FBI within the FBI that he used to destroy people and organizations whose political opinions he opposed.

A burglary’s revelations

Hoover’s secret FBI was revealed, beginning in 1971, when a group of people called the Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into an FBI office and removed files.

This group suspected Hoover’s FBI was illegally suppressing dissent. Given Hoover’s enormous power, they thought it was unlikely any government agency would investigate the FBI. They decided documentary evidence was needed to convince the public that suppression of dissent – what they considered a crime against democracy – was taking place.

In my book “The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret FBI,” I describe how these eight people decided to risk imprisonment and break into the FBI’s office in Media, Pennsylvania.

The files they stole and made public confirmed the FBI was suppressing dissent. But they revealed much more: Hoover’s secret FBI and the startling crimes he had committed. These secret operations had become so extensive that they eventually diminished the bureau’s capacity to carry out its core mission: law enforcement.

Hoover, one of the most admired and powerful officials in the country, had secretly conducted a wide array of operations directed against people whose political opinions he opposed.

The files revealed that agents were instructed to “enhance paranoia” and make activists think there was an FBI agent “behind every mailbox.” Questioning Vietnam war policy could cause anyone, even a U.S. senator, Democrat J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, to be placed under FBI surveillance.

It was the revelation of Hoover’s worst operations, COINTELPRO – what Hoover called The Counter Intelligence Program – that made Americans demand investigation and reform of the FBI. Until the mid-1970s, there had never been oversight of the FBI and little coverage of the FBI by journalists, except for laudatory stories.

‘Almost beyond belief’

The COINTELPRO operations ranged from crude to cruel to murderous.

Antiwar activists were given oranges injected with powerful laxatives. Agents hired prostitutes known to have venereal disease to infect campus antiwar leaders.

Many of the COINTELPRO operations were almost beyond belief:

· The project conducted against the entire University of California system lasted more than 30 years. Hundreds of agents and informants were assigned in 1960 to spy on each of Berkeley’s 5,365 faculty members by reading their mail, observing them and searching for derogatory information – “illicit love affairs, homosexuality, sexual perversion, excessive drinking, other instances of conduct reflecting mental instability.”

· An informant trained to give perjured testimony led to the murder conviction of Black Panther Geronimo Pratt, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He served 27 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. He was exonerated in 1997 when a judge found that the FBI concealed evidence that would have proved Pratt’s innocence.

· The bureau spied for years on Martin Luther King Jr. After it was announced King would receive the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, Hoover approved a particularly sinister plan that was designed to cause King to commit suicide.

· What one historian called Hoover’s “savage hatred” of Black people led to the FBI’s worst operation, a collaboration with the Chicago police that resulted in the killing of Chicago Black Panther Fred Hampton, shot dead by police as he slept. An FBI informant had been hired to ingratiate himself with Hampton. He came to know Hampton and the apartment very well. He drew a map of the apartment for the police on which he located “Fred’s bed.” After the killing, Hoover thanked the informant for his role in this successful operation. Enclosed in his letter was a cash bonus.

· Actress Jean Seberg was the victim of a 1970 COINTELPRO operation. In a memo, Hoover wrote that she had donated to the Panthers and “should be neutralized.” Seberg was pregnant, and the plot, approved personally by Hoover – as many COINTELPRO plots were – called for the FBI to tell a gossip columnist that a Black Panther was the father. Agents gave the false rumor to a Los Angeles Times gossip columnist. Without using Seberg’s name, the columnist’s story made it unmistakable that she was writing about Seberg. Three days later, Seberg gave birth prematurely to a stillborn white baby girl. Every year on the anniversary of her dead baby’s birth, Seberg attempted suicide. She succeeded in August 1979.

There was wide public interest in these revelations about COINTELPRO, many of which emerged in 1975 during hearings conducted by the Church Committee, the Senate committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat.

At this first-ever congressional investigation of the FBI and other intelligence agencies, former FBI officials testified under oath about bureau policies under Hoover.

One of them, William Sullivan, who had helped carry out the plots against King, was asked whether officials considered the legal and ethical issues involved in their operations. He responded:

“Never once did I hear anybody, including myself, raise the questions: ‘Is this course of action which we have agreed upon lawful? Is it legal? Is it ethical or moral?’ We never gave any thought to that line of questioning because we were just pragmatic. The one thing we were concerned about: will this course of action work, will it get us what we want.”

Ethical? Legal?

The future of the new FBI under Patel and Trump is unclear, especially in light of the president’s known tolerance for lawlessness, even violence. His gifts of clemency and pardons to Jan. 6 rioters are evidence of that.

As for Patel, fired FBI Officials stated in their recent lawsuit over those dismissals that Patel had told one of them it was “likely illegal” to fire agents because of the cases they had worked on, but that he was powerless to resist Trump’s demands.

The recent statements from both Trump and top aide Miller suggest the FBI’s independence, and broader constitutional requirements that the administration remain faithful to the law, are meaningless to them. They suggest that, like Hoover, they would criminalize dissent.

What will happen at the FBI after the internal purge ends? Will retribution fever wane? Will Patel refocus on the bureau’s chief mission, law enforcement? And will the questions asked in Congress in 1975, as the bureau was being forced to reject Hoover’s worst practices, be asked now: Is what we are doing ethical? Is it legal?

Betty Medsger 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. Trump’s use of FBI to target ‘enemies’ echoes FBI’s dark history of mass surveillance, dirty tricks and perversion of justice under J. Edgar Hoover – https://theconversation.com/trumps-use-of-fbi-to-target-enemies-echoes-fbis-dark-history-of-mass-surveillance-dirty-tricks-and-perversion-of-justice-under-j-edgar-hoover-265364

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Chunrong Jia, Professor of Environmental Health, University of Memphis

Even before an Elon Musk-owned artificial intelligence company opened a data center in southwest Memphis, Tennessee, air pollution was so bad that residents of a nearby neighborhood were far more likely to get cancer from industrial air pollution than average Americans. Our analysis found that air pollution got only slightly worse as a result of the data center.

The xAI Supercluster began operations on Sept. 1, 2024, powered by natural gas turbines that began operating before the company applied for the required air pollution permits. As environmental health researchers at the University of Memphis, we were immediately concerned about the potential for the turbines to pollute the air even more and decided to investigate.

Combustion from natural gas turbines releases a complex mixture of pollutants, including fine and coarse particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and hazardous chemicals such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. Each of these compounds has been linked to serious health consequences, such as respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, neurological effects, cancers and elevated mortality rates.

Southwest Memphis is home to predominantly Black people with low incomes. Local residents were concerned that the new data center would worsen long-standing problems of industrial pollution in their community, which includes levels of fine particulate matter, sometimes known as PM2.5, that have long been at or near the level the U.S. government says is the maximum allowable concentration.

There were, and still are, no permanent air-quality monitors operating in the neighborhoods of southwest Memphis that are closest to the xAI data center. So we developed an approach that combined several types of measurements and calculations to determine what air pollution was like in the area before the data center opened, and what, if anything, changed after it was up and running.

Examining multiple pictures

We focused on two neighborhoods: the Boxtown Subdivision, located 2½ miles (4 km) east of xAI, which is the community closest to the facility, and the Riverview Subdivision, 6.8 miles (11 km) northeast, a known air pollution hot spot near multiple industrial and traffic emissions sources.

To create a picture of local air quality, we looked at three elements. Using company-provided technical details about the turbines and information about how many were running at any one time, we examined how emissions move through the air in the local area. We looked at satellite data showing fine-particle pollution both before and after the turbines began operating. And we looked at data on current air pollution levels in Boxtown using a third-party company’s monitors on the ground.

The company reported to county health officials that the turbines would emit different amounts of 11 different pollutants, including 30 tons of sulfur dioxide and 94 tons per year of carbon monoxide. Using a computer model recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we calculated how that pollution would spread across the neighborhoods.

Our calculations found that the xAI turbines would contribute minimally to ambient air pollution in both neighborhoods. We also calculated that concentrations of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide would remain well below national standards.

Fine particulate matter

The modeling estimated that fine particulate matter would increase about 1% – though that increase would come on top of a level of fine particulate matter pollution that was already higher than the national limit.

We released our initial findings, based on the computer modeling of company-reported emissions, in March 2025. Since then, our findings have been confirmed by additional research involving direct measurements of air quality in the area.

To examine whether the xAI turbines had, in fact, increased fine particulate matter concentrations, we compared satellite measurements from before and after Sept. 1, 2024. The comparison showed no significant changes.

In addition, an independent accredited lab conducted a two-day monitoring campaign in June 2025. Its findings confirmed that our model’s predictions for fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and formaldehyde aligned closely with observed concentrations.

Limitations remained, however: The lab’s monitoring techniques were not sensitive enough to detect trace levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes or sulfur dioxide. That makes it impossible to directly compare our model and real-world data for those pollutants.

A long-standing concern

Our analysis offers evidence that at least as of when we did our work, xAI’s natural gas turbines had not measurably degraded air quality in the surrounding neighborhoods. That said, any changes to the equipment used to generate power would likely change the data center’s emissions. And all our analyses assumed regular, normal turbine operations: Malfunctions or accidents can lead to emissions of excessive quantities of air pollutants until they are fixed or resolved.

Our findings confirmed that fine particulate matter has long been, and remains, a concern in the area. If we had access to sustained, community-based monitoring data, we could more clearly examine pollution levels and their public health effects in the community. We believe this type of monitoring by regulatory agencies and public health groups would be beneficial to the people of southwest Memphis, whether or not there is an xAI data center operating there.

Through our work, we aim to not only clarify the air pollution effects of a specific facility, but also highlight the importance of sustained scientific engagement in communities disproportionately affected by industrial emissions. By understanding and documenting the environmental health challenges faced by the residents of southwest Memphis, we hope to contribute to their ultimate mitigation.

Chunrong Jia received funding from the Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health, and JPB Foundation.

Abu Mohammed Naser Titu receives funding from the National Institute of Health.

Namuun Batbaatar 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. Air quality analysis reveals minimal changes after xAI data center opens in pollution-burdened Memphis neighborhood – https://theconversation.com/air-quality-analysis-reveals-minimal-changes-after-xai-data-center-opens-in-pollution-burdened-memphis-neighborhood-265152

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Chris Lituma, Assistant Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries Resources, West Virginia University

Waking up to the dawn chorus of birds – one of the natural world’s greatest symphonies – is a joy like no other. It is not surprising that bird-watching has become an increasingly popular hobby.

A simple way to start bird-watching is to buy a feeder, a pair of binoculars and a field guide, and begin watching birds from your window.

However, one of the most rewarding ways to identify birds is to listen to them and learn to recognize their songs.

As an ornithologist and educator, I often introduce students to the intricacies of bird songs, and I have developed some tricks that can make birding by ear less daunting.

Learning to listen

Learning bird songs is the difference between “hearing” and “listening.”

Listening requires full attention and limiting distractions. It means using your ears to pick up different patterns in the sounds that birds make. Every person has the capacity to listen and learn patterns in sound.

If I were to sing “da-da-da-DUM” most people would immediately recognize it as Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5. Alternatively, if I were to play the first few notes or beats of your favorite song, I’m certain you would know what it was and who sang it.

The ability to recognize bird songs uses the same part of the brain you use to recognize songs on the radio – the supratemporal, or auditory, cortex, an area just above the ears where your brain processes language and sound.

When you’re birding by ear, you use the same skills as when you’re recognizing music; listening to sounds, patterns, changes in pitch, in tone and in volume, but in nature rather than in music.

You can do this.

To begin learning to recognize bird songs, select two to three common bird songs that you hear frequently around your neighborhood.

Sometimes there are mnemonics that you can use to help remember the songs. For instance, the tufted titmouse says “peter, peter, peter” over and over. Sometimes it sings it fast, sometimes slow, but always “peter, peter, peter.” Whereas the Carolina wren says, “tea kettle, tea kettle, tea kettle”.

Songbirds aren’t the only birds with helpful mnemonics. Next time you hear a hooting sound, if it sounds like “who cooks for you, who cooks for you all,” that’s a barred owl.

Why and how songbirds sing

Watching the actual bird sing its song is one of the best ways to learn the bird and song together. Find a tufted titmouse and watch it sing “peter, peter, peter,” and you will remember it forever.

Try going out into the woods with your binoculars and following unfamiliar sounds.

Many species make unique sounds as they sing, chirp, hoot, screech or whistle. They vocalize like this for a variety of reasons – to attract a mate, defend a territory, alert other birds to threats, or to locate other individuals to form flocks or groups.

Songbirds, such as the tufted titmouse and northern cardinal, are the group that ornithologists associate most with complex songs. They tend to have multiple notes and patterns that change in pitch and speed, rather than simple one-note or two-note calls.

These birds have a unique voice box called the syrinx, which translates to “double flute” in Greek and allows them to create two sounds at once.

Birds learn their songs in multiple ways.

Songbirds are born with an innate “template,” which tells them the basics for the song to sing. But they also learn from listening to adults. Studies have found regional dialects of birds’ songs and evidence that some birds learn songs from their parents while still in the shell. Sometimes they learn songs from neighbors, who usually end up becoming competitors for territory.

Human activities can affect birdsong

Human behaviors can also affect how birds sing.

Studies have found that, in some instances, background noise can weaken territorial responses in males. And light pollution in suburban areas can prolong singing by up to an hour.

In 1962, scientist and conservationist Rachel Carson wrote the book “Silent Spring” after noticing how quiet the spring had become when the bird migration would normally be underway. The pesticide DDT had weakened egg shells, triggering a sharp decline in many bird populations. Many scholars and historians identify this book as leading to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President Richard M. Nixon in 1970.

Getting started birding by ear

As you start learning bird songs, technology can come in handy. There are now dedicated apps, such as Cornell University’s Merlin, that can help you recognize bird songs as you are listening to them.

However, human abilities still outperform this technology, so use apps as a learning tool, not a crutch.

As humans, we have long depended on our ability to communicate with each other. I think we relate to birds because they are such vocal creatures too.

Learning their songs is a lifelong endeavor. Once you start tuning into the natural world, you’ll realize that there is something new waiting to be discovered.

Chris Lituma 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. Birding by ear: How to learn the songs of nature’s symphony with some simple techniques – https://theconversation.com/birding-by-ear-how-to-learn-the-songs-of-natures-symphony-with-some-simple-techniques-260874

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Tammi Walker, Associate Professor of Law and Psychology, University of Arizona

Most Americans assume that schools are legally required to protect students from sexual harassment and assault under Title IX – the federal law enacted in 1972 that bans sexual discrimination in education.

I am a law professor and researcher who has spent more than a decade examining the disconnect between what Title IX promises on paper and what students expect it to deliver in practice. What’s happening now isn’t just another policy shift – it’s a dismantling of protections many assume still exist.

Title IX’s 37 words

The main text of Title IX is just 37 words and reads: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

This legal text doesn’t define sex or discrimination, or explain what kinds of behavior the act covers. For decades, the Department of Education filled in those gaps by writing detailed rules, providing guidance to schools and investigating when schools failed to comply.

In 2020, the Trump administration adopted much narrower rules. Colleges and universities have to act only when top officials – such as deans or Title IX coordinators – receive a report, and even then, their responses only have to avoid being “clearly unreasonable.”

In 2024, the Biden administration tried to widen those protections by requiring schools to step in whenever employees other than doctors and therapists learned of possible harassment, and to do so promptly and effectively. But in January 2025, a federal court blocked those rules before they could take effect.

Today those less protective 2020 rules remain in place, and the agency responsible for enforcing them is being dismantled.

In March 2025, President Donald Trump ordered the Department of Education to close. Legally, an executive order cannot abolish the department outright. That would require an act of Congress.

But the order has still reshaped the agency in practice by cutting staff and shuttering offices. The Office for Civil Rights, which handles Title IX and other discrimination complaints in schools, was especially hard hit. About 260 employees were laid off, and seven of its 12 regional offices were closed, even though more than 6,000 investigations were unresolved as of January.

A federal judge has since ordered those employees to be reinstated, with staff scheduled to return in phases through November 2025. It is not clear how these and other changes are going to affect how the office functions.

A system under strain

Beyond the headlines about layoffs, the deeper question is what happens when students turn to Title IX for protection.

The Heritage Foundation’s long-term vision provides a clue: Project 2025 proposes to move the Office of Civil Rights into the Department of Justice and limit its role to litigation of intentional discrimination cases.

While Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 on the campaign trail, his Cabinet includes authors of this policy blueprint. And in less than a year, the administration has moved forward with nearly half of Project 2025’s goals, including over 40% of the policies aimed at the Department of Education.

If the Department of Education can no longer resolve discrimination complaints within the agency, students will be left to pursue their claims directly in federal court. But the numbers show why that path cannot absorb the caseload.

In 2024, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights received 22,687 discrimination complaints, including nearly 12,000 related to Title IX. By comparison, federal courts in 2024 nationwide heard fewer than 1,000 education-related civil rights cases.

Federal courts are understaffed, and even if federal judges had the capacity to absorb 20 times more cases, most students simply cannot afford that path. Lawsuits demand lawyers, months of preparation and often years before any resolution.

The Office for Civil Rights offers something fundamentally different from going to court. It provides low-cost investigations, mediation that could resolve cases in weeks instead of years. Its settlements address not just individual harm but institutional failures.

Some cases drag on, but students do not need lawyers, and the OCR often secures broader reforms through negotiated settlements – from campuswide training programs to complete overhauls of complaint procedures.

The office also published policy guidance and answered more than 11,000 public inquiries in 2024, providing clarity for schools and students alike. These tools didn’t eliminate the backlog, but they showed that the OCR could deliver meaningful results without the cost and delay of court.

But this system is exactly what’s at risk if Project 2025’s vision becomes reality. If the OCR loses its authority to resolve complaints, students will lose the only clear path to quick, affordable results and reliable information.

What this means for students

For schools and their students, that shift away from federal agencies would be dramatic. It would mean no more negotiated agreements, no more policy guidance, and no administrative investigations into systemic issues. Courts would decide what Title IX means, forcing students to file expensive lawsuits that drag on for years and require much stronger evidence of discrimination than the Office of Civil Rights ever demanded.

The administration has offered an alternative: “return our students to the states,” as President Donald Trump put it on March 20, 2025, when he signed the executive order outlining his plan to close the Department of Education.

But states cannot fill the enforcement gap left by eliminating the Office for Civil Rights’ role in resolving complaints and guiding schools. The OCR had the infrastructure to investigate cases, mediate disputes and issue clear policy guidance – capacities that most states simply do not have.

State laws addressing sexual discrimination in education vary dramatically – some provide strong protections, while others offer only limited coverage or lack enforcement mechanisms altogether. Kansas, for example, has antidiscrimination laws that do not explicitly cover education, leaving it unclear whether any state agency can investigate student complaints.

And in half the country, LGBTQ+ students still lack explicit statutory protection. In practice, that means a student’s rights depend less on Title IX itself than on where they happen to go to school.

The problems run deeper than just inadequate alternatives. Even under the current system, protections are already narrow: Schools must act only if complaints reach officials with the power to make institutional changes. A report to a trusted coach, professor or resident assistant may lead nowhere. When schools do respond, the standard is remarkably low – acknowledging a complaint or opening a limited investigation often satisfies legal requirements.

These narrow protections are becoming even less reliable as transparency erodes. The Department of Education stopped updating its public list of investigations in January 2025 and only resumed in June, after months of silence. As of August 2025, just 10 resolutions involving sexual discrimination at colleges had been posted – and half predated Trump’s second inauguration. Without accurate information, students have little insight into whether schools are being held accountable at all.

The narrowing scope of federal protection

Title IX was written to ensure equal educational opportunity regardless of sex. But weak regulations, enforcement delays and shrinking federal oversight are steadily eroding that promise.

For students, the reality is stark: telling the wrong person about a complaint may trigger no response; minimal efforts by schools often satisfy legal requirements; and the federal agency once charged with oversight is being sidelined. If a litigation-only model takes hold, most students will have no realistic path to relief unless they can hire a lawyer and withstand years of court proceedings.

As I further explain in a new law review article – No Department, No Enforcement – Title IX remains law, but without meaningful enforcement it risks becoming a guarantee in name only. For students, that means rights promised but rarely delivered.

Tammi Walker previously received funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Title IX’s effectiveness in addressing campus sexual assault is at risk − a law professor explains why – https://theconversation.com/title-ixs-effectiveness-in-addressing-campus-sexual-assault-is-at-risk-a-law-professor-explains-why-258125

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Masha Remskar, Psychologist and Postdoctoral Researcher in Behavioral Science, Arizona State University

Most people know roughly what kind of lifestyle they should be living to stay healthy.

Think regular exercise, a balanced diet and sufficient sleep. Yet, despite all the hacks, trackers and motivational quotes, many of us still struggle to stick with our health goals.

Meanwhile, people worldwide are experiencing more lifestyle-associated chronic disease than ever before.

But what if the missing piece in your health journey wasn’t more discipline – but more stillness?

Research shows that mindfulness meditation can help facilitate this pursuit of health goals through stillness, and that getting started is easier than you might think – no Buddhist monk robes or silent retreats required.

Given how ubiquitous and accessible mindfulness resources are these days, I have been surprised to see mindfulness discussed and studied only as a mental health tool, stopping short of exploring its usefulness for a whole range of lifestyle choices.

I am a psychologist and behavioral scientist researching ways to help people live healthier lives, especially by moving more and regulating stress more efficiently.

My team’s work and that of other researchers suggests that mindfulness could play a pivotal role in paving the way for a healthier society, one mindful breath at a time.

Mindfulness unpacked

Mindfulness has become a buzzword of late, with initiatives now present in schools, boardrooms and even among first responders. But what is it, really?

Mindfulness refers to the practice or instance of paying careful attention to one’s present-moment experience – such as their thoughts, breath, bodily sensations and the environment – and doing so nonjudgmentally. Its origins are in Buddhist traditions, where it plays a crucial role in connecting communities and promoting selflessness.

Over the past 50 years, however, mindfulness-based practice has been Westernized into structured therapeutic programs and stress-management tools, which have been widely studied for their benefits to mental and physical health.

Research has shown that mindfulness offers wide-ranging benefits to the mind, the body and productivity.

Mindfulness-based programs, both in person and digitally delivered, can effectively treat depression and anxiety, protect from burnout, improve sleep and reduce pain.

The impacts extend beyond subjective experience too. Studies find that experienced meditators – that is, people who have been meditating for at least one year – have lower markers of inflammation, which means that their bodies are better able to fight off infections and regulate stress. They also showed improved cognitive abilities and even altered brain structure.

But I find the potential for mindfulness to support a healthy lifestyle most exciting of all.

How can mindfulness help you build healthy habits?

My team’s research suggests that mindfulness equips people with the psychological skills required to successfully change behavior. Knowing what to do to achieve healthy habits is rarely what stands in people’s way. But knowing how to stay motivated and keep showing up in the face of everyday obstacles such as lack of time, illness or competing priorities is the most common reason people fall off the wagon – and therefore need the most support. This is where mindfulness comes in.

Multiple studies have found that people who meditate regularly for at least two months become more inherently motivated to look after their health, which is a hallmark of those who adhere to a balanced diet and exercise regularly.

A 2024 study with over 1,200 participants that I led found more positive attitudes toward healthy habits and stronger intentions to put them into practice in meditators who practiced mindfulness for 10 minutes daily alongside a mobile app, compared with nonmeditators. This may happen because mindfulness encourages self-reflection and helps people feel more in tune with their bodies, making it easier to remember why being healthier is important to us.

Another key way mindfulness helps keep momentum with healthy habits is by restructuring one’s response to pain, discomfort and failure. This is not to say that meditators feel no pain, nor that pain during exercise is encouraged – it is not!

Mild discomfort, however, is a very common experience of novice exercisers. For example, you may feel out of breath or muscle fatigue when initially taking up a new activity, which is when people are most likely to give up. Mindfulness teaches you to notice these sensations but see them as transient and with minimal judgment, making them less disruptive to habit-building.

Putting mindfulness into practice

A classic mindfulness exercise includes observing the breath and counting inhales up to 10 at a time. This is surprisingly difficult to do without getting distracted, and a core part of the exercise is noticing the distraction and returning to the counting. In other words, mindfulness involves the practice of failure in small, inconsequential ways, making real-world perceived failure – such as a missed exercise session or a one-off indulgent meal – feel more manageable. This strengthens your ability to stay consistent in pursuit of health goals.

Finally, paying mindful attention to our bodies and the environment makes us more observant, resulting in a more varied and enjoyable exercising or eating experience. Participants in another study we conducted reported noticing the seasons changing, a greater connection to their surroundings and being better able to detect their own progress when exercising mindfully. This made them more likely to keep going in their habits.

Luckily, there are plenty of tools available to get started with mindfulness practice these days, many of them free. Mobile applications, such as Headspace or Calm, are popular and effective starting points, providing audio-guided sessions to follow along. Some are as short as five minutes. Research suggests that doing a mindfulness session first thing in the morning is the easiest to maintain, and after a month or so you may start to see the skills from your meditative practice reverberating beyond the sessions themselves.

Based on our research on mindfulness and exercise, I collaborated with the nonprofit Medito Foundation to create the first mindfulness program dedicated to moving more. When we tested the program in a research study, participants who meditated alongside these sessions for one month reported doing much more exercise than before the study and having stronger intentions to keep moving compared with participants who did not meditate. Increasingly, the mobile applications mentioned above are offering mindful movement meditations too.

If the idea of a seated practice does not sound appealing, you can instead choose an activity to dedicate your full attention to. This can be your next walk outdoors, where you notice as much about your experience and surroundings as possible. Feeling your feet on the ground and the sensations on your skin are a great place to start.

For people with even less time available, short bursts of mindfulness can be incorporated into even the busiest of routines. Try taking a few mindful, nondistracted breaths while your coffee is brewing, during a restroom break or while riding the elevator. It may just be the grounding moment you need to feel and perform better for the rest of the day.

Masha Remskar previously received funding from UK Research & Innovation’s Economic and Social Research Council, and served as Head of Science at the Medito Foundation. The Medito Foundation is a non-profit that does not benefit financially from users downloading and using its mobile app.

– ref. Mindfulness won’t burn calories, but it might help you stick with your health goals – https://theconversation.com/mindfulness-wont-burn-calories-but-it-might-help-you-stick-with-your-health-goals-260482