Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer J. Lee, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University

If someone you know is detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it can be incredibly challenging to find and communicate with them.

For example, it can take several days just to confirm where they are. Even after locating a loved one, it is possible to lose track of them again, as ICE regularly moves people between facilities without notice.

I’m a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, where I work with immigrant rights organizations on issues of ICE arrest and detention.

Here’s what we know about how and where ICE is holding people as of May 2026.

A confusing web of detention facilities

When a person is arrested by ICE, the lack of a centralized immigration detention system makes it hard to figure out where they are.

For ICE detention, the federal government can contract with counties for county jail space or to execute service agreements with private prison companies. ICE also contracts with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to hold immigrants in their facilities.

Pennsylvania is no exception to this patchwork system. Four county jails – in Pike, Clinton, Cambria and Franklin counties – have contracts with the federal government to detain immigrants for ICE. Pike County, for example, received US$16 million from ICE in 2024 and 2025 for use of its jail.

Further, ICE contracts with Centre County so the county can serve as a pass-through for payment to the private prison company, the Geo Group, which runs the Moshannon Valley Processing Center. Moshannon is the largest detention center in the Northeast with 1,876 beds. This pass-through system allows the federal government to avoid the burdensome Federal Acquisition System for contractors. That purchasing system is governed by uniform policies that apply to all federal agencies that enter into contracts for services to ensure that business is conducted with integrity, fairness and transparency.

ICE pays millions of dollars each month to operate the Moshannon Valley facility.

Most recently, ICE set up contracts with two Bureau of Prison facilities in Pennsylvania to hold immigrants: the federal detention center in Philadelphia and the federal prison FCI Lewisburg.

Over 2,000 immigrants in detention in PA

After a person has been arrested by ICE, major federal policy changes that are intended to keep people locked up or have them deported make it difficult to get that person released.

For example, ICE has issued new guidance that expands who is subject to mandatory detention without access to a bond hearing to include anyone who entered the U.S. without a visa. This policy is currently being legally challenged by the ACLU along with other groups.

Additionally, ICE releases many fewer people. Under federal law, ICE has the discretion to release most people, unless they fall into a specialized category of “criminal aliens.” Previously, people were released on parole or on their own recognizance, sometimes with an order of supervision or bond.

As a result, immigration detention has reached unprecedented levels.
Over 70,000 people were held in immigration detention in January 2026. As of April 2, 2026, over 2,000 people were held in immigration detention in Pennsylvania.

Isolated from family and legal advice

Once arrested, ICE detainees have a hard time contacting the outside world.

Upon arrival at a facility, they are stripped of their belongings, including their cellphone. They must pay for telephone calls to their family or get others to pay by putting money in their commissary account.

Further, ICE detention facilities are often outside of major urban areas and far from legal services and community support. Moshannon, for example, is over 100 miles from any nonprofit immigration attorneys who provide representation to people in immigration removal proceedings.

Previously, the federal government funded a Legal Orientation Program where nongovernmental legal services offered information, referrals and representation to those in detention. In 2025, the Department of Justice ended the program, justifying its termination based on the executive order entitled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” Section 19 of that executive order relates to reviewing, pausing or terminating contracts, grants or other agreements with nongovernmental organizations that support or provide services “to removable or illegal aliens.”

Out-of-state transfers are common

ICE’s movement of people without notice across different facilities is a long-standing practice. However, a recent UCLA study found that out-of-state transfers of noncriminal Latino detainees jumped from 18% to 55% after President Donald Trump’s reelection in 2024.

Transfers are mostly about ICE’s own efficiency in maximizing the filling of bed space. Some advocacy organizations have alleged that transfers are conducted for retaliatory reasons against people who make requests or complain. Transfers are not only disorienting for the person involved but also impede communication with family and access to counsel.

How to find someone in ICE detention

Several online guides provide information about how to locate someone after an ICE arrest and how to prepare their family in case of future arrest.

Here are some key tips.

1. Use the ICE online detainee locator.

The locator requires either a person’s country of birth and alien registration number – called an “A number” – or their full name and date of birth. A person might have an A number if they have a past or present case with the government, including having applied for a green card or asylum. It can take 48 hours for ICE to enter information about the person into its database so it can be picked up by the online locator. The name must be an exact match with what was entered into the system.

2. Contact the ICE field office.

The Philadelphia field office covers Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. If you are a noncitizen, you might want a U.S. citizen to do this for you out of an abundance of caution, because ICE records information about the person calling. Call 215-656-7164 or email Philadelphia.Outreach@ice.dhs.gov.

3. Contact the consulate.

In many instances, ICE is supposed to notify the consulate of the arrested person’s home country within 72 hours.

4. Reach out to community groups, attorneys and elected officials.

In Philadelphia, community groups such as Asian Americans United, Juntos and New Sanctuary Movement, or the statewide Pennsylvania Immigration Coalition, might be able to help you. An attorney might also be able to help you. Here is a list of nonprofit legal service providers in Pennsylvania.

Further, you can ask for help from your federal elected officials, such as your congressional representative or Sens. John Fetterman or Dave McCormick. If you have a more direct relationship with a local elected official, such as your city council member, it cannot hurt to see whether they can also help you.

How to prepare in advance

If you know someone who is at risk of arrest by ICE, you can help them prepare in advance. Tell them to:

1. Keep copies of their documents in a secure space.

This includes their A number as well as immigration documents, passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate, tax returns and any employment and medical records. If they have children, make sure to include their passports, birth certificates and medical records.

2. Memorize important phone numbers.

They should know the numbers of family members and their attorney in case their cellphone is taken from them.

3. Have an emergency plan.

A family preparedness plan includes designating a caregiver for children in case a parent or guardian is arrested. They should also consider filling out documents that may help a family member or friend to care for their children if they are unavailable because of detention or deportation. These include forms that provide temporary guardianship or custody of minor children, consent for medical care of minor children and information for the Philadelphia School District.

Philadelphia Legal Assistance provides free downloadable packets in English and in Spanish to build a family preparedness plan.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

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

– ref. What to do if someone you know in Philadelphia or elsewhere is detained by ICE – https://theconversation.com/what-to-do-if-someone-you-know-in-philadelphia-or-elsewhere-is-detained-by-ice-281406

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Janet McCabe, Visiting Professor of Law and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University

As the Trump administration moves to weaken America’s air pollution rules, it is deploying new legal interpretations that are intended to tie the hands of future administrations for years to come.

In practice, the changes limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act. The result allows EPA officials to ignore science, data and the adverse effects their decisions will have on public health and the environment.

But the new interpretations are also designed to apply not just to the rule in which they are first set forth but into the future.

If affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in inevitable legal challenges, these interpretations could make it harder for future administrations to restore the public health protections that the Trump administration eliminates. They could also make it difficult to update rules to respond to new information about health risks.

Typically, moves to weaken pollution regulations through novel legal interpretations would have a good chance of being overturned in court. But the EPA’s new interpretations are strategically designed to appeal to the current U.S. Supreme Court’s view of federal agencies’ authority, especially in light of the court’s 2024 ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo. In that case, the court overturned what’s known as the Chevron doctrine. A 1984 Supreme Court ruling had established that courts should defer to executive agencies’ legal interpretations of their governing statutes when the text of the law was ambiguous or left gaps. That deference no longer applies.

As a former EPA appointee who helped write and review dozens of regulations under the Clean Air Act during the Obama and Biden administrations, I find these efforts to prevent the EPA from doing its job of protecting public health and the environment to be alarming. Here are two examples of how the new interpretations are playing out.

Blocking future climate regulations

In February 2026, the EPA rescinded its 2009 endangerment finding, a determination under the Clean Air Act that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” because they contribute to climate change.

The endangerment finding was the scientific and legal basis for EPA rules requiring automakers, power plants and oil and gas operations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Erasing it would make it easier for the Trump administration to eliminate greenhouse gas regulations.

Rather than try to challenge the science of climate change, which would be difficult given the growing mountain of evidence, the Trump EPA relied on legal arguments that were intended to dispense forever with the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Among the administration’s numerous arguments, two stand out:

First, the Trump EPA says the Clean Air Act should be read to limit the EPA’s authority to regulate air pollution only if its harm to the public is “through local or regional exposure.”

That would mean contributions from U.S. sources to global air pollution, no matter how demonstrable or how much they endanger Americans, are not covered by the Clean Air Act.

Second, the Trump EPA says that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and engines would be “futile.” It points to global climate modeling that suggest these reductions would not meaningfully reduce the harm to public health and welfare.

What that argument fails to mention is that actions by people around the world to reduce emissions across different sectors add up. Motor vehicle emissions are the No. 1 contributor of U.S. emissions. If this sector is too small to regulate, then nothing is big enough.

Each of these interpretations is contrary to positions that the EPA took in the original endangerment finding, which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in 2012.

Allowing more toxic air pollutants

A second example involves the EPA’s proposal on March 17, 2026, to weaken pollution restrictions on businesses that sterilize medical equipment using ethylene oxide, a known carcinogen.

In that proposal, the EPA is also changing a legal interpretation in a way that would constrain the agency’s ability to protect human health into the future, this time from emissions of toxic air pollutants.

The Clean Air Act, under Section 112, establishes a methodical program for the EPA to regulate industries that emit significant quantities of air pollutants that can cause cancer, birth defects, genetic mutations or neurological harm, or harm reproductive health.

The EPA reviews how facilities control their emissions and sets standards that require all facilities to meet what the best-controlled sources are doing. But Section 112 has an important provision called “residual risk” review: Eight years after the EPA sets the first technology-based standards, it must determine whether the public health risk posed by emissions from the facilities after controls are added is acceptable.

In 2024, the EPA updated its hazardous air pollution rule for facilities that use ethylene oxide to sterilize medical equipment sensitive to steam heat, such as devices containing plastic, rubber or electronic components. Because recent research showed that ethylene oxide posed a much higher risk of cancer than previously thought, the EPA also updated its 2006 residual risk finding and required additional safeguards.

The Trump EPA is now arguing that the agency can assess residual risk only once, even if more recent information shows that the health risk is unacceptably high.

By constraining its own authority, the EPA is withholding standards that would protect thousands of people from a higher risk of cancer. It is also creating a legal precedent that will justify weakening other standards. Those include standards for chemical manufacturing facilities that the Biden EPA updated in 2024 through residual risk review.

That precedent would also prohibit the EPA in the future from taking into account new information about the health effects of any regulated hazardous air pollutant from any type of industry the EPA regulates under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, including petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing and paper mills.

Arguing the law

These rules are just two examples of the administration’s “if you don’t have the facts, argue the law” approach.

If the administration’s strategy works, the American public may be living, and dying, with the consequences of these industry-friendly regulations for years to come.

Janet McCabe is a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network and has held several appointed positions at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Consistent with the Indiana University Statement of Policy on Institutional Neutrality, the comments contained in this communication are solely my views and are not intended to be construed, and shall not be construed, as the views of Indiana University or comments made on behalf of or by Indiana University.

– ref. When you don’t have the facts, argue the law: How Trump’s EPA is limiting its own ability to protect public health far into the future – https://theconversation.com/when-you-dont-have-the-facts-argue-the-law-how-trumps-epa-is-limiting-its-own-ability-to-protect-public-health-far-into-the-future-282351

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gustavo E. Fischman, Professor of Education Policies and Comparative Studies, Arizona State University

If you follow the headlines, it can seem like K-12 schools in the United States are a political battlefield.

Some conservative parents and advocacy groups are lobbying to remove certain books from classrooms and libraries, most often those that highlight LGBTQ+ issues or race and racism.

Some civil liberties groups, librarians and progressive parents, meanwhile, are pushing back against book bans, saying they are a form of unnecessary censorship.

Parents and school boards also are clashing over a range of other issues, ranging from how transgender and nonbinary students are treated and which bathrooms they can use, to whether teachers should use artificial intelligence in the classroom.

Beyond this evidence of political polarization, though, there’s another, less divisive reality. Ask people to name their best teacher, and regardless of their political affiliation, they will likely offer a similar answer. Most people will say that they learned a lot from a teacher who knew them, cared about them and made learning relevant to their lives.

Over five years, from 2020 through 2025, we asked more than 2,000 Americans, including Democrats, Republicans and independents, what makes a very good teacher. We expected deep partisan divides. Instead, we found something rare: genuine, cross-partisan agreement.

How we ran the study

We began in 2020 with a nationally representative survey of 334 adults, asking them to recall a teacher they learned a lot from. We then asked the survey participants to look at 10 statements that might describe a good teacher and rank them from most to least important.

Five of the statements we offered focused on relationships – like caring about students, making educational lessons relevant and giving students individualized support. The other five focused on whether teachers covered a lot of material, rewarded top performers with grades or prizes, and whether they applied rules consistently to all students.

Respondents generally focused on highlighting the same seven out of 10 statements, giving us a vision of how they perceived a very good teacher. People prioritized the same factors – how much the teachers cared about their students and whether they supported them – regardless of their age, race, gender or political affiliation. Republicans and Democrats were indistinguishable in their descriptions of effective teaching.

People did not prioritize whether teachers covered a lot of material, made students compete or ran a strict and disciplined classroom.

In 2022, we conducted a similar survey of 179 teachers in Arizona and California. The results echoed our 2020 survey participants’ view: Teachers also defined very good teachers as ones who emphasized relationships, made lessons relevant and knew the subject matter.

Given the prominence of politically charged education debates, we were a bit surprised by our results. We began to wonder: Do people privately agree on what it means to be a good teacher, but change their opinion if their image of good teaching is associated with an ideological orientation they disagree with?

Adding a partisan label

To explore this question in late 2024 and early 2025, we ran a third experiment with a nationally representative sample of 1,562 adults from a range of political backgrounds.

We gave all participants the same description of a very good teacher, identified in our previous experiments. We then randomly noted if these descriptions of a good teacher were endorsed by Democrats, Republicans or people with no political affiliation.

When the participants read the teacher descriptions without any political labels attached, about 85% of Democrats, Republicans and independents agreed with the description of a very good teacher.

When we added a note saying that a political party the survey participant did not identify endorsed a particular description of a good teacher, they became less likely to support the statement.

The effect was sharpest among Republicans: Support fell from 85% to 64% when the description was tied to Democrats. Democrats’ agreement slipped less, from 86% to 76%, when the description was tied to Republicans.

Even with these caveats, nearly two-thirds of Republicans and Democrats still agreed on what it means to be a good teacher.

Political scientists call this affective polarization: How we react to an idea depends not just on the idea, but on who we think supports it.

At the national level, education is often framed as an intractable partisan conflict.

Yet at the individual level, many Americans continue to express confidence in their own local schools. Our findings suggest that part of this gap may be driven by how issues are framed rather than by fundamentally incompatible beliefs.

This matters more than you might think

Federal and state education policy over the past four decades, including laws like No Child Left Behind, which mandated routine federal testing in reading and math, emphasize testing and competition. These priorities don’t always match what Americans across the political spectrum say they value most.

Americans continue to differ on many important education questions, including what children should learn in school, the role of school boards and other issues.

But these disagreements coexist with a shared beliefs about what good teaching looks like in practice.

Recognizing this gap could open new possibilities for education reform. When debates focus exclusively on disagreements, they can obscure areas of agreement that might otherwise serve as starting points for collaboration.

We encourage readers to go ahead and run a similar, small experiment: Ask people about their best teacher, then listen to what they say. The answer, it turns out, is likely more unifying than you expect.

For this specific project, Gustavo E. Fischman received funding from the Institute of Social Science Research at ASU. He also received funds for other projects from the National Science Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the IDRC, and the Fulbright Commission.

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

– ref. What makes a good teacher? Ask a Republican and a Democrat, and they are likely to agree – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-teacher-ask-a-republican-and-a-democrat-and-they-are-likely-to-agree-282130

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Hélène Nguemgaing, Assistant Clinical Professor of Critical Resources & Sustainability Analytics, University of Maryland

The United States is spending billions of dollars to secure access to critical minerals – minerals and metals that are essential to modern technology, from electric vehicles to smartphones and military systems.

But amid the push to dig more, one question gets far too little attention: Who will actually process what comes out of the ground?

Between mining and the finished product lies a complex chain of separation, refining and advanced manufacturing. Since the 1990s, however, the United States has lost much of its critical mineral processing capacity.

Rebuilding domestic mineral supply chains will depend not only on resource availability and funding, but also on whether the U.S. can rebuild the technical expertise and industrial systems required to process those materials on a large scale.

How America lost its lead

The United States was a global leader in rare earth minerals from 1965 through the mid-1980s. It produced about 15,000 metric tons a year, about three times the amount produced by the rest of the world.

The Mountain Pass mine in California supplied the majority of the world’s rare earth elements used in electronics and the defense industry. American metallurgists, chemical engineers and processing facilities had significant expertise in its production and processing.

However, environmental damage, including wastewater pipeline leaks that released radioactive wastewater into the Mojave Desert during the 1980s and 1990s, and tightening regulations increased operating costs in the United States. During that period, much of the world’s manufacturing base for rare earth elements shifted to China, where labor costs were lower and environmental regulations were less stringent.

As production grew abroad, U.S. production of rare earth elements fell sharply – to near zero by the early 2000s, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

In recent years, as much as 90% of the rare earth minerals extracted in the United States and allied countries have been shipped to China for processing. In 2024, the U.S. relied on imports for about 80% of its rare earth compounds and metals.

Why bringing processing back is not simple

The U.S. government is now pushing to increase domestic critical minerals production, citing national security. But building a processing facility is not like opening a warehouse.

These facilities require years of permitting, highly specialized equipment and a workforce trained in metallurgy, chemical engineering and industrial systems operation. The time from investment decision to production can stretch across a decade.

The U.S. currently has two domestic rare earth mining locations. One is in southeast Georgia, which extracts rare earth elements as a byproduct of heavy mineral sand mining. The other is Mountain Pass, which produces bastnaesite, a rare earth carbonate mineral. The mines produced about 51,000 metric tons of rare earth mineral concentrates in 2025, while the U.S. imported about 21,000 metric tons of rare earth compounds, most of them from China, according to 2025 U.S. Geological Survey data.

The U.S. has also lost expertise. Mining and mineral engineering education programs now produce only a few hundred graduates per year, well below the levels of past decades. The number of accredited programs has declined since the 1980s. Many faculty members are nearing retirement.

Industry projections estimate that the mining workforce will need to grow significantly in the coming years to meet rising demand. Specialized skills in areas such as rare earth separation, metallurgical testing and environmental systems design require years of training and practical experience. And while mining can produce high-paying jobs, the industry also has a reputation for environmental damage and hazardous conditions.

Environmental compliance is part of the skill set

Processing critical minerals is a dirty industry. That fact has made it more difficult for processing and refining companies to operate in the U.S.

For example, separating rare earth elements typically involves chemical processing with acids and solvents. When waste streams are poorly managed, these processes can produce toxic wastewater and air pollution and contribute to soil erosion. In parts of China where rare earth production expanded rapidly in the 1990s and 2000s, contamination from mining and processing has polluted rivers and damaged nearby farmland, and the wastewater can seep into soil and groundwater.

In the U.S., modern facilities must meet strict federal and state standards for air quality, water discharge and waste management that raise the cost of processing. These regulations were developed in response to environmental disasters, like the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969, when industrial oil and waste on the river burned, and hazardous waste crises like the Love Canal disaster that led to landmark environmental laws.

Operating a refinery or separation facility in compliance with regulatory standards today requires expertise in pollution control, waste treatment and sustainable process design. That requires a workforce skilled in materials science and engineering and with knowledge of environmental systems. Without environmental expertise, operational risks, regulatory challenges and project delays can increase, affecting long-term viability.

How to build a US supply chain

Rebuilding U.S. supply chains will require more than expanding extraction.

Canada’s critical minerals strategy offers an example. It connects mining projects to battery and electric vehicle manufacturing by funding processing facilities, developing regional supply chain hubs and investing in workforce training programs tied to those industries.

Australia has combined critical minerals policies with incentives and public financing to encourage domestic mineral processing, while also expanding university and vocational training in mining, metallurgy and mineral processing.

The United States has many of the key ingredients needed to rebuild its processing capacity, including research universities and workers with transferable industrial skills. Land-grant and technical universities could expand programs that integrate mining, materials science, environmental restoration and recycling. In regions such as Appalachia, where coal’s decline has left workers with skills but few job opportunities, retraining programs for new mineral recovery jobs could help people transition to a new industry.

A few federal programs support parts of this transition, including research hubs that develop new extraction and processing technologies, apprenticeship initiatives and university-industry partnerships. However, these efforts are spread across multiple agencies, with limited coordination to align priorities and investment.

The real bottleneck

America’s critical minerals strategy is often discussed in terms of geology and geopolitics – where resources are located and who has access to them.

But supply chains depend on people and systems. That’s America’s real bottleneck in creating a domestic supply chain.

A successful domestic supply chain will require workers who know how to separate neodymium from praseodymium, operate solvent extraction circuits and maintain hydrometallurgical plants within regulatory standards. These are highly specialized skills that take years to develop.

The United States has significant mineral resources and growing policy support. Now, it needs to pay attention to the workforce and industrial capacity needed to transform those resources into usable materials.

This gap developed over decades. Addressing it will likely require sustained investment alongside broader mineral policy changes such as permitting reforms and investment in domestic processing facilities.

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

– ref. The missing link in America’s critical minerals push isn’t mining – it’s processing expertise – https://theconversation.com/the-missing-link-in-americas-critical-minerals-push-isnt-mining-its-processing-expertise-281002

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Joanna Woronkowicz, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University

Though artificial intelligence is making it easier than ever to produce images, music and text, the technology is also making it harder for the people who have traditionally produced this work to earn a living.

A photographer who once was commissioned to make art for an advertising campaign is now competing with graphics produced by the AI image generator Midjourney. A novelist who used to make money on the side as a technical writer is seeing that work be replaced by a series of prompts in ChatGPT.

The extent to which AI will upend creative work remains unsettled. But that uncertainty has made guaranteeing income for creatives a more viable policy idea.

In fact, creatives in New York recently participated in the largest basic income program for artists in U.S. history, the Guaranteed Income for Artists initiative.

Spearheaded by Creatives Rebuild New York and primarily funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the program gave 2,400 artists across New York state US$1,000 a month beginning in June 2022. There were no work requirements and no restrictions on how the money could be spent. The program sought to improve the financial stability of artists and encourage the public to see them as workers who deserve a stable income and social support.

As researchers who study artists, cultural work and public policy, we evaluated this program to see whether it achieved its stated goals. Our main finding was simple: Artists did not stop working. Instead, they changed the kind of work they did.

Cash buys time

Artists often make choices that look strange in standard economic models, which typically assume workers will prioritize higher wages while balancing work against leisure time.

Artists, on the other hand, may stay in poorly paid, unstable arts work, even when other work pays more. Economists have long described this as a “work-preference” model. Put plainly, they argue that artists get value from the work itself, not just from the paycheck.

The guaranteed-income program, which was geared toward low-income artists, offered a rare chance to see how a financial cushion would influence the kind of work they focused on, along with their overall earnings.

The program selected artists through a weighted lottery. It adopted an expansive definition of “artist.” Anyone engaged in artistic, cultural or community-centered creative practices – such as musicians, storytellers or muralists – was eligible to apply. However, it excluded commercial workers like wedding photographers or food caterers.

Our analysis, which is forthcoming in the Journal of Cultural Economics, compared artists who received payments with applicants who hadn’t been selected.

For purposes of the study, artists broke down their work time into “artistic/cultural practice(s),” “other arts work” and “non-arts work.” The work didn’t necessarily have to involve a paycheck or stipend; it could simply mean time spent on a personal artistic pursuit. However, it’s safe to assume that “non-arts work” usually involved some sort of side job to earn extra money.

The results lined up almost exactly with what the work-preference model predicts. Artists who received the payments spent about 3.9 more hours per week on arts work than comparable artists who did not receive the payments. They also spent about 2.4 fewer hours per week on non-arts work.

Opponents to basic income programs often argue that recipients will become less motivated to do any work whatsoever. That isn’t what happened, though. The money helped artists move time out of work they were doing mainly to survive, and into the creative work they preferred.

Earnings told a messier story

The earnings results were more complicated.

Artists receiving the monthly payments earned significantly less from non-arts work. That makes sense, given that many of them switched away from non-arts work. But total earnings from all work also fell by about $11,600 a year on average, close to the $12,000 annual value of the cash payments.

But we cannot confidently say that the basic income program reduced total earnings by that amount. That’s because artists’ incomes are so volatile: A few commissions, contracts, sales or cancellations can dramatically change what artists earn in a given year. Income varied widely among both the artists who received monthly payments and the applicants who hadn’t been selected, which made it hard to see the precise cause and effect of the program on total earnings.

The program may have given artists enough financial room to stop chasing some non-arts income, but it did not change their overall income from where it had been.

That is a very different policy effect than “more cash equals more income.” It is closer to “more cash equals more control over time.”

A lesson beyond the arts

The findings do not mean that guaranteed income is the right policy for everyone. Artists are unique. Many have strong reasons to keep doing creative work even when it pays poorly.

The study also took place after the COVID-19 pandemic, while the arts and entertainment sector was still recovering. And Creatives Rebuild New York’s guaranteed-income program was a temporary, one-time opportunity.

A longer-term follow-up could show whether these shifts lasted. Did artists keep making more art after the payments ended? Did the extra time they spent on their own artistic pursuits lead to new work, new income or more stable careers? Those questions remain open.

But to us, the most important lesson may be that work is not one thing.

A monthly cash transfer can reduce one kind of work while increasing another. It can lower earnings from gigs people take mainly to pay the bills, while freeing up time to spend on work that is meaningful, socially valuable or personally sustaining.

For artists in this program, $1,000 a month did not buy a vacation or a chance to slack off. It bought time for work they valued more.

That distinction matters, particularly as debates over the use of basic income policies grow alongside advances in AI and automation. The question is not only whether people work when they receive cash with no strings attached. It is what kind of work becomes possible when financial pressures ease.

Joanna was previously funded by Creatives Rebuild New York to conduct an independent evaluation of their Guaranteed Income for Artists program.

Doug Noonan receives funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. He previously was funded by Creatives Rebuild New York to conduct an independent evaluation of their Guaranteed Income for Artists program.

– ref. We studied what happened when financially struggling artists received $1,000 a month, no strings attached, for 18 months – https://theconversation.com/we-studied-what-happened-when-financially-struggling-artists-received-1-000-a-month-no-strings-attached-for-18-months-280799

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Lynn S. Neal, Professor of Religious Studies, Wake Forest University

At the world premiere of “The Devil Wears Prada 2,” actress Meryl Streep leaned into her character’s devilish persona. She wore the character’s signature sunglasses along with long black gloves and a flowing red leather cape from Givenchy’s Winter 2026 collection.

Streep’s outfit, though, is a small moment in a much larger story – one in which Christianity and fashion have been intertwined for centuries, sometimes as adversaries, sometimes as collaborators.

While neither of the “Devil Wears Prada” movies revolve around Christianity, the invocation of the devil taps into an older moral rhetoric. For centuries, fashion was cast as the troublesome, if not villainous, enemy of a pure and spiritual Christianity – a symbol of putting material desires before holy ones. For example, 18th-century cleric and founder of Methodism John Wesley urged his followers to show their faith by dressing “neatly” and “plainly.”

Yet Christian imagery has come to shape the industry in profound ways. As a scholar who researches the relationship between Christianity and fashion, I have traced how Christian imagery circulates in surprising forms. The devil, for instance, occasionally appeared in fashion advertising to suggest sin, sensuality and transgression.

Christian imagery of angels and Eve

In the mid-20th century, Christianity often occupied a supporting role in the fashion industry. It showed up in articles by Christian religious leaders and color photographs of Christian art and architecture published in fashion magazines.

For example, articles on how Christianity addresses contemporary problems by Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen and Columbia University Chaplain James A. Pike appeared in Vogue alongside ads for makeup and fashion photo shoots.

Christian imagery also appeared in fashion advertisements featuring “Sunday best” clothing and Easter dresses. Ads showed angels gifting consumers “heavenly” products that promised beauty and ease.

The devil only occasionally played a part in ads for fashion products, such as perfumes, makeup and handkerchiefs. These advertisements depicted the devil as a snake or alluded to him and his role in the Book of Genesis. The biblical passage recounts how the serpent, typically interpreted as the devil in Christian theology, tempted Eve to sin by eating the forbidden fruit. Eve then offers the fruit to Adam, and, having both sinned, they realize their nakedness, are ashamed and make clothing.

Fashion advertisements, ranging from Revlon in the 1940s to Hanes in the 1960s, celebrated Eve’s rebellious action. Revlon “double” dared women to try their “Fatal Apple” makeup so they could look like Eve, while Hanes stated, “Poor Girl! She never knew the temptation of seamless stockings by Hanes,” next to an illustration of Eve holding an apple by a serpent.

Ads played with the idea of fashion as a temptation in which female consumers should indulge. Female consumers were urged to “Be Eve” and give into the desire to purchase products.

The devil was eclipsed as ads featured garden settings and products that promised “the look of Eve.” Eve symbolized beauty and promised consumers the same results through their purchasing power.

A 1967 ad for the “Eve Petticoat” issued an invitation: “Come, pretty girl. Be Eve, if you wish.” In that same decade, Catalina’s “part of the art of Eve” campaign for their swimwear showed what this meant. Each ad featured a woman in a provocative pose wearing a Catalina bathing suit in a garden setting. By donning Catalina, the ad implies, the wearer can become Eve – attractive, stylish and sexy. By highlighting Eve’s rebellion alongside her beauty, ads framed her as a fashion heroine.

Eve’s prominent role in advertising demonstrates how the Judeo-Christian tradition permeated American culture, including the fashion industry.

An evolving fashion landscape

While Christianity appeared in industry advertisements, it also slowly began to take a more prominent role in fashion garments, as designers became more bold. Christianity inspired the design of many garments, and later, Christian figures began to appear on designer garments.

For example, in the 1960s, American designer Geoffrey Beene, known for his minimalist design aesthetic, drew inspiration from the cassocks worn by Catholic priests. So, too, did Spanish designer Cristóbal Balenciaga. In 1967, his black evening gown with cape radiated simplicity in form and draping even as it also referenced the attire of Catholic priests.

While Beene and Balenciaga received praise for their restraint and elegance, the lesser-known London-born designer Walter Holmes created controversy with his “mini-medievals” in 1968. Modeled after a monk’s robe and a nun’s habit, Holmes combined Christian inspiration with the miniskirt trend, which some people found fun, while others labeled it offensive.

In the 1990s, Italian luxury fashion brand Krizia’s collection included women wearing cassock-like dresses, while Italian fashion designer Stefano Pilati’s 2010 line for Yves Saint Laurent played on the attire of Catholic nuns.

More recently, in spring 2020, French designer Virginie Viard’s designs for Chanel referenced nuns and Catholic school girl uniforms.

‘Spiritual marketplace’

In the 1990s, Christianity began playing an even larger part in fashion, as the Virgin Mary and saints began to appear on garments. Prior to this, designers often avoided using religious figures; they preferred more abstract interpretations; it also helped prevent any controversy that might emerge from depicting sacred figures.

Designer Gianni Versace challenged this tacit rule in his Fall/Winter 1991 collection. It included biker jackets adorned with bejeweled crosses and, in the finale, a halter top that featured the Virgin Mary made out of a mosaic of jewels. The garment was also the centerpiece of ads for the collection and showcased the fashion potential of Christian figures.

Versace’s Marian halter reflected the larger shift away from institutional religion toward individual spirituality. Christian symbols were lifted from church contexts and recirculated through popular culture, including fashion, in new ways. Versace’s rock star rendering of the Virgin Mary offered people a new way of seeing her – one open to interpretation outside of doctrine. Like Versace, they could claim her and reimagine her on their own terms.

Sociologist Wade Clark Roof described the religious landscape as a “spiritual marketplace.” People relied less on religious authorities and more on the meaning they could create from “available images, symbols, moral codes, and doctrines.”

Religious ideas and products circulated through music and movies, crystal shops and sports stadiums, Christian bookstores and designer collections. Within this spiritual bazaar, fashion became a place where people could reimagine Christian symbols, figures and history in new ways.

Modern-day trends

In the years since, Christianity has become a regular feature in fashion collections. Most notably, Christianity regularly has a starring role in the work of Dolce & Gabbana. Their 1998 “Stromboli” collection revolved around a Christian theme, a Marian procession, and dresses, tunics and blouses featuring Marian imagery.

The design duo have returned to Christian imagery several times. For example, their 2013 “Tailored Mosaic” line, inspired by the golden mosaics in the Cathedral of Monreale in Sicily, featured garments adorned with angels, saints and Mary, as well as biblical figures.

A critic called the mix of garments the designers’ “most heavenly offerings to date.” In 2018, Christian themes and symbols again permeated their collection.

It is now almost commonplace for fashion lines to reference or include Christian symbols, themes and figures. At New York Fashion Week in 2026, YesuGod, “a luxury Christian fashion house,” showcased its designs – garments adorned with the words “anno domini” and others with “the Lord is Coming.” More recently, in 2025, the vestments of Catholic priests inspired Dolce & Gabbana’s menswear collection.

The devil makes only an occasional appearance on the fashion runway and on the red carpet; historically, too, his presence has been minimal. Christian figures who embody ideals of goodness and holiness – saints, Mary and even Jesus – are the ones who rule the runway. Christianity and fashion are not so separate after all.

Lynn S. Neal 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. ‘Devil Wears Prada 2’ shows how Christian imagery circulates in unusual ways through the fashion industry – https://theconversation.com/devil-wears-prada-2-shows-how-christian-imagery-circulates-in-unusual-ways-through-the-fashion-industry-281458