Category: Analysis

Source: – By Michael R. Allen, Visiting Assistant Professor of History, West Virginia University

President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget is called a “skinny budget” because it’s short on line-by-line details.

But historic preservation efforts in the U.S. did get a mention – and they might as well be skinned to the bone.

Trump has proposed to slash funding for the federal Historic Preservation Fund to only $11 million, which is $158 million less than the fund’s previous reauthorization in 2024. The presidential discretionary budget, however, always heads to Congress for appropriation. And Congress always makes changes.

That said, the Trump administration hasn’t even released the $188 million that Congress appropriated for the fund for the 2025 fiscal year, essentially impounding the funding stream that Congress created in 1976 for historic preservation activities across the nation.

I’m a scholar of historic preservation who’s worked to secure historic designations for buildings and entire neighborhoods. I’ve worked on projects that range from making distressed neighborhoods in St. Louis eligible for historic tax credits to surveying Cold War-era hangars and buildings on seven U.S. Air Force bases.

I’ve seen the ways in which the Historic Preservation Fund helps local communities maintain and rehabilitate their rich architectural history, sparing it from deterioration, the wrecking ball or the pressures of the private market.

A rare, deficit-neutral funding model

Most Americans probably don’t realize that the task of historic preservation largely falls to individual states and Native American tribes.

The National Historic Preservation Act that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law in 1966 requires states and tribes to handle everything from identifying potential historic sites to reviewing the impact of interstate highway projects on archaeological sites and historic buildings. States and tribes are also responsible for reviewing nominations of sites in the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s official list of properties deemed worthy of preservation.

However, many states and tribes didn’t have the capacity to adequately tackle the mandates of the 1966 act. So the Historic Preservation Fund was formed a decade later to alleviate these costs by funneling federal resources into these efforts.

The fund is actually the product of a conservative, limited-government approach.

Created during Gerald Ford’s administration, it has a revenue-neutral model, meaning that no tax dollars pay for the program. Instead, it’s funded by private lease royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas reserves.

Most of these reserves are located in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. Private companies that receive a permit to extract from them must agree to a lease with the federal government. Royalties from their oil and gas sales accrue in federally controlled accounts under the terms of these leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue then directs 1.5% of the total royalties to the Historic Preservation Fund.

Congress must continually reauthorize the amount of funding reserved for the Historic Preservation Fund, or it goes unfunded.

Despite bipartisan support, the fund has been threatened in the past. President Ronald Reagan attempted to do exactly what Trump is doing now by making no request for funding at all in his 1983 budget. Yet the fund has nonetheless been reauthorized six times since its inception, with terms ranging from five to 10 years.

The program is a crucial source of funding, particularly in small towns and rural America, where privately raised cultural heritage funds are harder to come by. It provides grants for the preservation of buildings and geographical areas that hold historical, cultural or spiritual significance in underrepresented communities. And it’s even involved in projects tied to the nation’s 250th birthday in 2026, such as the rehabilitation of the home in New Jersey where George Washington was stationed during the winter of 1778-79 and the restoration of Rhode Island’s Old State House.

Filling financial gaps

I’ve witnessed the fund’s impact firsthand in small communities across the nation.

Edwardsville, Illinois, a suburb of St. Louis, is home to the Leclaire Historic District. In the 1970s, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The national designation recognized the historic significance of the district, protecting it against any adverse impacts from federal infrastructure funding. It also made tax credits available to the town. Edwardsville then designated LeClaire a local historic district so that it could legally protect the indelible architectural features of its homes, from original decorative details to the layouts of front porches.

Despite the designation, however, there was no clear inventory of the hundreds of houses in the district. A few paid staffers and a volunteer citizen commission not only had to review proposed renovations and demolitions, but they also had to figure out which buildings even contributed to LeClaire’s significance and which ones did not – and thus did not need to be tied up in red tape.

Edwardsville was able to secure a grant through the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office thanks to a funding match enabled by money disbursed to Illinois via the Historic Preservation Fund.

In 2013, my team created an updated inventory of the historic district, making it easier for the local commission to determine which houses should be reviewed carefully and which ones don’t need to be reviewed at all.

Oil money better than no money

The historic preservation field, not surprisingly, has come out strongly against Trump’s proposal to defund the Historic Preservation Fund.

Nonetheless, there have been debates within the field over the fund’s dependence on the fossil fuel industry, which was the trade-off that preservationists made decades ago when they crafted the funding model.

In the 1970s, amid the national energy crisis, conservation of existing buildings was seen as a worthy ecological goal, since demolition and new construction required fossil fuels. To preservationists, diverting federal carbon royalties seemed like a power play.

But with the effects of climate change becoming impossible to ignore, some preservationists are starting to more openly critique both the ethics and the wisdom of tapping into a pool of money created through the profits of the oil and gas industry. I’ve recently wondered myself if continued depletion of fossil fuels means that preservationists won’t be able to count on the Historic Preservation Fund as a long-term source of funding.

That said, you’d be hard-pressed to find a preservationist who thinks that destroying the Historic Preservation Fund would be a good first step in shaping a more visionary policy.

For now, Trump’s administration has only sown chaos in the field of historic preservation. Already, Ohio has laid off one-third of the staffers in its State Historic Preservation Office due to the impoundment of federal funds. More state preservation offices may follow suit. The National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers predicts that states soon could be unable to perform their federally mandated duties.

Unfortunately, many people advocating for places important to their towns and neighborhoods may end up learning the hard way just what the Historic Preservation Fund does.

Michael R. Allen is a member of the Advisor Leadership Team of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

– ref. Trump administration aims to slash funds that preserve the nation’s rich architectural and cultural history – https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-aims-to-slash-funds-that-preserve-the-nations-rich-architectural-and-cultural-history-258889

Source: – By Alex Schwartz, Professor of Urban Policy, The New School

If there’s one thing that U.S. politicians and activists from across the political spectrum can agree on, it’s that rents are far too high.

Many experts believe that this crisis is fueled by a shortage of housing, caused principally by restrictive regulations.

Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing.

As experts on housing policy, we’re concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households.

However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available.

A financial sinkhole

Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.?

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, it’s considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. That’s up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023.

Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%.

Estimates of the nation’s housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas.

Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldn’t fix everything.

We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened renters – but not by as much as you might think.

Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomes – the households that face the most severe affordability challenges.

The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened.

Vouchers offer more breathing room

Meanwhile, there’s a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies.

In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as “deep” housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income.

These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership.

The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their area’s median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need.

By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8.

The program helps pay the rent up to a specified “payment standard” determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUD’s physical quality standards.

Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers.

Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holders. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients.

However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach.

The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject.

Homeowners get subsidies – why not renters?

Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly.

The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year.

However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment.

For example, from 1998 through 2017 – prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017 – the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of one’s home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion.

Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, over 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000.

Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs.

Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administration’s priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing.

On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis.

This article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis.

Alex Schwartz has received funding from the Catherine and John D. MacArthur Foundation. Since 2019 he has served on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board. He has a relative who works for The Conversation.

Kirk McClure received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. What if universal rental assistance were implemented to deal with the housing crisis? – https://theconversation.com/what-if-universal-rental-assistance-were-implemented-to-deal-with-the-housing-crisis-257213

Source: – By Jonathan Deutsch, Professor of Food and Hospitality Management, Drexel University

The Philadelphia restaurant scene is abuzz with the news that the famed Michelin Guide is coming to town.

As a research chef and educator at Drexel University in Philadelphia, I am following the Michelin developments closely.

Having eaten in Michelin restaurants in other cities, I am confident that Philly has at least a few star-worthy restaurants. Our innovative dining scene was named one of the top 10 in the U.S. by Food & Wine in 2025.

Researchers have convincingly shown that Michelin ratings can boost tourism, so Philly gaining some starred restaurants could bring more revenue for the city.

But as the lead author of the textbook “Culinary Improvisation,” which teaches creativity, I also worry the Michelin scrutiny could make chefs more focused on delivering a consistent experience than continuing along the innovative trajectory that attracts Michelin in the first place.

Ingredients for culinary innovation

In “Culinary Improvisation” we discuss three elements needed to foster innovation in the kitchen.

The first is mastery of culinary technique, both classical and modern. Simply stated, this refers to good cooking.

The second is access to a diverse range of ingredients and flavors. The more colors the artist has on their palette, the more directions the creation can take.

And the third, which is key to my concerns, is a collaborative and supportive environment where chefs can take risks and make mistakes. Research shows a close link between risk-taking workplaces and innovation.

According to the Michelin Guide, stars are awarded to outstanding restaurants based on: “quality of ingredients, mastery of cooking techniques and flavors, the personality of the chef as expressed in the cuisine, value for money, and consistency of the dining experience both across the menu and over time.”

The criteria do not mention innovation.

It’s possible the high-stakes lure of a Michelin star, which awards consistent excellence, could lead Philly’s most vibrant and creative chefs and restaurateurs to pull back on the risks that led to the city’s culinary excellence in the first place.

The obvious contenders

Philadelphia’s preeminent restaurant critic Craig LaBan and journalist and former restaurateur Kiki Aranita discussed local contenders for Michelin stars in a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The 19 restaurants LaBan and Aranita discuss as possible star contenders average just over a one-mile walk from the Pennsylvania Convention Center.

Together they have received 78 James Beard nominations or awards, which are considered the “Oscars” of the food industry. That’s an average of over four per restaurant.

And when I tried to book a table for two on a Wednesday and Saturday before 9 p.m., about half were already fully booked for dinner two weeks out, in July, which is the slow season for dining in Philadelphia.

If LaBan’s and Aranita’s predictions are right, Michelin will be an added recognition for restaurants that are already successful and centrally located.

Off the beaten path

When the Michelin Guide started in France at the turn of the 19th century, it encouraged diners to take the road less traveled to their next gastronomic experience.

It has since evolved into recommendations for a road well traveled: safe, lauded and already hard-to-get-into restaurants. In Philly these could be restaurants such as Vetri Cucina, Zahav, Vernick Fish, Provenance, Royal Sushi and Izakaya, Ogawa and Friday Saturday Sunday, to name a few on LaBan and Aranita’s list.

And yet Philadelphia has over 6,000 restaurants spread across 135 square miles of the city. Philadelphia is known as a city of neighborhoods, and these neighborhoods are rich with food diversity and innovation.

Consider Jacob Trinh’s Vietnamese-tinged seafood tasting menu at Little Fish in Queen Village; Kurt Evans’ gumbo lo mein at Black Dragon Takeout in West Philly; the beef cheek confit with avocado mousse at Temir Satybaldiev’s Ginger in the Northeast; and the West African XO sauce at Honeysuckle, owned by Omar Tate and Cybille St.Aude-Tate, on North Broad Street.

I hope the Michelin inspectors will venture far beyond the obvious candidates to experience more of what Philadelphia has to offer.

Raising the bar

In the frenzy surrounding the Michelin scrutiny, chef friends have invited me to dine at their restaurants and share my feedback as they refine their menus in anticipation of visits from anonymous Michelin inspectors.

Restaurateurs have been asking my colleagues and me for talent suggestions to replace well-liked and capable cooks, servers and managers whom owners perceive to be just not Michelin-star level.

And managers are texting us names of suspected reviewers, triggered by some tell-tale signs – a solo diner with a weeknight tasting menu reservation, no dietary restrictions or special requests, and a conspicuously light internet presence.

In all, I am excited about Philadelphians being excited about Michelin. Any opportunity to spotlight the city’s restaurant community and tighten its food and service quality raises the bar among local chefs and restaurateurs and makes the experience better for diners. And the prospect of business travelers and culinary tourists enjoying lunches and early-week dinners can help restaurants, their workers and the city earn more revenue.

But in the din of the press events and hype, let’s not forget that Philadelphians don’t need an outside arbiter to tell us what we already know: Philly is a great place to eat and drink.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Jonathan Deutsch 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. Michelin Guide scrutiny could boost Philly tourism, but will it stifle chefs’ freedom to experiment and innovate? – https://theconversation.com/michelin-guide-scrutiny-could-boost-philly-tourism-but-will-it-stifle-chefs-freedom-to-experiment-and-innovate-256752

Source: – By Sandra Sjoberg, Vice President and Dean, Academic Programs, Western Governors University School of Business

What does it take to lead through complexity, make tough decisions and still put people first? For me, the answer became clear during a defining moment early in my career – one that changed my path entirely.

Today I am a business-school educator, but I began my career in the corporate world. I faced a challenge so intense that it motivated me to go back to school and earn a Ph.D. so I could help others lead with greater purpose and humanity.

Back then, I was working for a multinational home goods company, and I was asked to play a role in closing a U.S. factory in the Midwest and moving its operations abroad. It was, by every business metric, the right economic decision. Without it, the company couldn’t stay competitive. Still, the move was fraught with emotional and ethical complexities.

Witnessing the toll on employees who lost their jobs, and the broader effects on their community, changed how I thought about business decision-making. I saw that technical skills alone aren’t enough. Effective leadership also requires emotional intelligence, ethical reasoning and human-centered thinking.

That experience was a turning point, leading me to higher education. I wanted to fulfill a greater purpose by equipping future business leaders with critical human-centric skills. And to do that, I needed to learn more about these skills – why they matter, how they shape outcomes, and how we can teach them more effectively.

Often called “soft skills” or “people skills,” these are also, more appropriately, referred to as “power skills” or “durable skills.” And they aren’t just nice to have. As my own experience shows and as research confirms, they are central to success in today’s business world.

Power skills: Underappreciated, yet in demand

Research on power skills dates back to at least 1918, when the Carnegie Foundation published A Study of Engineering Education. That report concluded that 85% of engineering professionals’ success came from having well-developed people skills, and only 15% was attributed to “hard skills.” These early findings helped shape our understanding of the value of nontechnical skills and traits.

Today, employers arguably value these skills more than ever. But while demand for these skills is growing across industries, there’s not enough supply. For example, nearly 7 in 10 U.S. employers plan to prioritize hiring candidates with “soft” or “power” skills, according to LinkedIn’s most recent Global Talent Trends report.

Yet 65% of employers cite soft skills as the top gap among new graduates, according to Coursera’s 2025 Micro-Credentials Impact Report. New hires are struggling in the areas of communication, active listening, resilience and adaptability, the survey found.

Power skills are transferable across roles, projects and industries, which makes them especially valuable to hiring managers. And research continues to show that these skills drive innovation, strengthen team dynamics and help organizations navigate uncertainty — key reasons why employers prioritize them.

Three power skills to prioritize

So what does it look like to lead with power skills? Here are three key areas that have shaped my own journey — and that I now help others develop:

Adaptability: Adaptability goes beyond simply accepting change. It’s the ability to think, feel and act effectively when the situation changes – which, in today’s business environment, is all the time.

Consider a company expanding into a new international market. To succeed, it must invest in cultural research, adapt its operations to regional norms and align with local regulations – demonstrating adaptability at both strategic and operational levels.

That’s why adaptability is one of the most in-demand skills among employers, according to a recent LinkedIn study. Adaptable workforces are better equipped to respond to shifting demands. And with the rise of artificial intelligence and rapid tech disruption, organizations need agile, resilient employees more than ever.

Empathy: As I learned firsthand during my time in the corporate world, empathy – or the ability to understand and respond to the feelings, perspectives and needs of others – is essential.

Empathy not only fosters trust and respect, but it also helps leaders make decisions that balance organizational goals with human needs. More broadly, empathetic leaders create inclusive environments and build stronger relationships.

At Western Governors University, we have an entire course titled “Empathy and Inclusive Collaboration,” which teaches skills in active listening, creating culturally safe environments and cultivating an inclusive mindset.

Inclusivity: Effective communication and teamwork consistently rank high as essential workforce skills. This is because organizations that excel in communication and collaboration are more likely to innovate, adapt to change and make informed decisions.

While managing a global transition, I saw how hard and necessary it was to listen across cultural lines, to foster collaboration across borders and departments. When teams collaborate well, they bring diverse perspectives that can foster creativity and efficiency. The ability to communicate openly and work together is crucial for navigating complex problems and driving organizational success.

The business landscape is evolving rapidly, and technical expertise alone is no longer enough to drive success. Power skills like adaptability, empathy and inclusivity are crucial, as both research and my own experiences have taught me. By prioritizing power skills, educators and businesses can better prepare leaders to navigate complexity, lead with purpose and thrive in a constantly changing world.

Sandra Sjoberg is affiliated with Western Governors University.
Sandra Sjoberg is a member of the industry association, American Marketing Association.
Sandra Sjoberg was a former employee at Amerock, a division of Newell Rubbermaid that, while not mentioned directly in the article, is the basis for the corporate experience shared in the article.

– ref. Why power skills – formerly known as ‘soft skills’ – are the key to business success – https://theconversation.com/why-power-skills-formerly-known-as-soft-skills-are-the-key-to-business-success-257310

Source: – By Stephanie Otts, Director of National Sea Grant Law Center, University of Mississippi

Twenty-five years ago, “The Perfect Storm” roared into movie theaters. The disaster flick, starring George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg, was a riveting, fictionalized account of commercial swordfishing in New England and a crew who went down in a violent storm.

The anniversary of the film’s release, on June 30, 2000, provides an opportunity to reflect on the real-life changes to New England’s commercial fishing industry.

Fishing was once more open to all

In the true story behind the movie, six men lost their lives in late October 1991 when the commercial swordfishing vessel Andrea Gail disappeared in a fierce storm in the North Atlantic as it was headed home to Gloucester, Massachusetts.

At the time, and until very recently, almost all commercial fisheries were open access, meaning there were no restrictions on who could fish.

There were permit requirements and regulations about where, when and how you could fish, but anyone with the means to purchase a boat and associated permits, gear, bait and fuel could enter the fishery. Eight regional councils established under a 1976 federal law to manage fisheries around the U.S. determined how many fish could be harvested prior to the start of each fishing season.

Fishing started when the season opened and continued until the catch limit was reached. In some fisheries, this resulted in a “race to the fish” or a “derby,” where vessels competed aggressively to harvest the available catch in short amounts of time. The limit could be reached in a single day, as happened in the Pacific halibut fishery in the late 1980s.

By the 1990s, however, open access systems were coming under increased criticism from economists as concerns about overfishing rose.

The fish catch peaked in New England in 1987 and would remain far above what the fish population could sustain for two more decades. Years of overfishing led to the collapse of fish stocks, including North Atlantic cod in 1992 and Pacific sardine in 2015.

As populations declined, managers responded by cutting catch limits to allow more fish to survive and reproduce. Fishing seasons were shortened, as it took less time for the fleets to harvest the allowed catch. It became increasingly hard for fishermen to catch enough fish to earn a living.

Saving fisheries changed the industry

In the early 2000s, as these economic and environmental challenges grew, fisheries managers started limiting access. Instead of allowing anyone to fish, only vessels or individuals meeting certain eligibility requirements would have the right to fish.

The most common method of limiting access in the U.S. is through limited entry permits, initially awarded to individuals or vessels based on previous participation or success in the fishery. Another approach is to assign individual harvest quotas or “catch shares” to permit holders, limiting how much each boat can bring in.

In 2007, Congress amended the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to promote the use of limited access programs in U.S. fisheries.

Today, limited access is common, and there are positive signs that the management change is helping achieve the law’s environmental goal of preventing overfishing. Since 2000, the populations of 50 major fishing stocks have been rebuilt, meaning they have recovered to a level that can once again support fishing.

I’ve been following the changes as a lawyer focused on ocean and coastal issues, and I see much work still to be done.

Forty fish stocks are currently being managed under rebuilding plans that limit catch to allow the stock to grow, including Atlantic cod, which has struggled to recover due to a complex combination of factors, including climatic changes.

The lingering effect on communities today

While many fish stocks have recovered, the effort came at an economic cost to many individual fishermen. The limited-access Northeast groundfish fishery, which includes Atlantic cod, haddock and flounder, shed nearly 800 crew positions between 2007 and 2015.

The loss of jobs and revenue from fishing impacts individual family income and relationships, strains other businesses in fishing communities, and affects those communities’ overall identity and resilience, as illustrated by a recent economic snapshot of the Alaska seafood industry.

When original limited-access permit holders leave the business – for economic, personal or other reasons – their permits are either terminated or sold to other eligible permit holders, leading to fewer active vessels in the fleet. As a result, the number of vessels fishing for groundfish has declined from 719 in 2007 to 194 in 2023, meaning fewer jobs.

Because of their scarcity, limited-access permits can cost upward of US$500,000, which is often beyond the financial means of a small businesses or a young person seeking to enter the industry. The high prices may also lead retiring fishermen to sell their permits, as opposed to passing them along with the vessels to the next generation.

These economic forces have significantly altered the fishing industry, leading to more corporate and investor ownership, rather than the family-owned operations that were more common in the Andrea Gail’s time.

Similar to the experience of small family farms, fishing captains and crews are being pushed into corporate arrangements that reduce their autonomy and revenues.

Consolidation can threaten the future of entire fleets, as New Bedford, Massachusetts, saw when Blue Harvest Fisheries, backed by a private equity firm, bought up vessels and other assets and then declared bankruptcy a few years later, leaving a smaller fleet and some local business and fishermen unpaid for their work. A company with local connections bought eight vessels from Blue Harvest along with 48 state and federal permits the company held.

New challenges and unchanging risks

While there are signs of recovery for New England’s fisheries, challenges continue.

Warming water temperatures have shifted the distribution of some species, affecting where and when fish are harvested. For example, lobsters have moved north toward Canada. When vessels need to travel farther to find fish, that increases fuel and supply costs and time away from home.

Fisheries managers will need to continue to adapt to keep New England’s fisheries healthy and productive.

One thing that, unfortunately, hasn’t changed is the dangerous nature of the occupation. Between 2000 and 2019, 414 fishermen died in 245 disasters.

Stephanie Otts receives funding from the NOAA National Sea Grant College Program through the U.S. Department of Commerce. Previous support for fisheries management legal research provided by The Nature Conservancy.

– ref. Checking in on New England’s fishing industry 25 Years after ‘The Perfect Storm’ hit movie theaters – https://theconversation.com/checking-in-on-new-englands-fishing-industry-25-years-after-the-perfect-storm-hit-movie-theaters-255076

Source: – By William Akoto, Assistant Professor of Global Security, American University

The United States is trying to decouple its economy from rivals like China. Efforts toward this include policymakers raising tariffs on Chinese goods, blocking exports of advanced technology and offering subsidies to boost American manufacturing. The goal is to reduce reliance on China for critical products in hopes that this will also protect U.S. intellectual property from theft.

The idea that decoupling will help stem state-sponsored cyber-economic espionage has become a key justification for these measures. For instance, then-U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai framed the continuation of China-specific tariffs as serving the “statutory goal to stop [China’s] harmful … cyber intrusions and cyber theft.” Early tariff rounds during the first Trump administration were likewise framed as forcing Beijing to confront “deeply entrenched” theft of U.S. intellectual property.

This push to “onshore” key industries is driven by very real concerns. By some estimates, theft of U.S. trade secrets, often through hacking – costs the American economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year. In that light, decoupling is a defensive economic shield – a way to keep vital technology out of an adversary’s reach.

But will decoupling and cutting trade ties truly make America’s innovations safer from prying eyes? I’m a political scientist who studies state-sponsored cyber espionage, and my research suggests that the answer is a definitive no. Indeed, it might actually have the opposite effect.

To understand why, it helps to look at what really drives state-sponsored hacking.

Rivalry, not reliance

Intuitively, you might think a country is most tempted to steal secrets from a nation it depends on. For example, if Country A must import jet engines or microchips from Country B, Country A might try to hack Country B’s companies to copy that technology and become self-sufficient. This is the industrial dependence theory of cyber theft.

There is some truth to this motive. If your economy needs what another country produces, stealing that know-how can boost your own industries and reduce reliance. However, in a recent study, I show that a more powerful predictor of cyber espionage is industrial similarity. Countries with overlapping advanced industries such as aerospace, electronics or pharmaceuticals are the ones most likely to target each other with cyberattacks.

Why would having similar industries spur more spying? The reason is competition. If two nations both specialize in cutting-edge sectors, each has a lot to gain by stealing the other’s innovations.

If you’re a tech powerhouse, you have valuable secrets worth stealing, and you have the capability and motivation to steal others’ secrets. In essence, simply trading with a rival isn’t the core issue. Rather, it’s the underlying technological rivalry that fuels espionage.

For example, a cyberattack in 2012 targeted SolarWorld, a U.S. solar panel manufacturer, and the perpetrators stole the company’s trade secrets. Chinese solar companies then developed competing products based on the stolen designs, costing SolarWorld millions in lost revenue. This is a classic example of industrial similarity at work. China was building its own solar industry, so it hacked a U.S. rival to leapfrog in technology.

Boosting trade barriers can fan the flames

Crucially, cutting trade ties doesn’t remove this rivalry. If anything, decoupling might intensify it. When the U.S. and China exchange tariff blows or cut off tech transfers, it doesn’t make China give up – it likely pushes Chinese intelligence agencies to work even harder to steal what they can’t buy.

This dynamic isn’t unique to China. Any country that suddenly loses access to an important technology may turn to espionage as Plan B.

History provides examples. When South Africa was isolated by sanctions in the 1980s, it covertly obtained nuclear weapons technology. Similarly, when Israel faced arms embargoes in the 1960s, it engaged in clandestine efforts to get military technology. Isolation can breed desperation, and hacking is a low-cost, high-reward tool for the desperate.

If decoupling won’t end cyber espionage, what will?

There’s no easy fix for state-sponsored hacking as long as countries remain locked in high-tech competition. However, there are steps that can mitigate the damage and perhaps dial down the frequency of these attacks.

One is investing in cyber defense. Just as a homeowner adds locks and alarms after a burglary, companies and governments should continually strengthen their cyber defenses. Assuming that espionage attempts are likely to happen is key. Advanced network monitoring, employee training against phishing, and robust encryption can make it much harder for hackers to succeed, even if they keep trying.

Another is building resilience and redundancy. If you know that some secrets might get stolen, plan for it. Businesses can shorten product development cycles and innovate faster so that even if a rival copies today’s tech, you’re already moving on to the next generation. Staying ahead of thieves is a form of defense, too.

Ultimately, rather than viewing tariffs and export bans as silver bullets against espionage, U.S. leaders and industry might be safer focusing on resilience and stress-testing cybersecurity firms. Make it harder for adversaries to steal secrets, and less rewarding even if they do.

William Akoto 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. Blocking exports and raising tariffs is a bad defense against industrial cyber espionage, study shows – https://theconversation.com/blocking-exports-and-raising-tariffs-is-a-bad-defense-against-industrial-cyber-espionage-study-shows-258243

Source: – By Linda J. Bilmes, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and Public Finance, Harvard Kennedy School

The word “reconciliation” sounds benign, even harmonious.

But in Washington, D.C., reconciliation refers to a potent legislative shortcut that allows the party in power to avoid opposition and enact sweeping changes to taxes and spending with a simple majority vote. Democrats used the process to pass the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Reconciliation helped Republicans pass large tax cuts in 2017.

Reconciliation is also at the heart of the current budget debate, as Senate Republicans rush to advance their version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” also known by its acronym OBBBA, which passed the House in May 2025.

I served as assistant secretary of Commerce for management and budget during the Clinton administration, when my colleagues and I helped forge bipartisan legislation that balanced the federal budget and produced surpluses over four years, from 1998 to 2001. We were even able to pay off some debt.

But since 2001, the country’s fiscal situation has deteriorated significantly. And the reconciliation process has strayed from its original purpose as a mechanism to promote sound fiscal policy. Instead, it is now used to pass partisan legislation, often without regard to its economic impact on future generations of Americans.

Reconciliation 101

The reconciliation process was created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which was overwhelmingly supported by both parties. It was designed to align policy goals with budget targets to help rein in deficits.

The rules specify that a bill using the reconciliation process must pertain directly to budgetary or fiscal matters, cannot change Social Security, Medicare or the budget process itself, or deliberately extend deficits beyond a 10-year window. As part of the process, the parliamentarian goes through each element of the bill and determines whether it meets the requirements, removing any that don’t.

This caused the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to hit a snag in the Senate on June 25, 2025, after the parliamentarian ruled several major parts of it couldn’t be included as written, such as an effort to crack down on efforts by states to get more Medicaid funds and a limit on student debt repayment options.

In the Senate, reconciliation has special procedural advantages. Debate is limited to 20 hours. Conveniently for the party in power, the final bill can pass with a simple majority of 51 votes. This avoids the usual 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.

Over its 50-year history, 23 reconciliation bills have become law.

Reconciliation on rise as budget process breaks down

Over time, reconciliation has become the dominant method for enacting major tax and spending legislation, as the regular congressional budget process has broken down.

Since 1974, there have been multiple government shutdowns, near-shutdowns and short-term, stopgap “continual resolutions” instead of annual budgets, accompanied by rising deficits and national debt.

With few other tools at its disposal, Congress has used reconciliation to push through many pieces of major economic legislation, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush, the 2017 tax cuts during President Donald Trump’s first term, and the American Rescue Plan in 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 during the Biden administration.

However, reconciliation has significant flaws. Because debate is limited, senators often vote on bills over 1,000 pages long with little time to review the details. And once tax cuts are enacted under reconciliation, it is devilishly hard to get rid of them.

Given the compressed timelines and lack of transparency inherent in such huge, messy spending bills, it is fairly easy for lawmakers to slip in earmarks, tax loopholes and other extraneous items that that don’t get removed by the parliamentarian.

What’s in the bill?

At the heart of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by the House, is an extension of President Trump’s tax cuts from his first term, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2025, according to the procedural rules for reconciliation.

But it also includes multiple new tax cuts – such as an end to taxes on overtime and tips and lower estate taxes – introduces new Medicaid work requirements and repeals various energy credits. In line with the Trump administration’s policies, the bill slashes federal funding for education, Medicaid, public housing, environmental programs, scientific research and some national park and public land protection programs. It also boosts defense spending.

The bill would sharply worsen the nation’s fiscal outlook, according to analyses by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other organizations.

Currently, the national debt exceeds US$36 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury, and net interest payments account for some 16% of federal revenue, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s projections for 2025.

In its analysis, the Congressional Budget Office – which was also created by the 1974 act – said the House-passed version would increase deficits by more than $3.1 trillion over the next decade. The overwhelming share of this cost comes from the permanent extension of individual tax cuts initially enacted in 2017.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis, by 2035 households earning at least $1 million would receive an average annual tax cut of about $45,000. Most middle- and lower-income households would receive a cut of less than $500 per year, if anything.

The costs of reconciliation

A number of Senate Republicans have questioned some aspects of the reconciliation package. Since they hold only a 53-47 majority, and with all Democrats expected to vote “no,” they need to use reconciliation to pass their version.

Although it differs from the House version in many ways, the Senate version still favors tax cuts for high-income households and large corporations.

Senate Republicans also employ a flawed accounting gimmick to minimize its apparent cost. It assumes the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which are set to expire, have already been extended and embeds that assumption into the budget baseline.

This makes extending the tax cuts appear costless, even though it would grow the debt substantially. The move violates normal scorekeeping conventions and misleads the public. Honest accounting would show that the Senate plan would add to the debt about $500 billion more than the House version.

Abusing the process

Lots of wrangling and changes are expected before the Senate is able to pass its version. After that, the House and Senate will need to resolve their differences in a conference committee of Republicans from each house of Congress.

Once they agree on a final version, each house votes again – and the Senate version will still need to meet the terms of reconciliation in order to pass with a majority vote. President Trump is pressuring Congress to deliver the bill to his desk before he goes on July Fourth vacation.

In my view, while reconciliation remains a powerful budgetary tool, its current use represents a fundamental inversion of its original purpose. Americans deserve an honest debate about trade-offs, rather than more debt in disguise. Some estimates of the fiscal impact of the Senate’s version of the bill are as high as $3.8 trillion over a decade. Simply waving a magic accounting wand won’t make them go away.

This article was updated to include a Senate parliamentarian ruling about several provisions of the Republican bill.

Linda J. Bilmes served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Department of Commerce from 1997-1998 and as CFO and Assistant Secretary for Management, Budget and Administration from 1999-2001.

– ref. What is reconciliation − the legislative shortcut Republicans are using to push through their ‘big, beautiful bill’? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-reconciliation-the-legislative-shortcut-republicans-are-using-to-push-through-their-big-beautiful-bill-255487

Source: – By Skip York, Nonresident Fellow in Energy and Global Oil, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

Global energy markets, such as those for oil, gas and coal, tend to be sensitive to a wide range of world events – especially when there is some sort of crisis. Having worked in the energy industry for over 30 years, I’ve seen how war, political instability, pandemics and economic sanctions can significantly disrupt energy markets and impede them from functioning efficiently.

A look at the basics

First, consider the economic fundamentals of supply and demand. The risk most people imagine in the current crisis between Israel, the U.S. and Iran is that Iran, which is itself a major oil-producing country, might suddenly expand the conflict by threatening the ability of neighboring countries to supply oil to the world.

Oil wells, refineries, pipelines and shipping lanes are the backbone of energy markets. They can be vulnerable during a crisis: Whether there is deliberate sabotage or collateral damage from military action, energy infrastructure often takes a hit.

For instance, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Iraqi forces placed explosive charges on Kuwaiti oil wells and began detonating them in January 1991. It took months for all the resulting fires to be put out, and millions of barrels of oil and hundreds of millions of cubic meters of natural gas were released into the environment – rather than being sold and used productively somewhere around the world.

Logistics can mess markets up too. For instance, closing critical maritime routes like the Strait of Hormuz or the Suez Canal can cause transportation delays.

Whether supply is lost from decreased production or blocked transportation routes, the effect is less oil available to the market, which not only causes prices to rise in general, but it also makes them more volatile – tending to change more frequently and by larger amounts.

On the flip side, demand can also shift radically. During the 1990-1991 Gulf War, demand rose: U.S. forces alone used more than 2 billion gallons of fuel, according to an Army analysis. By contrast, during the COVID-19 pandemic, industries shut down, travel came to a halt and energy demand plummeted.

When crisis looms, countries and companies often start stockpiling oil and other raw materials rather than buying only what they need right now. That creates even more imbalance, resulting in price volatility that leaves everyone, both consumers and producers, with a headache.

Regional considerations

In addition to uncertainties around market fundamentals, it’s important to note that many of the world’s energy reserves are located in regions that have not been models of stability. In the Middle East, wars, revolutions and diplomatic disputes there can raise concerns about supply, demand or both.

Those worries send shock waves through the world’s energy markets. It’s like walking on a tightrope: One wrong move – or even the perception of a misstep – can make the market wobble.

Governments’ economic sanctions, such as those restricting trade with Iran, Russia or Venezuela, can distort production and investment decisions and disrupt trade flows. Sometimes markets react even before sanctions are officially in place: Just the rumor of a possible embargo can cause prices to spike as buyers scramble to secure resources.

In 2008, for example, India and Vietnam imposed rice export bans, and rumors of additional restrictions fueled panic buying and nearly doubled prices in months.

In those scrambles, the role of investor speculation enters the picture. Energy commodities, such as oil and gas, aren’t just physical resources; they’re also traded as financial assets like stocks and bonds. During uncertain times, traders don’t wait around for actual changes in supply and demand. They react to news and forecasts, sometimes in large groups, which can shift the market just with the actions that result from their fears or hopes.

The events on June 22, 2025, are a good example of how this dynamic works. The Iranian parliament passed a resolution authorizing the country’s Supreme Council to close the Strait of Hormuz. Immediately, oil prices started rising, even though the strait was still open, with oil tankers steaming through unimpeded.

The next day, Iran launched a missile strike on Qatar, but coordinated in advance with Qatari officials to minimize damage and casualties. Traders and analysts perceived the action as a de-escalatory signal and anticipated that the Supreme Council was not going to close the strait. So prices started to fall.

It was a price roller coaster, fueled by speculation rather than reality. And computer algorithms and artificial intelligence, which assist in making automated trades, only add to the chaos of price changes.

A broader look

International crises can also cause wider changes in countries’ economies – or the global economy as a whole – which in turn affect the energy market.

If a crisis sparks a recession, rising inflation or high unemployment, those tend to cause people and businesses to use less energy. When the underlying situation stabilizes, recovery efforts can mean energy consumption resumes. But it’s like a pendulum swinging back and forth, with energy markets caught in the middle.

Renewable energy is not immune to international crisis and chaos. The supply is less affected by market forces: The amount of available sunlight and wind isn’t tied to geopolitical relations. But overall economic conditions still affect demand, and a crisis can disrupt the supply chains for the equipment needed to harness renewable energy, like solar panels and wind turbines.

It’s no wonder energy markets are so jittery during international crises. A mix of imbalances between supply and demand, vulnerable infrastructure, political tensions, corporate worries and speculative trading all weave together into a complex web of volatility.

For policymakers, investors and consumers, understanding these dynamics is key to navigating the ups and downs of energy markets in a crisis-prone world. The solutions aren’t simple, but being informed is the first step toward stability.

Skip York is a nonresident fellow for Global Oil and Energy with the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. He also is the Chief Energy Strategist at Turner Mason & Company, an energy consulting firm.

– ref. Why energy markets fluctuate during an international crisis – https://theconversation.com/why-energy-markets-fluctuate-during-an-international-crisis-259839

Source: – By Naomi Cahn, Professor of Law, University of Virginia

Having the freedom to choose your own health care provider is something many Americans take for granted. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority ruled on June 25, 2025, in a 6-3 decision that people who rely on Medicaid for their health insurance don’t have that right.

The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, is focused on a technical legal issue: whether people covered by Medicaid have the right to sue state officials for preventing them from choosing their health care provider. In his majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that they don’t because the Medicaid statute did not “clearly and unambiguously” give individuals that right.

As law professors who teach courses about health and poverty law as well as reproductive justice, we think this ruling could restrict access to health care for the more than 78 million Americans who get their health insurance coverage through the Medicaid program.

Excluding Planned Parenthood

The case started with a predicament for South Carolina resident Julie Edwards, who is enrolled in Medicaid. After Edwards struggled to get contraceptive services, she was able to receive care from a Planned Parenthood South Atlantic clinic in Columbia, South Carolina.

Planned Parenthood, an array of nonprofits with roots that date back more than a century, is among the nation’s top providers of reproductive services. It operates two clinics in South Carolina, where patients can get physical exams, cancer screenings, contraception and other services. It also provides same-day appointments and keeps long hours.

In July 2018, however, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order that barred Medicaid reimbursement for health care providers in the state that offer abortion care.

That meant Planned Parenthood, a longtime target of conservatives’ ire, would no longer be reimbursed for any type of care for Medicaid patients, preventing Edwards from transferring all her gynecological care to that office as she had hoped to do.

Planned Parenthood and Edwards sued South Carolina. They argued that the state was violating the federal Medicare and Medicaid Act, which Congress passed in 1965, by not letting Edwards obtain care from the provider of her choice.

A ‘free-choice-of-provider’ requirement

Medicaid, which mainly covers low-income people, their children and people with disabilities, operates as a partnership between the federal government and the states. Congress passed the law that led to its creation based on its power under the Constitution’s spending clause, which allows Congress to subject federal funds to certain requirements.

Two years later, due to concerns that states were restricting which providers Medicaid recipients could choose, Congress added a “free-choice-of-provider” requirement to the program. It states that people enrolled in Medicaid “may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.”

While the Medicaid statute does not, by itself, allow people enrolled in that program to enforce this free-choice clause, the question at the core of this case was whether another federal statute, known as Section 1983, did give them a right to sue.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that Section 1983 protects an individual’s ability to sue when their rights under a federal statute have been violated. In fact, in 2023, it found such a right under the Medicaid Nursing Home Reform Act. The court held that Section 1983 confers the right to sue when a statute’s provisions “unambiguously confer individual federal rights.”

In Medina, however, the court found that there was no right to sue. Instead, the court emphasized that “the typical remedy” is for the federal government to cut off Medicaid funds to a state if a state is not complying with the Medicaid statute.

The ruling overturned lower-court decisions in favor of Edwards. It also expressly rejected the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings, which the majority criticized as taking a more “expansive view of its power to imply private causes of action to enforce federal laws.”

Restricting Medicaid funds

This dispute is just one chapter in the long fight over access to abortion in the U.S. In addition to the question of whether it should be legal, proponents and opponents of abortion rights have battled over whether the government should pay for it – even if that funding happens indirectly.

Through a federal law known as the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid cannot reimburse health care providers for the cost of abortions, with a few exceptions: when a patient’s life is at risk, or her pregnancy is due to rape or incest. Some states do cover abortion when their laws allow it, without using any federal funds.

As a result, Planned Parenthood rarely gets any federal Medicaid funds for abortions.

McMaster explained that he removed “abortion clinics,” including Planned Parenthood, from the South Carolina Medicaid program because he didn’t want state funds to indirectly subsidize abortions.

After the Supreme Court ruled on this case, McMaster said he had taken “a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values – and today, we are finally victorious.”

But only about 4% of Planned Parenthood’s services nationwide were related to abortion, as of 2022. Its most common service is testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Across the nation, Planned Parenthood provides health care to more than 2 million patients per year, most of whom have low incomes.

Consequences beyond South Carolina

This ruling’s consequences are not limited to Medicaid access in South Carolina.

It may make it harder for individuals to use Section 1983 to bring claims under any federal statute. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote in her dissent, the court “continues the project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws.”

Enacted in 1871, the civil rights law has been invoked to challenge violations of rights by state officials against individuals. Jackson wrote that the court now limits the ability to use Section 1983 to vindicate personal rights only if the statutes use the correct “magic words.”

The dissent also criticized the majority decision as likely “to result in tangible harm to real people.” Not only will it potentially deprive “Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them,” Jackson wrote, but it could also “strip those South Carolinians – and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country – of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’”

The decision could also have far-reaching consequences. Arkansas, Missouri and Texas have already barred Planned Parenthood from getting reimbursed by Medicaid for any kind of health care. More states could follow suit.

In addition, given Planned Parenthood’s role in providing contraceptive care, disqualifying it from Medicaid could restrict access to health care and increase the already-high unintended pregnancy rate in America.

States could also try to exclude providers based on other characteristics, such as whether their employees belong to unions or if they provide their patients with gender-affirming care, further restricting patients’ choices.

With this ruling, the court is allowing a patchwork of state exclusions of Planned Parenthood and other medical providers from the Medicaid program that could soon resemble the patchwork already seen with abortion access.

Portions of this article first appeared in another article published on April 2, 2025.

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

– ref. Supreme Court rules that states may deny people covered by Medicaid the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood as their health care provider – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-rules-that-states-may-deny-people-covered-by-medicaid-the-freedom-to-choose-planned-parenthood-as-their-health-care-provider-259953

Source: – By Eric Zillmer, Professor of Neuropsychology, Drexel University

What makes you happy? Perhaps a good night’s sleep, or a wonderful meal with friends?

I am the director of the Happiness Lab at Drexel University, where I also teach a course on happiness. The Happiness Lab is a think tank that investigates the ingredients that contribute to people’s happiness.

Often, my students ask me something along the lines of, “Dr. Z, tell us one thing that will make us happier.”

As a first step, I advise them to spend more time outside.

Achieving lasting and sustainable happiness is more complicated. Research on the happiest countries in the world and the places where people live the longest, known as Blue Zones, shows a common thread: Residents feel they are part of something larger than themselves, such as a community or a city.

So if you’re living in a metropolis like Philadelphia, where, incidentally, the iconic pursuit of happiness charge was ratified in the Declaration of Independence, I believe urban citizenship – that is, forming an identity with your urban surroundings – should also be on your list.

Safety, social connection, beauty

Carl Jung, the renowned Swiss psychoanalyst, wrote extensively about the relationship between our internal world and our external environment.

He believed that this relationship was crucial to our psychological well-being.

More recent research in neuroscience and functional imaging has revealed a vast, intricate and complex neurological architecture underlying our psychological perception of a place. Numerous neurological pathways and functional loops transform a complex neuropsychological process into a simple realization: I am happy here!

For example, a happy place should feel safe.

The country of Croatia, a tourist haven for its beauty and culinary delights, is also one of the top 20 safest countries globally, according to the 2025 Global Peace Index.

The U.S. ranks 128th.

The availability of good food and drink can also be a significant factor in creating a happy place.

However, according to American psychologist Abraham Maslow, a pioneer in the field of positive psychology, the opportunity for social connectivity, experiencing something meaningful and having a sense of belonging is more crucial.

Furthermore, research on happy places suggests that they are beautiful. It should not come as a surprise that the happiest places in the world are also drop-dead gorgeous, such as the Indian Ocean archipelago of Mauritius, which is the happiest country in Africa, according to the 2025 World Happiness Report from the University of Oxford and others.

Happy places often provide access to nature and promote active lifestyles, which can help relieve stress. The residents of the island of Ikaria in Greece, for example, one of the original Blue Zones, demonstrate high levels of physical activity and social interaction.

Philly Happiness Map

I asked my undergraduate psychology students at Drexel, many of whom come from other cities, states and countries, to pick one place in Philadelphia where they feel happy.

From the 243 student responses, the Happiness Lab curated 28 Philly happy places, based on how frequently the places were endorsed and their accessibility.

Philadelphia’s founder, William Penn, would likely approve that Rittenhouse Square Park and three other public squares – Logan, Franklin and Washington – were included. These squares were vital to Penn’s vision of landscaped public parks to promote the health of the mind and body by providing “salubrious spaces similar to the private garden.” They are beautiful and approachable, serving as “places to rest, take a pause, work, or read a book,” one student told us.

Places such as the Philadelphia Zoo, Penn’s Landing and the Philadelphia Museum of Art are “joyful spots that are fun to explore, and one can also take your parents along if need be,” as another student described.

The Athenaeum of Philadelphia, a historic library with eclectic programming, feels to one student like “coming home, a perfect third place.”

Some students mentioned happy places that are less known. These include tucked-away gardens such as the John F. Collings Park at 1707 Chestnut St., the rooftop Cira Green at 129 S. 30th St. and the James G. Kaskey Memorial Park and BioPond at 433 S. University Ave.

My students said these are small, unexpected spots that provide an excellent opportunity for a quiet, peaceful break, to be present, whether enjoyed alone or with a friend. I checked them out and I agree.

The students also mentioned places I had never heard of even though I’ve lived in the city for over 30 years.

The “cat park” at 526 N. Natrona St. in Mantua is a quiet little park with an eclectic personality and lots of friendly cats.

Mango Mango Dessert at 1013 Cherry St. in Chinatown, which is a frequently endorsed happiness spot among the students because of its “bustling streets, lively atmosphere and delicious food,” is a perfect pit stop for mango lovers. And Maison Sweet, at 2930 Chestnut St. in University City, is a casual bakery and cafe “where you may end up staying longer than planned,” one student shared.

I find that Philly’s happy places, as seen through the eyes of college students, tend to offer a space for residents to take time out from their day to pause, reset, relax and feel more connected and in touch with the city.

Happiness principals are universal, yet our own journeys are very personal. Philadelphians across the city may have their own list of happy places. There are really no right or wrong answers. If you don’t have a personal happy space, just start exploring and you may be surprised what you will find, including a new sense of happiness.

See the full Philly Happiness Map list here, and visit the exhibit at the W.W. Hagerty Library at Drexel University to learn more.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Eric Zillmer 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. Philly psychology students map out local landmarks and hidden destinations where they feel happiest – https://theconversation.com/philly-psychology-students-map-out-local-landmarks-and-hidden-destinations-where-they-feel-happiest-258790