Analysis – Page 182 – MIL Submissions Engine

April 24, 2026

Why the world’s banks are so worried about Anthropic’s latest AI model

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Toby Walsh, Professor of AI, Research Group Leader, UNSW Sydney

The legendary American bank robber Willie Sutton spent 40 years robbing banks because, as he claimed in his autobiography, he loved doing it. And when asked why he chose banks of all places to rob, he allegedly replied “Because that’s where the money is.”

Back in 2017, I wrote a book predicting it wasn’t just lovable rogues like Sutton who would soon be robbing banks, but artificial intelligence (AI).

That day, it appears, could now be about to arrive. Banks around the world are seriously worried cyber criminals will soon take advantage of the latest advances in AI to try to rob them.

The digital back door into the vault

The finance world’s concern rests on the impressive cyber capabilities of a product called “Mythos”. This is the latest and most capable AI model from Anthropic, the company behind the popular Claude chatbot.

As a member of the public, you can’t access or use this model – for now. That’s because Anthropic (and many others) believe Mythos is too capable to launch upon an unsuspecting world.

Internal testing of Mythos has uncovered thousands of severe security vulnerabilities across every major operating system and web browser.

Some of these vulnerabilities have gone undetected for decades. Many are what tech insiders call “zero day” vulnerabilities – attacks that are so dangerous that developers need to fix them in zero days’ time.

Not for public use

To counter this emerging threat, Anthropic has made the model available to a dozen partners of a defensive coalition that includes Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, Apple, Cisco and the Linux Foundation.

The company has also committed US$100 million (about A$140 million) in usage credits and US$4 million (about A$5.6 million) in open-source grants to start finding and fixing these bugs.

In addition, more than 40 additional organisations – including a number of US banks – have also received access. But worryingly, as far as we know, Anthropic has not yet granted access to any banks in Australia, the United Kingdom or Europe.

To add to concerns, on Wednesday, Anthropic confirmed it was investigating claims in a Bloomberg report that a small group of unauthorised users had gained access to Mythos. However, at this stage, there is no suggestion this alleged access was for malicious purposes.

Should you be worried?

Last week, regulators and policymakers from around the world gathered at the International Monetary Fund spring meeting in Washington. The Iran war was a major focus. But attendees also issued a series of warnings about this emerging cybersecurity threat to the banking industry.

Not only are banks an attractive target, being where the money is, but the industry runs on many legacy systems, decades old technology that may be especially vulnerable to these sorts of attacks.

You personally don’t need to be too worried. Many countries have strong protections for bank customers. In Australia, for example, the first A$250,000 of a customer’s deposits are insured through the government-backed Financial Claims Scheme.

And the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ensures banks investigate and reimburse fraudulent transactions where the customer is not at fault.

So, it’s probably not a wise idea to withdraw your cash and put it under the mattress. But banks should be (and are) rushing to plug these vulnerabilities.

I would recommend you regularly update your computer and smartphone to have the latest operating system and banking apps. There are likely to be many more updates in the near future as new vulnerabilities are uncovered and patched.

And, as I’m sure you have been, you need to be ever vigilant for phishing attacks by email and SMS trying to obtain your banking credentials.

The evolving threat landscape

In the longer term, Mythos exposes the challenge that defence is much harder than attack. Software is one of the most complex products humanity builds. It is therefore almost impossible to ensure it is bug-free.

That puts us in an unending race against the “bad guys” to uncover and fix faults before they get exploited.

For example, with significant fanfare, the European Union just released its age verification app, designed to be a cornerstone to the emerging laws on access to social media, pornography and other age-restricted content. However, within hours, security experts found cyber vulnerabilities that underage users could easily exploit.

In the most critical settings, we can try to prove mathematically that our software is bug-free. For instance, the Beneficial AI Foundation just announced an ambitious “moonshot” project to prove that the popular messaging app Signal is bug-free and protects privacy as claimed.

But such efforts are the exception today rather than the norm. Perhaps further advances in AI could soon help reverse this.

Toby Walsh receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Laureate Fellowship on trustworthy AI.

– ref. Why the world’s banks are so worried about Anthropic’s latest AI model – https://theconversation.com/why-the-worlds-banks-are-so-worried-about-anthropics-latest-ai-model-281218

April 23, 2026

Heavy rain on snow is testing aging dams across Michigan and Wisconsin – this is the future in a warming world

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Richard B. (Ricky) Rood, Professor Emeritus of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of Michigan

In the upper Midwest, aging infrastructure, from dams to city drains, was overwhelmed by floodwater in April 2026. Jonathan Aguilar/Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service/CatchLight via Getty Images

Michigan and parts of Wisconsin are in the midst of a historic flooding event in spring 2026. Days of heavy rainfall on top of snow have sent lakes and rivers over their banks and threatened several dams in both states, forcing people to evacuate homes downstream.

By April 20, 2026, nearly half of Michigan’s counties were under a state of emergency. In Cheboygan, Michigan, large pumps were brought in to lower pressure on a century-old dam in the city.

The region’s aging water infrastructure was never designed for the volume of water it is facing. That’s a troubling sign for the future, with flooding becoming more common as global temperatures rise.

In many areas, the damage has been exacerbated by a culture of building homes and cabins on the shores of inland lakes and along riverine lakes behind small, often privately owned dams. Many of these dams were built over 100 years ago, with some long forgotten.

Michigan State Police captured scenes of stressed dams and flooding across Cheboygan County, near the tip of the Lower Peninsula, including the century-old dam in the city of Cheboygan that was nearly overwhelmed by flood water.

I am a professor emeritus of meteorology at the University of Michigan whose work focuses on helping communities adapt to climate change. The warming climate is worsening the flood risk, and disasters like the one Michigan is experiencing are setting higher benchmarks for safety as communities plan future infrastructure.

Where is all the water coming from?

For much of Michigan and Wisconsin, as well as northern Illinois, 2026 has been the wettest March and April on record.

In March, much of that precipitation fell as snow, including in an enormous blizzard that brought 3 feet of snow to parts of Michigan. In mid-April, persistent rains began. The rain, on top of all that snow, sent floodwaters running into rivers, streets and homes. The water carries large amounts of ice that damages shores, infrastructure and homes.

The moisture for much of these storms has been funneled northward from the warm Gulf of Mexico, thanks in part to a high pressure system sitting over the southeastern U.S.

A US map showing the highest increase in rainfall from extreme downpours across the Upper Midwest and Northeast. — Extreme downpours are becoming intense across the United states. This map shows the percentage change in total precipitation falling on the heaviest 1% of rainy days from 1958 to 2021.
NOAA/adapted from Fifth National Climate Assessment

The problem of warming winters

The kind of flooding Michigan and Wisconsin are experiencing in 2026 is what forecasters expect to see more of as global temperatures rise.

Winters have been warming faster than other seasons across the U.S. In Michigan and Wisconsin, winter months used to be reliably below freezing, but that’s changing. In the Cheboygan area, near the tip of Lower Michigan, March temperatures used to be below freezing on all but a few days. By the 1991-2020 period, the region averaged 10 days above or close to the freezing point – about twice as many as the 1951-1980 period.

Charts show the shift toward warmer March weather. — March is warming, as a comparison of daily high temperatures in the Cheboygan area in 1991-2020 and 1951-1980 shows. The bar chart comparison shows that the number days above freezing is rising.
GLISA

The air coming in from the south is also warmer than in the past. Nationally, 2026 was the warmest March on record in 132 years of record-keeping in the contiguous U.S., with an average temperature more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) higher than the 30-year average. So, in addition to snowmelt starting earlier, melting is happening faster.

Michigan’s average wintertime temperature rose by more than 4 F (2.3 C) from 1951 to 2023. Though winter 2026 in Michigan was colder than the 1991-2020 average, the Gulf of Mexico, where the moisture originated, was warmer than average, accelerating the snowmelt.

How warming leads to downpours and flooding

A few aspects of a warming climate can lead to flooding.

First, temperatures are increasing. In higher temperatures, moisture evaporates faster from the ground, plants and surface water. That moisture, once in the atmosphere, eventually falls again as precipitation. However, for each degree Celsius that temperatures increase, the atmosphere can hold about 7% more moisture, resulting in more heavy downpours.

A warmer winter also means more melting snow and more rain-on-snow events that can quickly increase the amount of runoff into rivers.

Much of the upper Midwest was exceptionally wet in March and April 2026. — Since March 1, 2026, most of Michigan and Wisconsin have experienced their wettest stretch in the 134 years that the region’s precipitation has been recorded.
Iowa Environmental Mesonet

The Great Lakes region and much of the Northeast already experience more precipitation than in the past. Winters with more persistent wetness – not just snow but also rain – prime the region for floods. With continued warming in the coming decades, 2026 might be among the least disruptive in the future.

Data shows that a scenario of persistent wetness, changes in winter and seasonal runoff is part of the future for Michigan and the other states and Canadian provinces along the Great Lakes Basin, as well as New England.

Fixing dams for the future

All of this means communities across the region will have to pay closer attention to the growing risks facing their vital infrastructure – particularly dams.

Even prior to the 2026 floods, Michigan had a well-documented problem with its aging inventory of 2,600 dams. In May 2020, an intense storm system that stalled over the region brought so much rain that the Edenville and Sanford dams both failed near Midland, Michigan, forcing 10,000 people to evacuate and causing an estimated US$200 million in damage.

After that disaster, a state task force issued recommendations for fixing the state’s water control infrastructure to meet the growing risks. But a member of the task force told The Detroit News in April 2026 that little had been done to address those recommendations.

Water spills from the Cheyboygan dam, where the water level came close to the top, threatening the century-old dam's integrity. — Officials ordered evacuations as floodwater nearly overwhelmed the century-old dam in Cheboygan, Mich., in April 2026.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources via AP

Because warming will continue for the coming decades, the 2026 flooding should be considered at the lower end of capacity for stormwater infrastructure and dams. Rather than relying on the statistics that described floods in the past, planners will have to anticipate the floods of the future.

Michigan is often touted as a climate haven because it is relatively cool and has plenty of water. The state is not, however, immune to the amped-up weather of a warming climate. Environmental security in the future requires improved and more adaptive infrastructure.

Richard B. (Ricky) Rood receives funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

– ref. Heavy rain on snow is testing aging dams across Michigan and Wisconsin – this is the future in a warming world – https://theconversation.com/heavy-rain-on-snow-is-testing-aging-dams-across-michigan-and-wisconsin-this-is-the-future-in-a-warming-world-281221

April 23, 2026

Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s ‘nuclear deterrent’

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This is the text from The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up here to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

Napoleon Bonaparte is said to have commented in connection with his invasion of Russia that “geography is destiny”. Take a look at a live maritime tracker to see how Napoleon’s aphorism is playing out in the Middle East today. There are presently hundreds of vessels either side of the Strait of Hormuz, idling in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman. But nothing is passing though.

In normal times, 20% of the world’s oil flows through this waterway. But since the US and Israel began to launch attacks at the end of February, Iran has effectively closed down the Strait, both by depositing mines and by threatening to board any ships trying to pass without their permission.

The US has countered with its own blockade. And both sides have demonstrated how serious they are in recent days by threatening, boarding or forcing vessels to reroute.

That Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz should have come as no surprise to anyone. The leaders of the Islamic Republic have threatened to do so every time they have felt under threat over more than four decades. Christian Emery, an expert in US-Iran relations and Persian Gulf security at University College London, believes this is why no previous US president has chosen to launch a full-scale attack on Iran.

As we’ve already seen, the ability of Iran to hugely disrupt the global economy by shutting down the Strait was obvious: “The only person who seems not to have understood this is Donald Trump,” Emery concludes.

So now there appears to be a deadlock. It’s an unwinnable war, write Bamo Nouri and Inderjeet Parmar, experts in international security at City St George’s, University of London. The US and Israel may enjoy massive military superiority over Iran, but this is beside the point, Nouri and Parmar believe.

While both the US president, Donald Trump, and Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, need to be able to demonstrate to their voters that they have emerged triumphant, Iran isn’t looking to win. It is looking to endure – while making sure that the cost of this conflict becomes unsustainable. And not just for the US and Israel, but for pretty much everybody else besides.

We’re already seeing that. Oil prices have surged and reserves are coming under strain. Supply chains are disrupted. And political friction is stressing relationships, not just between the US and its Nato allies, but – more ominously – with China, which typically buys between 80% and 90% of Iran’s oil exports and said this week that the Strait must be opened without delay.

Iran, our experts conclude, “does not need to win. It only needs to prevent its adversaries from achieving their aims. So far, it has done exactly that.”

There’s a principle in classical game theory which explains why Iran’s position is so strong. It’s known as Rubinstein bargaining, writes Renaud Foucart, an economist at Lancaster University. As Foucart explains it, this holds that in a conflict the respective strength of adversaries each depends on two things: “how badly off it would be without a resolution, and how impatient it is to get things resolved”.

As we’ve heard, all the pressure is on the US, while the leverage is mainly in Iran’s hands. “The US’s position is much weaker than first thought because of a stretch of water the world can’t do without,” he concludes.

On Tuesday, as we waited to see what might happen if the 14-day deadline imposed by Trump on April 8 expired without Tehran opening the Strait, it was clear that both the US and Iran, to varying degrees, were looking for an off-ramp. The blockade is financially ruinous for Iran – whether it is losing US$500 million (£370 million) a day, as Trump claims, we don’t know. But the shutting down of its oil exports is hitting an already parlous economy and this week the social security minister said 2 million people had lost their jobs since the beginning of the war.

For Trump, it’s soaring prices at the gas pumps and the prospect of rising inflation angering voters ahead of November’s midterm elections. The war is very unpopular with Americans – and, significantly, it’s beginning to fracture the Maga coalition which brought Trump to power in the 2024 election.

But there are ways both sides can find off-ramps, writes David Galbreath of the University of Bath. The key thing is to find a settlement that the leaders of both sides can sell as a “win”.

For Iran, this could be an easing of sanctions and access to some of the many billions of dollars of frozen assets held overseas. It could be a recognition of its right to enrich uranium to the level needed for medical uses – particularly given the recent assertion by the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, that such a solution would “safeguard its [Iran’s] national sovereignty”.

We know a little about what Iran is prepared to offer because a great deal of it was on the table in February when the US and Israel launched their strikes. But one of the stumbling blocks for the US president appears to be that Iran’s proposals may too closely resemble the deal struck in 2015 by his predecessor, Barack Obama.

But Galbreath concludes that as things stand, some combination of opening the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of limits on uranium enrichment and agreeing to stringent inspections could be made to appear a “win” for Trump. This could be a starting point, writes Galbreath, in what is known in conflict resolution as “sequenced de‑escalation”. It could deliver an initial settlement and allow negotiators on both sides to get to work and hammer out the details. Obama’s treaty took 20 months to agree. It’s early days yet.

One stumbling block is likely to be that there appears to be something of a power struggle raging at the top of Iranian politics. This was seen very clearly last weekend, when Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, announced that the Strait of Hormuz was completely open, only to be swiftly overruled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which said it would decide when and how the Strait would be opened.

Since then, a new figure has emerged at the head of the IRGC: a longtime guards member and hardline former commander of its elite Quds force, Ahmad Vahidi. And it seems that with Iran’s freshly minted supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, badly injured after the attack that killed his father on February 28, Vahidi is now calling the shots in Iran. Andreas Krieg, an expert in Middle East politics at King’s College London explains the power struggle that has led to Vahidi assuming control.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

– ref. Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s ‘nuclear deterrent’ – https://theconversation.com/strait-of-hormuz-irans-nuclear-deterrent-281376

April 23, 2026

Why the Southeast is burning – extreme drought is only part of the reason

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Zachary Handlos, Atmospheric Science Educator, Georgia Institute of Technology

Fire crews responded to dozens of wildfires burning in Georgia and northern Florida on April 23, 2026. Georgia Department of Natural Resources via AP

Large parts of the southeastern U.S. are in the midst of an exceptional drought, and it is fueling dozens of wildfires in Florida and Georgia.

One of those wildfires, in southeastern Georgia’s Brantley County, had destroyed more than 50 homes by April 23, and state officials said about 1,000 other homes were at risk. Another fire near the Georgia-Florida border had burned almost 30,000 acres and was only about 10% contained. The smoke from the blazes triggered air quality alerts in Atlanta, in the north-central part of the state.

So why is a region of the U.S. more often known for thunderstorms and humidity in spring seeing so many wildfires?

A forested area with a burned-out vehicle, burned trees and gray ash covering everything. — A fire near the Florida-Georgia line had burned nearly 30,000 acres by April 23, 2026, leaving ash behind.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources via AP

I teach meteorology at the Georgia Institute of Technology, including how weather patterns can lead to conditions conducive to wildfires. Here’s what’s happening to drive these conditions:

Key ingredients for a wildfire

Wildfires need a few key ingredients to spread: low relative humidity, dry fuels and strong winds.

Much of the Southeast has been in a drought since July 2025. From mid-March to mid-April 2026, the region saw less than a quarter of its normal precipitation for that time of year.

A U.S. map showing very dry conditions over much of the eastern U.S., the Southwest and the Great Plains. — A map showing how far above or below average precipitation has been in each region from mid-March to mid-April 2026 shows just how dry much of the U.S. Southeast has been.
Drought.gov

As a result, the U.S. Drought Monitor classified most of this region in “extreme” or “exceptional” drought by mid-April.

In the map of the Southeast, an area of exceptional drought stretches from the Florida Panhandle to central coastal Georgia. much of the rest of the two states are extreme drought. — A map of the U.S. Southeast as of April 21, 2026, shows exceptional drought across the Georgia-Florida border area and extreme drought in many other areas.
Brian Fuchs, National Drought Mitigation Center/U.S. Drought Monitor

Part of the reason for the lack of rainfall has been a persistent high-pressure system over the Southeast.

High-pressure systems are areas where air aloft sinks toward the surface, preventing clouds and precipitation from forming. The Southeast high-pressure system resulted from the presence of a “ridge” in the jet stream, a northward bend in this fast current of air several miles above Earth’s surface.

Another consequence of this high pressure has been the presence of generally southeast winds, which have transported warm and fairly dry air into the area.

The relative humidity – a measure of the amount of moisture in the air relative to the maximum amount the air can contain at its actual air temperature – has also been very low due to warmer-than-usual temperatures and lower-than-usual moisture.

A weather map shows the high-pressure system over the Southeast keeping conditions dry. — A weather map from the Global Forecast System shows the forecasted low-pressure (red L) and high-pressure (blue H) systems.
Pivotal Weather

As a result of these conditions, trees, grass and leaves dry out and can quickly become fuel for wildfires. That kind of dry fuel is widespread throughout rural areas of Georgia and north Florida.

Once a fire starts, whether from lightning, power lines or other human sources, strong winds can spread it rapidly in these conditions.

What’s ahead for the region?

As global temperatures rise, the frequency of drought conditions in the Southeast will increase. This, in combination with less soil moisture content in the summer, could be conducive for increased wildfire activity.

Wildfires do eventually burn out. It takes a combination of help from the atmosphere, with moisture to douse them, and firefighters clearing away dry fuel to stop their spread.

Georgia and Florida may get a reprieve soon from the weather, as multiple low-pressure systems are forecast for the region in late April and early May that could bring rainfall. In the meantime, more than half of Georgia’s counties are under a state of emergency, as several agencies battle the flames to protect homes with helicopters in the air and firefighters on the ground.

Dr. Zachary Handlos receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation. He is affiliated with the Georgia Institute of Technology (i.e., “Georgia Tech”) School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (EAS) and is the Director of their Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (AOS) undergraduate degree program. He is also currently the chair of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Board on Higher Education (BHE).

– ref. Why the Southeast is burning – extreme drought is only part of the reason – https://theconversation.com/why-the-southeast-is-burning-extreme-drought-is-only-part-of-the-reason-281392

April 23, 2026

Supreme Court’s ‘shadow docket’ brings hasty decisions with long-lasting implications, outside of its usual careful deliberation

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Wayne Unger, Associate Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University

The U.S. Supreme Court is being criticized for decisions that are made quickly and outside of public view. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The recent publication of confidential Supreme Court memoranda by The New York Times has brought to light a pivotal moment in the court’s history. “The birth of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket has long been a mystery,” wrote reporters Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak. “Until now.”

Originally coined by legal scholar William Baude, the term “shadow docket” refers to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, which, as Baude wrote, includes “a range of orders and summary decisions that defy its normal procedural regularity.”

That’s law professor-speak for cases that are given abbreviated consideration and accelerated review by the justices, all out of public view – what The New York Times story referred to as the court “sprinting.” These cases aren’t included in the annual list of cases the justices have chosen to consider and that are presented by attorneys in public sessions, called “oral argument,” at the court.

During the second Trump administration, such shadow docket cases have proliferated as President Donald Trump has continued to push boundaries, challenge precedents and expand executive power. These cases have typically involved a request by the presidential administration “to suspend lower court orders” that temporarily block “an administration policy from taking effect,” according to liberal legal advocacy group the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

The lack of transparency in considering and ruling on the shadow docket, combined with the weight of the issues presented to the court via that docket, mean that the practice has come under strong criticism by many court watchers. Here’s how the process works and what you need to know to evaluate it.

A man with short hair, wearing a black robe over a white shirt and blue tie. — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts played a key role in pressing for the court to consider a major case first through the shadow docket.
Leah Millis-Pool/Getty Images

The merits docket

The emergency docket is different from the court’s merits docket, which is the customary path for cases to reach the Supreme Court.

Ordinarily, in federal courts, a case begins in a federal district court. An appeal of the decision in the case is made to a federal appeals court. If a party in the case wants to appeal further, they can aim for U.S. Supreme Court review. That requires filing a “petition for writ of certiorari” to the court.

The Supreme Court does not take all the cases for which it has been petitioned. The court holds complete discretion to choose which cases to consider each term and always rejects the vast majority of petitions that it receives. By custom, the court agrees to consider a case if at least four justices vote to grant the writ of certiorari.

For the cases that the court agrees to consider, the parties to that case file briefs – written legal arguments – with the Supreme Court. Third parties can also file briefs with the court to assert their own arguments; these are known as “friend of the court” or amicus curiae briefs.

The justices then read those briefs and hear oral arguments in the case in a public session, during which they can question attorneys for both sides, before they meet and confer. At the end of this conference, the justices vote on the outcome in the case before assigning an author to draft the opinions.

The merits docket – the ordinary process – is methodical. It promotes deliberation and reasoned decision-making resulting in lengthy opinions that explain the justices’ rationale and provide guidance for lower courts in future cases.

The emergency docket

On the other hand, the emergency docket is a process whereby the court makes quick decisions without full briefing and deliberation, and it produces orders and rulings that almost always present little to no explanation.

As Baude wrote, “Many of the orders lack the transparency that we have come to appreciate in its merits cases.”

Most of the court’s rulings and orders in cases on the emergency docket go without explanation. On occasion, however, the court produces short opinions that provide some explanation in emergency docket cases, albeit these are often dissents from the justices who disagree with the ruling.

Transparency is important, especially for the Supreme Court, because it builds trust and legitimacy. According to Gallup, as of September 2025, 42% of respondents approve, 52% disapprove and 6% have no opinion of the Supreme Court. A 2025 Pew Research Center poll found that 48% of Americans have a favorable view of the court, down from 70% five years earlier.

As a constitutional law scholar, I’ve written elsewhere that the low approval might be attributable to the court’s undisciplined overruling of landmark cases regarding individual rights, such as the abortion rights case Roe v. Wade. In my view, it is reasonable to conclude that the court’s lack of transparency, specifically with its growing emergency docket, contributes to distrust in the court.

As the late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated, “The Court’s power lies … in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people’s acceptance of the Judiciary as fit to determine what the Nation’s law means and to declare what it demands.”

Conversely, a lack of transparency breeds distrust and erodes institutional legitimacy.

Unprecedented action

The 2016 case at the center of the memoranda published by The New York Times –West Virginia v. EPA – concerned environmental regulation. As the justices’ memoranda illustrate, West Virginia, North Dakota and several energy companies sued the Obama administration over its Clean Power Plan and sought to block the new, transformative regulation from going into effect.

The Clean Power Plan would have required states and energy companies to shift electricity production from higher-emitting to lower-emitting production methods to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

After losing at the trial court, the states and energy companies filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court asking the justices to pause the Obama regulation from going into effect while the parties litigated the case in the lower courts.

This was a highly unusual request because, as Taraleigh Davis at SCOTUSblog confirms, “nobody had previously asked the court to halt such a major executive regulatory action before any appellate court had ruled on it.”

The court granted the unprecedented stay on Feb. 9, 2016, without any explanation as to why it temporarily blocked the Clean Power Plan. It eventually struck down the plan on June 22, 2022.

Defenders of the emergency docket frequently claim that the court’s conduct is permissible because its orders are temporary. In West Virginia v. EPA, the court temporarily blocked the Clean Power Plan from going into effect until it eventually struck it down after hearing the case on its merits docket.

What is overlooked, however, is that even temporary orders from the court can have lasting implications that are difficult, and in some cases impossible, to undo.

Damage done

A group of people holding signs and speaking in front of a large, white building with pillars. — Advocates for Haitians holding temporary protected status appear at a press conference on March 16, 2026, in front of the Supreme Court, which has agreed to rule through its shadow docket on whether they can remain in the U.S.
Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

Consider the example of one of Trump’s immigration actions.

The administration seeks to terminate the temporary protected status for Haitian nationals, which had shielded them from deportation. But a federal district court temporarily blocked the president from doing so as the litigation continued.

The administration then filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court – still pending as of this writing – asking the court to overrule the district court. If granted, the court effectively would allow the administration to revoke TPS for Haitian nationals.

As an amicus brief in the case articulated, if TPS is revoked, Haitians “will be forced to face the untenable options of leaving behind their citizen children and/or partners, bringing family members with them to a country submerged in crisis, violence, and food insecurity, or staying in the U.S. without any legal status or work authorization and facing the constant threat of deportation.”

In other words, if the Supreme Court overrules the district court in this case on its emergency docket, then the Trump administration could deport the Haitian nationals even as their cases challenging the revocation of their TPS continue.

If the Haitian nationals ultimately prevail, reversing their deportation would be exceptionally difficult to do.

Wayne Unger 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. Supreme Court’s ‘shadow docket’ brings hasty decisions with long-lasting implications, outside of its usual careful deliberation – https://theconversation.com/supreme-courts-shadow-docket-brings-hasty-decisions-with-long-lasting-implications-outside-of-its-usual-careful-deliberation-281212

April 23, 2026

World Immunization Week: Why postal codes shouldn’t determine RSV protection in Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sophie Webb, Postdoctoral Fellow, Bridge Research Consortium, Simon Fraser University

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a familiar seasonal illness, but the tools to prevent it are new. Canada has recently approved vaccines for older adults and pregnant people, along with a long-acting monoclonal antibody that can protect infants through their first RSV season.

These innovations offer new ways to reduce hospitalizations and severe illness. Yet whether Canadians can access them still depends largely on where they live.

Across the country, provincial RSV programs vary widely in eligibility, scope and public funding — see, for example, Ontario RSV program updates and Alberta immunization program information.

An infant eligible for publicly funded protection in one province may not be eligible in another. Seniors with similar health risks may face different access depending on their province. These differences are often dismissed as routine features of federalism.

But with World Immunization Week upon us, RSV provides the opportunity to ask a broader question: who’s responsible for delivering equitable access to vaccines in Canada?

Immunity and Society is a new series from The Conversation Canada that presents new vaccine discoveries and immune-based innovations that are changing how we understand and protect human health. Through a partnership with the Bridge Research Consortium, these articles — written by experts in Canada at the forefront of immunology, biomanufacturing, social science and humanities — explore the latest developments and their impacts.

New tools, uneven access

RSV prevention now includes vaccines for older adults and pregnant people, and a monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) that offers season-long protection for infants with a single dose.

National guidance exists. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommends universal infant RSV immunization, but allows provinces to phase this in based on supply and cost. But these recommendations are advisory. Provinces ultimately decide what is publicly funded and for whom.

The result is a patchwork. Some provinces have expanded infant coverage, while others have limited access to those considered high risk. Adult and maternal programs also vary in eligibility, delivery and funding.

Cost plays a key role in these decisions. RSV therapies are expensive, and provinces must weigh them against competing health priorities. Epidemiological differences also matter, as do variations in disease burden and the additional challenges of vaccination in northern and remote communities.

Not all variation is inherently problematic. But together, these factors mean that access to protection is shaped as much by provincial priorities as by medical need.

When equity’s a goal but not a guarantee

In immunization policy, equity generally means ensuring that those at higher risk, or facing barriers to access, are protected first, and financial or geographic differences don’t determine who receives care.

RSV programs often emphasize protecting those at highest clinical risk, such as very young infants and people with underlying conditions. This approach is understandable. But it also narrows how equity operates in practice.

In a system where provinces determine their own budgets and priorities, equity can become something negotiated rather than guaranteed. One province may fund broader access; another may limit eligibility based on cost-effectiveness or capacity. The same intervention is therefore available to some populations and not others.

This shifts responsibility downward. Families must determine eligibility, navigate different rules, and sometimes absorb costs or logistical barriers to access. Equity becomes something people experience unevenly, rather than a guarantee built into the system.

COVID-19 offers a cautionary example. Communities identified as highest risk were often vaccinated later than wealthier neighbourhoods during early rollout phases. This prompted provinces to introduce reactive “hotspot” strategies that in some cases replicated the same effect. Simply naming groups as “equity-deserving” did not ensure timely access.

People in masks are vaccinated by health-care workers in protective gear inside a tent — A pop-up vaccine clinic in a Toronto hotspot neighbourhood in April 2021.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Cole Burston

Governance and accountability

Canada’s immunization system involves multiple entities. Federal bodies approve products and issue recommendations. Provinces decide what to fund. Public health systems implement programs within local constraints.

While each level plays an essential role, none is clearly responsible for national equity, creating a governance gap.

Equity is widely endorsed, but no single body is accountable for delivering it nationally. RSV demonstrates how this plays out in practice — variation in immunization is accepted as a feature of federalism, rather than treated as a policy problem to be addressed.

Procurement adds another layer. Vaccine pricing and contract terms are not routinely disclosed in Canada, and negotiations with manufacturers are often confidential.

During COVID-19, federal vaccine contracts were released only after parliamentary pressure, with key details heavily redacted. Limited transparency makes it difficult to assess whether differences in access reflect pricing, negotiation leverage or policy choices.

Why it matters

RSV is one of the first major post-pandemic tests of Canada’s immunization system. It’s unlikely to be the last. New vaccines and antibody-based therapies are increasingly tailored to specific populations, making decisions about access more complex.

As these technologies evolve, governance matters more, not less. Without clearer accountability, innovations risk reinforcing variation rather than reducing it.

RSV highlights a broader challenge in Canadian immunization policy — equity is widely invoked, but responsibility for delivering it remains diffuse. Without clearer co-ordination, transparency and shared expectations, access to protection will continue to depend on where people live.

For families of infants and seniors, that distinction is not abstract. It determines whether immunity is treated as a public good, or as a matter of postal code.

Cora Constantinescu receives funding from bioMerieux, GSK, merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, with funds being transferred to her University organisation

Sophie Webb does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. World Immunization Week: Why postal codes shouldn’t determine RSV protection in Canada – https://theconversation.com/world-immunization-week-why-postal-codes-shouldnt-determine-rsv-protection-in-canada-278717

April 23, 2026

Why I celebrate Black graduation magic: An anti-racist perspective

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Clare Warner, Director, Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Racism, Student Affairs, McMaster University

There is a rich history of Black graduation ceremonies in the United States focused on celebrating the unique experiences and achievements of Black university students.

In Canada, the tradition gained attention with the University of Toronto’s 2017 celebration.

Since then, annual Black graduation ceremonies have been embraced by many other institutions, including McMaster University, Toronto Metropolitan University and Concordia University.

These optional celebrations are complementary to faculty-based convocation ceremonies where students are awarded their degrees. As in the case of Toronto’s event, many are initiated by students seeking to celebrate their achievements in a culturally affirming way.

Their emergence are part of the introduction of Black-focused programs, services and spaces on Canadian campuses, which according to the available evidence, positively impact the well-being and academic success of Black students.

The principle of ‘Ubuntu’

The celebrations embody the principle of Ubuntu, a South African philosophy about interdependence.

Students, parents and family members are often joined by staff, faculty, alumni and community members in a communal celebration of achievement.

These community celebrations remind graduates they are powerfully networked and supported as they embark on their careers or further studies. They also offer a moment to reflect on the personal, familial and ancestral sacrifices, which have enabled the long-awaited day.

During the celebrations, students are often presented with a Kente Stole. The stole is a scarf-like garment inspired by kente cloth, a vibrant textile created in the 17th century by the Akan people of Ghana drawing on their longstanding traditional weaving practices.

Historically associated with royal gatherings, today kente-inspired stoles are featured in important community celebrations as a symbol of ancestry and cultural pride. Visually stunning, many students proudly wear their stoles during their formal convocation event, reinforcing their undeniable presence and contribution to the university.

Typically, Black graduation celebrations also incorporate cultural attire, music, speeches and awards, which together create the “magic” I’m so fond of.

Accusations of segregation

These celebrations are not without their critics, however, as accusations of segregation are not uncommon. Notably, predominantly white gatherings on campuses evade this criticism because whiteness is often constructed in non-racial terms, preserving for itself the privilege of being seen as simply human.

Accusations of segregation fail to acknowledge that Black graduation celebrations exist in the context of, and are an antidote to, the well-documented barriers Black students experience in the pursuit of higher education.

They are also troubling when situated within the history of segregationist policies in North America and South Africa, which systematically deprived Black communities of vital resources and opportunities as part of state-sanctioned efforts to maintain racial hierarchies.

Fostering belonging

In reality, Black graduation celebrations are inclusive, frequently welcoming non-Black campus allies and graduates’ family members and partners, suggesting accusations of segregation are rooted in ideological opposition rather than evidence.

Other criticisms focus on the potential for Black graduation celebrations to reduce the participation of Black students in their formal convocations.

This claim runs contrary to available evidence that Black-focused programming at Canadian universities increases students’ sense of belonging, which is a prerequisite for greater institutional engagement.

Based on this logic, Black graduation ceremonies are more likely than not to empower Black students to take up space in their formal convocations alongside peers from their programs.

Celebrating Black achievement

Black graduation ceremonies have also attracted negative comments in popular forums like Reddit threads. Amid the deliberations, profiles from different racial backgrounds sometimes demand equivalent ceremonies in the name of fairness.

This stance is disappointing because it denies the necessity of celebrating Black achievement in a world plagued by a specific, longstanding and deeply entrenched anti-Blackness. It’s also illogical because Black graduation celebrations do not occur at the expense of other communities.

Celebrating Black achievement does not preclude other, also valid, celebrations of success — which can and often do co-exist.

In fact, as is so often the case with innovation born out of Black resistance and creativity, Black graduation celebrations provide both precedent and a model for culturally grounded recognition events and celebrations on campuses.

Repairing reputations, building bridges

It would be a mistake to judge Black graduations as a single celebratory day, as their impact far exceeds one day. Months-long in the planning, they can nurture cross-campus relationships as departments and faculties collaborate in support of the proceedings.

It’s not an exaggeration to say Black graduation ceremonies, which symbolize inclusion, can enhance a university’s reputation among prospective students.

For enrolled students, Black graduation ceremonies provide motivation to continue working towards that long-awaited moment of proudly crossing the stage in the presence of community.

They also have less visible, but no less meaningful, effects. As an outward-facing symbol of institutional commitment to Black students, Black graduations contribute to the repair or enhancement of a university’s reputation with local Black communities. This can lead to meaningful partnerships with community organizations and attract donors who want to augment support for Black students.

Overall, Black graduation ceremonies demonstrate how far we have come since the days of discriminatory admission policies, which excluded Black students from some programs in higher education in Canada. They represent progress and should be a source of pride for universities.

Clare Warner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why I celebrate Black graduation magic: An anti-racist perspective – https://theconversation.com/why-i-celebrate-black-graduation-magic-an-anti-racist-perspective-279917

April 23, 2026

Here’s what to expect from the first Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kyla Tienhaara, Canada Research Chair in Economy and Environment, Queen’s University, Ontario

Delegates from more than 50 countries are gathering in Santa Marta, Colombia, from April 24 to 29 at the first-ever Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels.

The conference’s stated aim is to “initiate a concrete process through which a coalition of committed countries, subnational governments, and relevant stakeholders can…implement a progressive transition away from fossil fuels creating sustainable societies and economies.”

Emissions from fossil fuels are at the heart of the climate crisis. Coal, oil and gas are the largest contributors to climate change by a wide margin. This has been well understood throughout the three decades of multilateral negotiations at annual Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Yet, the words “fossil fuels” do not appear in the text of the 2015 Paris Agreement — the global pact meant to steer the world to a cleaner and safer future. Petrostates and fossil fuel lobbyists have been effectively blocking serious consideration of fossil fuel phaseouts in global talks for decades.

Can the coalition of governments and other stakeholders gathering in Santa Marta make progress where other international efforts have failed? That is the key question for those attending the conference.

How did we get here?

The first mention of fossil fuels in an official UNFCCC output did not arise until the 2023 COP28 conference. The call to transition “away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner” was heralded as the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era.

However, there was backsliding at COP29 in Azerbaijan, marked by controversies over the host’s promotion of fossil fuels. In the end, governments could not even agree to reaffirm the commitment to transition away from fossil fuels made the previous year. Frustration at the lack of progress boiled over at the most recent conference, COP30 in Brazil.

This led a group of countries to sign the Belém Declaration on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, with Colombia and the Netherlands co–hosting the first conference to further this initiative.

What should we expect from Santa Marta?

Unlike UN-organized COPs, the conference in Santa Marta is a smaller gathering of 53 countries and the European Union with no official negotiations. It includes an academic conference, a people’s summit and two days of high-level government meetings. Private sector representatives can attend, but only if they are “aligned” with the conference’s objectives and principles.

The main output from Santa Marta will be a report from the co-hosts, based on discussions structured around three pillars. The first pillar focuses on overcoming economic dependence on fossil fuels. It’s particularly relevant for countries in the Global South that face high debt, higher costs of capital and limited capacity to finance their energy transitions.

Many of these countries, including Colombia, rely on fossil fuels as a critical source of revenue to fund social programs. This pillar is essential to ensuring the energy transition is feasible and fair.

The theme of the second pillar is “transforming supply and demand.” On the supply side, the most contentious issue is the phaseout of fossil fuel production. Fossil fuel subsidies, which may increase as governments respond to the current energy crisis, are also up for discussion.

On the demand side, discussions revolve around scaling up renewable energy while ensuring energy security and universal access to energy. The petrochemical sector is also highlighted for its problematic role in driving future demand for oil and gas, which is supported by recent research.

The third pillar covers “international co-operation and climate diplomacy.” One issue where concrete progress could be made is on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). This mechanism in many international treaties allows foreign investors to sue governments for policies they see as harming their investments.

The conference hosts have identified ISDS as a legal barrier to the energy transition because companies use it to undermine climate action.

In late March, more than 220 experts — including Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz — sent a letter to Colombian President Gustavo Petro urging him to use the opportunity in Santa Marta to build “a coalition of countries working towards a world free of ISDS.” Soon after, Petro announced that Colombia would pull out of the system.

What does it mean for future climate talks?

The Santa Marta co-hosts have stressed that the conference is not meant to be an alternative or replacement for multilateral negotiations. Instead, it’s envisioned as complementary.

The Brazilian COP30 presidency, which is running a parallel process to create a road map for fossil fuel phaseouts that will be delivered at COP31 in November 2026, has indicated that it will consider the outcomes from Santa Marta.

This isn’t the first time governments have experimented with “minilateralism” in the climate policy sphere. Initiatives like the Clean Energy Transition Partnership have proven to be successful. Canada is a member of this partnership and a leader in the Powering Past Coal Alliance, another group of “early movers” coming together on a key issue.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has indicated he values these kinds of coalitions. In a speech to the World Economic Forum in January, he laid out a vision for middle powers like Canada to play a key role in building a new values-based global order.

Santa Marta is a critical moment for the government to begin enacting this vision. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has shown just how fragile global dependence on fossil fuels can be. Accelerating the energy transition could decouple our daily lives from volatile international markets.

Joining the efforts in Santa Marta is an opportunity for Canada to commit to transitioning away from fossil fuels while building environmental and economic resilience.

Kyla Tienhaara receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program. She occasionally consults for/works with (on a not-for-profit basis) with a number of non-governmental organizations but is not currently working in such a capacity with any group.

Christina Frendo receives funding from Mitacs and the Flight 302 Scholarship (Transport Canada).

– ref. Here’s what to expect from the first Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels – https://theconversation.com/heres-what-to-expect-from-the-first-conference-on-transitioning-away-from-fossil-fuels-280894

April 23, 2026

‘Bombing our little hearts out’ — How Trump taps into America’s enduring appetite for destruction

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ronald W. Pruessen, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Toronto

Donald Trump still has the capacity to shock. The American president’s unauthorized war against Iran finds him in a vicious destructive mode, recently threatening to push Iran “into the Stone Ages” and to end Iranian civilization if Iran did not agree to “unconditional surrender.”

Even as the passing weeks have left Iran still standing, Trump’s words and deeds have already inflicted severe damage on the global economy and regional peace in the Middle East.

Trump’s turn toward a wartime posture is striking, but not entirely unexpected. His second-term conduct shows a growing tendency to push an earlier taste for disruption toward outright destruction — at home and abroad.

He now routinely acts in the belief that those who dare to resist his plans deserve the severest forms of punishment that imperial presidential power can deliver.

But Trump’s conduct is grounded in centuries of American experience. The United States has an enduring tendency toward retribution and destruction.

Trump 2.0

Trump’s scorched-Earth proclivity was obvious before the war with Iran. Warning shots came on Jan. 6, 2021, with the assault on both the Capitol and constitutional provisions for presidential succession. Similarly bold efforts began in 2025.

Globally, Trump has been sweeping away leaders, regimes and multilateral systems, using both military and political weaponry: the special operations extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, for example, as well as the launch of illegal attacks on purportedly drug-running fishing boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific (now tallying more than 50 obliterating strikes and 163 deaths).

International ravaging has been a hallmark of Trump 2.0: dismantling highly integrated global trading networks; fuelling a surge in military recruits in allied countries like Canada and Denmark/Greenland; denouncing NATO.

There’s been destruction on the home front too: Elon Musk’s DOGE chain-sawed through congressionally authorized agencies and funding, for example, including the Environmental Protection Agency and 5,800 research projects at the National Institutes of Health. The anti-woke Trump administration has eviscerated diversity, equity and inclusion programs in government, the private sector and academia.

Trump has also literally bulldozed the White House East Wing.

American roots

Centuries of American history foreshadow Trump’s strategy of destruction. The precedents are complex for two reasons.

First, American personal and national interests have often mixed admirable aims with a more basic drive for wealth and power — combining genuine pursuits of democracy and civil liberties and ambitions for social welfare and community with less noble impulses.

Second, the scope and settings in which Trump-like behaviour appears have changed dramatically over more than three centuries — from a chain of Atlantic colonies to a continental nation and, ultimately, a global economic, military and cultural power. Yet across these shifting arenas, similar patterns of destructive and tragic outbursts have repeatedly surfaced.

Among countless examples, the most profound involved the treatment of Indigenous populations. White colonial appetites for land and resources always paired negotiation and repression, with superior weaponry leading to episodes of genocidal annihilation when forced migrations and “reservations” were deemed insufficient.

The names of ruthless slaughters pockmark American history: the Apalachee Massacre (Florida, 1704), the Sand Creek Massacre (Colorado, 1864), the Wounded Knee Massacre (South Dakota,1890), among numerous others.

Estimates suggest that in 1492, five million Indigenous people lived in what would become American territory, declining to 300,000 by 1900.

While the histories of Canada, Mexico and broader Latin America are also replete with such tragedies, the evidence of deep and specifically American roots beneath Trump’s virulent destructive impulses is clear.

Slaves and free men

The history of Black Americans is another heinous example of the American capacity for carnage. The experiences of Black slaves and their descendents are soaked in blood.

Prior to the Civil War, estimates suggest the brutality of chattel labour meant life expectancy that was half that of white Americans (21 years versus 43). When freedom came, life remained perilous as violence supplemented Jim Crow segregation laws.

Black homes and businesses burned — the 1921 Tulsa massacre, for example, saw 35 square blocks of Black businesses and residential neighbourhoods destroyed.

Shotguns and hanging ropes for lynchings also ended lives, stretching from the post-Reconstruction era of the 1880s to 1968.

Racialized people were the most common targets of an American appetite for total destruction — but not the only one. The U.S. Civil War remains one of the most catastrophic in world history, with Union and Confederate deaths now estimated at 698,000.

Destruction abroad

American power in the 20th century saw the periodic unleashing of destructive impulses abroad, some within living memory. Examples include:

Theodore Roosevelt’s attempt to crush rebellion in the newly acquired Philippines between 1899 and 1902; 120,000 U.S. forces were involved, with 4,300 American and 20,000 “insurrecto” deaths and the loss of as many as 200,000 civilian lives.
The devastation produced by the Second World War’s “area bombing” campaigns, designed to sap enemy morale by targeting industrial and civilian sites. The campaign escalated into the 1945 “firebomb” assaults on cities like Dresden and Tokyo — and the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The ecological destruction produced by Agent Orange campaigns in Vietnam and the micro-level horror of the My Lai massacre in the 1960s.
The Iraq War’s casualty figures: 4,492 American service men were killed and 200,000 Iraqi civilians.

No restraints

American episodes of wanton destruction are part of a broader global history marked by the cruelties of many nations and groups.

At the same time, U.S. leaders and citizens have often been guided — if not fully constrained — by countervailing ideals: respect for human rights, adherence to the laws of war and a desire for the security and opportunity that peace provides.

But how strong are those restraints in 2026? And how vulnerable are hard-won ethical and political norms to Trump’s chilling rhetoric and actions, especially alongside Republican conduct in U.S. Congress and a Supreme Court that has weakened limits on presidential power?

Rising gas prices may prove the least of the consequences.

Ronald W. Pruessen has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

– ref. ‘Bombing our little hearts out’ — How Trump taps into America’s enduring appetite for destruction – https://theconversation.com/bombing-our-little-hearts-out-how-trump-taps-into-americas-enduring-appetite-for-destruction-280699

April 23, 2026

Qué son los minipúblicos y cómo fomentan la democracia deliberativa

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By María G. Navarro, Docente e investigadora. Departamento de Historia del Derecho y Filosofía Jurídica, Moral y Política, Universidad de Salamanca

Los llamados minipúblicos son instituciones de participación política. Estos entornos de gobernanza se conforman a partir de la selección de una muestra estadísticamente representativa que refleja las características y diversidad de la ciudadanía. Para llegar a dicha muestra se recurre normalmente a fórmulas casi aleatorias, incluyendo el sorteo. Se obtiene así un patrón acorde a la sociedad civil.

La selección del minipúblico se complementa, en algunas ocasiones, con un conjunto de expertos y/o de ciudadanos interesados.

En los minipúblicos deliberativos, la sociedad civil acepta implícitamente el compromiso de profundizar en las posibilidades lógico-discursivas, sociopolíticas y ético-jurídicas de cuestiones que atañen al interés público. Su desempeño tiene lugar en el marco de una discusión asamblearia a través de sofisticadas formas de interacción argumentativa. Diversos especialistas han puesto de relieve que se trata de instituciones inusuales, cuyo rol ha sido poco frecuente para la elaboración de políticas públicas en sistemas democráticos.

A pesar de su limitada incidencia política, los minipúblicos constituyen en la actualidad una seña de identidad de la Unión Europea. Se utilizan con el propósito de conformar opinión pública y también con el objetivo de informar sobre procesos para la toma de decisiones.

Se trata, por tanto, de un colectivo seleccionado con el propósito de confiarle la tarea de convertirse en razonador grupal. Resulta extraordinario pensar en las interacciones que se generan dentro de semejante agregado de ciudadanos.

Microcosmos deliberativo

Minipúblico es un concepto amplio, que engloba un complejo conjunto de instituciones políticas entre las que destacan los jurados, asambleas y células ciudadanas, así como las conferencias de consenso, la encuesta deliberativa o los G1000.

El G1000 es una cumbre ciudadana, que nació en Bélgica en 2011 para abrir espacios de deliberación democrática. En Madrid se celebró un G1000 el 4 de marzo de 2017 para canalizar proyectos de los presupuestos participativos.

Existe un debate entre teóricos y profesionales de la participación y la deliberación políticas acerca de la conveniencia de emplear la selección aleatoria frente a la estratificación. Sobre todo cuando se quieren establecer determinados criterios sociodemográficos.

El politólogo estadounidense James Fishkin (2009) está a favor de la selección aleatoria como estándar para un microcosmos deliberativo. El muestreo aleatorio es para muchos la clave que permite garantizar a la ciudadanía una idéntica oportunidad para ejercer su derecho a la participación.

También suele decirse que el uso de cuotas asegura la presencia de diferentes grupos sociales y perspectivas. Por ejemplo, la configuración de minipúblicos a partir de cuotas es esencial para sobremuestrear grupos excluidos, no solo con el objetivo de garantizar su presencia, sino también con el propósito de aumentar la probabilidad de que se escuche su voz.

Actualmente, se está ejecutando Voces, un proyecto de investigación liderado desde el área de Filosofía moral y política del Departamento de Historia del Derecho y Filosofía Jurídica, Moral y Política de la Universidad de Salamanca. Los objetivos del proyecto guardan una estrecha relación con la dimensión moral y política de la voz propia y la sociología de la relación con el mundo. Unas ideas recogidas por el sociólogo de origen alemán Hartmut Rosa en su obra Resonancia.

Desde la visión de este autor, vinculado a la Escuela de Frankfurt, resonar, como el propio concepto expresa, tiene una base biológica, psicológica y relacional. No consiste en ofrecer un eco, sino una respuesta. Esto implica contar con una voz propia, que se pone en común a través de la relación mutua y socialmente significativa.

Crítica decolonial

A pesar del uso de muestreos aleatorios y de cuotas para incorporar las voces de grupos marginados, pocos estudios examinan las relaciones de poder asimétricas y otros mecanismos de exclusión que acompañan a estas innovaciones democráticas, tal como señala el profesor Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee en su crítica decolonial a la democracia deliberativa.

Publicaciones recientes también identifican un hecho anómalo en los estudios sobre democracia deliberativa: la notable falta de información acerca de los rasgos identitarios y sociales de la ciudadanía involucrada en los procesos participativos. Esta omisión, lejos de ser un detalle menor, constituye un obstáculo significativo para comprender cómo y por qué razón determinadas características específicas de los individuos y grupos inciden en la dinámica y en los resultados de dichos procesos.

Igualmente, esta observación puede vincularse a la teoría crítica racial desarrollada por Charles R. Lawrence, quien argumenta que el racismo inconsciente influye también en las acciones gubernamentales. Según este jurista estadounidense, atribuimos importancia a la raza incluso cuando no somos conscientes de estar haciéndolo. La ubicuidad del racismo es tal que deberíamos preguntarnos hasta qué punto nuestros marcos jurídicos pueden garantizar la protección igualitaria y, aún más, hasta qué punto existen consecuencias raciales desproporcionadas e indeseables que, paradójicamente, se derivan de nuestros propios ideales de igualdad.

Racismo estructural inconsciente

Basta con realizar una búsqueda rápida de imágenes de minipúblicos para observar una mayoría de personas blancas y unos pocos individuos racializados, que cumplen con lo que podría considerarse la cuota de igualdad.

En este sentido cabe preguntarse si la mera presencia de personas racializadas basta para que su voz sea escuchada, cuando estamos marcados, conscientemente o no, por señales de racismo. ¿Qué tipo de igualdad invocamos con los minipúblicos? ¿Tienen en cuenta estas instituciones participativas de la sociedad civil los efectos colaterales de la injusticia testimonial provocados por el racismo estructural inconsciente?

Aunque se observa un giro decolonial en las investigaciones sobre democracia deliberativa, resulta fundamental no solo expandir el alcance de la igualdad en los minipúblicos: también debemos interrogarnos sobre la razón de ser de este ideal en sociedades pluralistas, abiertas al diseño innovador, plenamente democrático y rupturista, si fuera necesario, de la propia cultura deliberativa.

Cultura deliberativa

La clave está en el diseño o rediseño de nuestra propia cultura deliberativa tal y como han puesto de manifiesto las politólogas feministas Karen Celis y Sarah Childs. Esta agenda teórico-práctica es precisamente la que se plantea cumplir el proyecto Voces, mediante la ejecución de al menos tres de sus objetivos generales:

Desarrollar un enfoque crítico feminista en todos los aspectos del proceso de indagación de las fuentes bibliográficas, el análisis de experiencias deliberativas y la selección de metodologías aplicadas.
Promover la investigación colaborativa con perspectiva de género en el campo de los estudios sobre democracia deliberativa y la teorización sobre minipúblicos y asambleas.
Historiar e interpretar el desarrollo y la comprensión de los debates actuales acerca del alcance y los límites de la participación política desde parámetros innovadores.

María G. Navarro recibe fondos del Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica de Innovación del Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades y, en particular, del Subprograma Estatal de Generación de Conocimiento en su calidad de investigadora principal del proyecto «VOCES: El impacto del sesgo de edad en las democracias deliberativas» con referencia: PID2022-137447NB-I00

– ref. Qué son los minipúblicos y cómo fomentan la democracia deliberativa – https://theconversation.com/que-son-los-minipublicos-y-como-fomentan-la-democracia-deliberativa-242666