What our love of ‘Heated Rivalry’ tells us about the state of queer sports in Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kyle Rich, Associate Professor of Sport Management, Brock University

The Canadian TV show Heated Rivalry recently went viral and garnered a worldwide audience far beyond its domestic market. Based on the popular novel by Rachel Reid, the series follows the secret romance between two professional hockey players, Shane Hollander and Ilya Rozanov, in a fictitious league.

The queer hockey romance was reported as the most watched original series on Crave and one of the top-rated non-animated series on HBO Max.

The show captivated audiences with steamy sex scenes, but similar to predecessors like Schitt’s Creek, it’s being touted as a Canadian cultural export and has people talking about the intersection of culture, sports and Canadian identity.

Queer people in sports

Queer inclusion in sport has become a political flashpoint. Heated Rivalry offers a timely opportunity to reflect on queer sports in the media, our communities and our national identity. It also illuminates how sports teams may lag behind other parts of society in their thinking about inclusion.

In recent years, there have been increased efforts to exclude and restrict the participation of 2SLGBTIQA+ people in sport. Governments in the United States and Alberta have introduced controversial policies targeting trans athletes specifically.

At the same time, professional sports leagues in many countries have taken steps, such as the introduction of Pride-themed events, intended to welcome queer people. But many have been criticized for tokenism and lack of authenticity — a phenomenon dubbed “rainbow washing.”

Hockey and inclusion initiatives

The NHL, and hockey more broadly, is experiencing a time of change. The league was an early partner in inclusive sport movements like the You Can Play Project and launched campaigns such as Hockey is for Everyone in attempts to reach wider audiences and “celebrate diversity and inclusion in hockey.”

However, in 2023, the league introduced a controversial policy that was widely interpreted as a ban on Pride Tape and likened to a “don’t say gay” policy in sports. Then, in early 2024, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman showed up at a Pride Event during All-Star Weekend in Toronto to make a donation to a local gay hockey league.

Globally, Canada is often recognized as a leader in relation to sports inclusion. A long history of celebrated queer Canadian athletes — including Mark Tewksbury and Marnie McBean — as well as hockey players like Angela James, Brock McGillis and Harrison Browne have been outspoken advocates for inclusive sport. Browne, notably, also appears in Heated Rivalry as one of Rozanov’s teammates.

Harrison Browne talks about his journey from hockey player to actor with Janet McMordie.

This reputation is reflected by Canadian sport governance. The government of Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee have clear positions and resources listed on their websites.

Sport Integrity Canada has commissioned research and taken a clear position on trans inclusion in sport. These initiatives are being implemented within national sport organizations such as Skate Canada.

However, professional sport leagues like the NHL operate outside of the sport governance system. As such, they are free to do their own thing. While they get much of the media attention, this doesn’t mean they are in touch with how Canadians feel about inclusion.

Are sport organizations out of touch?

In many ways, Heated Rivalry and the online response to it highlights how some professional sport organizations lag behind societal attitudes toward queer inclusion, and of gay men in particular. Our own research on Australian sporting organizations has shown how sporting institutions often trail broader social change.

While some teams try to leverage support for 2SLGBTIQA+ causes or interests to gain cultural capital and kudos, they often largely fail to advance genuine inclusion efforts towards queer athletes and staff in their own organizations.

There have been some important community-level efforts to make sport organizations more inclusive, and some national, provincial and community sport organizations in Canada are progressive in pursuing change.

However, organizational cultures are experienced differently across contexts, meaning inclusion is experienced unevenly and change remains slow.

While professional teams like the Professional Women’s Hockey League are champions of queer inclusion, men’s hockey seems to be lagging behind. In this context, gay hockey leagues provide important sport opportunities and act as advocates in their communities and the sport system.

For players in these leagues, Heated Rivalry invokes the fantasy to tell a story that we don’t yet have in real life.

Can ‘Heated Rivalry’ influence sport culture?

There has been a lot of online commentary focused on whether Heated Rivalry can lead to actual culture change in the NHL, ice hockey and sport more broadly.

The show draws attention to openly queer professional athletes. Athletes often hide who they are or moderate their behaviour in order to conform to dominant norms in sport.

This remains a persistent issue for many queer people in sport. A recent study shows that young athletes still choose not to come out to teammates for fear of being treated differently.

Hudson Williams, who plays Shane Hollander, has even spoken publicly about being contacted by closeted athletes who saw their own experiences mirrored in the show.

This is where where queer sport organizations play a critical role. Across the country, community-based queer sport groups have been working to offer safe and inclusive places to play.

What comes next?

We know that discrimination remains a key barrier for queer people in sport. In all contexts, addressing homophobia and broader 2SLGBTIQA+ discrimination must be a top priority. Homophobia in men’s sports is also a tool used to police masculinity and cause harm to straight men, meaning everyone stands to benefit from safer, more inclusive sporting environments.

The cultural relevance and global success of Heated Rivalry provides sports organizations, especially in Canada, an opportunity to step up efforts to make sport more inclusive for queer athletes.

It’s also a call for sports to listen to their fans and audiences. The show is a unique opportunity for queer athletes to imagine inclusion as a reality that could be realized beyond fantasy or utopia in a book.

The show has been renewed for a second season, with international releases now underway. Team Canada has even quipped that the fleece jacket featured in Episode 2 may be in the running as official team Canada merchandise. As such, this important and timely conversation is likely far from over.

The Conversation

Kyle Rich receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Ryan Storr consults to The Diversity Storr and Proud2Play. He has received funding from VicHealth and the Australian Sport Comission. He is affiliated with Proud2Play and the Diversity Storr.

ref. What our love of ‘Heated Rivalry’ tells us about the state of queer sports in Canada – https://theconversation.com/what-our-love-of-heated-rivalry-tells-us-about-the-state-of-queer-sports-in-canada-272979

Damn the torpedoes! Trump ditches a crucial climate treaty in latest move to dismantle America’s climate protections

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gary W. Yohe, Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University

Severe storms triggered flooding across the central and eastern U.S. in April 2025, including in Kentucky’s capital, Frankfort. Leandro Lozada/AFP via Getty Images

On Jan. 7, 2026, President Donald Trump declared that he would officially pull the United States out of the world’s most important global treaty for combating climate change. He said it was because the treaty ran “contrary to the interests of the United States.”

His order didn’t say which U.S. interests he had in mind.

Americans had just seen a year of widespread flooding from extreme weather across the U.S. Deadly wildfires had burned thousands of homes in the nation’s second-largest metro area, and 2025 had been the second- or third-hottest year globally on record. Insurers are no longer willing to insure homes in many areas of the country because of the rising risks, and they are raising prices in many others.

For decades, evidence has shown that increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, largely from burning fossil fuels, are raising global temperatures and influencing sea level rise, storms and wildfires.

The climate treaty – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – was created to bring the world together to find ways to lower those risks.

Trump’s order to now pull the U.S. out of that treaty adds to a growing list of moves by the admnistration to dismantle U.S. efforts to combat climate change, despite the risks. Many of those moves, and there have been dozens, have flown under the public radar.

Why this climate treaty matters

A year into the second Trump administration, you might wonder: What’s the big deal with the U.S. leaving the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change now?

After all, the Trump administration has been ignoring the UNFCCC since taking office in January. The administration moved to stop collecting and reporting corporate greenhouse gas emissions data required under the treaty. It canceled U.S. scientists’ involvement in international research. One of Trump’s first acts of his second term was to start the process of pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. Trump made similar moves in his first term, but the U.S. returned to the Paris agreement after he left office.

This action is different. It vacates an actual treaty that was ratified by the U.S. Senate in October 1992 and signed by President George H.W. Bush.

People stand near a bridge and searchers look through debris that has washed up.
Volunteers and law enforcement officers searched for weeks for victims who had been swept away when an extreme downpour triggered flash flooding in Texas Hill Country on July 4, 2025. More than 130 people died, including children attending a youth camp.
Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP via Getty Images

America’s ratification that year broke a logjam of inaction by nations that had signed the agreement but were wary about actually ratifying it as a legal document. Once the U.S. ratified it, other countries followed, and the treaty entered into force on March 21, 1994.

The U.S. was a global leader on climate change for years. Not anymore.

Chipping away at climate policy

With the flurry of headlines about the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, renewed threats to seize Greenland, persistent high prices, immigration arrests, ICE and Border Patrol shootings, the Epstein files and the fight over ending health care subsidies, important news from other critical areas that affect public welfare has been overlooked for months.

Two climate-related decisions did dominate a few news cycles in 2025. The Environmental Protection Agency announced its intention to rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding, a legal determination that certain greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and welfare that became the foundation of federal climate laws. There are indications that the move to rescind the finding could be finalized soon – the EPA sent its final draft rule to the White House for review in early January 2026. And the Department of Energy released a misinformed climate assessment authored by five handpicked climate skeptics.

Both moves drew condemnation from scientists, but that news was quickly overwhelmed by concern about a government shutdown and continuing science funding cuts and layoffs.

A man holds a fire hose to try to safe a property as a row of homes behind him burn
Thousands of people lost their homes as wildfires burned through dry canyons in the Los Angeles area and into neighborhoods in January 2025.
AP Photo/Ethan Swope

This chipping away at climate policy continued to accelerate at the end of 2025 with six more significant actions that went largely unnoticed.

Three could harm efforts to slow climate change:

Three other moves by the administration shot arrows at the heart of climate science:

Fossil fuels at any cost

In early January 2025, the United States had reestablished itself as a world leader in climate science and was still working domestically and internationally to combat climate risks.

A year later, the U.S. government has abdicated both roles and is taking actions that will increase the likelihood of catastrophic climate-driven disasters and magnify their consequences by dismantling certain forecasting and warning systems and tearing apart programs that helped Americans recover from disasters, including targeting the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

To my mind, as a scholar of both environmental studies and economics, the administration’s moves enunciated clearly its strategy to discredit concerns about climate change, at the same time it promotes greater production of fossil fuels. It’s “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” with little consideration for what’s at risk.

Trump’s repudiation of the UNFCCC could give countries around the world cover to pull back their own efforts to fight a global problem if they decide it is not in their myopic “best interest.” So far, the other countries have stayed in both that treaty and the Paris climate agreement. However, many countries’ promises to protect the planet for future generations were weaker in 2025 than hoped.

The U.S. pullout may also leave the Trump administration at a disadvantage: The U.S. will no longer have a formal voice in the global forum where climate policies are debated, one where China has been gaining influence since Trump returned to the presidency.

The Conversation

Gary W. Yohe 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. Damn the torpedoes! Trump ditches a crucial climate treaty in latest move to dismantle America’s climate protections – https://theconversation.com/damn-the-torpedoes-trump-ditches-a-crucial-climate-treaty-in-latest-move-to-dismantle-americas-climate-protections-273148

How hands-on textile work inspires creativity and growth

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tanya White, Associate professor, Fashion, Toronto Metropolitan University

Seated on the stone floor of a medieval fortress in Italy’s Tuscan hills, students rip thin, one-inch strips of fabric. They then knot the strips together to create extra chunky yarns. With these chunky yarns, they use oversized, thick crochet hooks, knitting needles and six foot-by-six foot tapestry looms.

This is in the Fortezza del Girifalco, in Cortona, in the Tuscany region of Italy, affectionately known to our group as “the castle.”

As a fashion and textile designer and professor at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU), I am here with students who are participating in the The Creative School’s Global Learning program.

I create with different yarns and software, developing art-to-wear, objects, sculptures and installations. Creating with textiles is how I express and process my ideas. Yet the purpose of this creative textile work with the students in this program goes far beyond exposing them to textiles. It’s about exploring processes through which we can unearth radical new forms, concepts and esthetics.

Students are from diverse programs at the Creative School at Toronto Metropolitan University (fashion, interior design, graphic communication management, journalism, professional communication, media production, performance and sports media). Over three weeks, we’ll create a substantial textile exhibition for peers, visitors and the Cortona residents.

Site of creative life

The Fortezza del Girifalco is a site of creative life. It has been repurposed and renovated for new visitors, artists and audiences. Most notably, it is the centre of the international photography festival Cortona on The Move.

Yearly, the Fortezza is reimagined, with new interior work, additional and updated partitions, floors and surfaces to facilitate the design of this world-class exhibition. It has a bistro, with coffee, drinks and food.

Planning such an educational-immersive experience involved a great deal of collaboration: discussions with the university dean’s office and professor Kathleen Pirrie Adams from the School of Media, and our Cortona operations lead, Tommaso Rossi. After this, the Fortezza Atelier course was planned and piloted in June 2025.

The aims were simple: show up, contribute, be creative and collaborate with your peers.

In three weeks, there was near-perfect attendance. Students gained skills and knowledge, culminating in the creation of a textile exhibition.

Creativity and craft

In the 2021 article, “Build to think, build to learn: What can fabrication and creativity bring to rethink (higher) education?”, authors Jean-Henry Morin and Laurent Moccozet combine their respective expertise in information systems and the representation of and visualization of knowledge to examine the inherent benefits of hands-on education.
They consider how this enriches and deepens theoretical understanding.

It is this common tacit knowledge that can’t be taught in the metaverse because it requires a shared embodied experience.

The course introduced students to making textiles, weaving, crochet, knitting and draping with a common raw material to start with, which was a roll of unbleached cotton calico or muslin. It was a purposely humble material that relied on the students’ creativity and resourcefulness.

The frayed yarns and rudimentary studio environment simplified the output, but this limitation became a benefit; they began to pick their exhibition spaces and discuss concepts, narratives and fabrication.

The Fortezza Atelier gave students the chance to unplug, disconnect and use their hands to create a textile project inspired by the Tuscan setting and their personal impressions of international travel and learning.

The classroom: the Fortezza del Girifalco

The journey to the Fortezza was a large part of the experience, set on top of the Tuscan hills.

Its steep incline provided a panoramic view of the surrounding Basilica of Santa Margherita, towns and valley.

It was accessed by a challenging but hikeable path or a small shuttle van that took the students up to the site in groups of eight. Some students would hike and some would ride.

For me, this daily commute was a near-spiritual set-up for the day, providing separation, concentration and a peaceful attitude toward work in the Fortezza — a pathway for other but related embodied creative practices.

Work began and ended with the journey up the mountain, which took presence and commitment every session.

Our Italian team member, Rossi, who manages the Fortezza, brought his two- year-old dachshund named Rustyn.

Rustyn became an honoured part of the Fortezza Atelier course, playing with the students, providing a mascot/emotional support animal role and even serving as a special guest at their final exhibition.

Communal practice

Not even a full day into the process, and without being asked, students were assisting each other, sharing knowledge and skills, forming teams organically and celebrating each other’s accomplishments. I helped and contributed to the communal learning environment.

After setting the expectations and aims on the first day, we, as a class of 32 plus one dog, worked productively, set our schedule and fulfilled our commitment to the course and each other.

Through interviews, informal conversation and a final reflective assignment, students shared their insights on the course: that with hard work, investment, care and collaboration, you can envision and create something with lasting impact.

For most, these projects seemed unattainable, even unimaginable, before time in Cortona.

The educational and social benefits of this opportunity for faculty, students and higher learning institutions also point to significant potential for other iterations of site-specific studio practice experiential learning programs tailored to specific locations and contexts.

The Conversation

Tanya White works for/consults for Toronto Metropolitan University, teaches in the Creative School Department.

ref. How hands-on textile work inspires creativity and growth – https://theconversation.com/how-hands-on-textile-work-inspires-creativity-and-growth-270914

Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in pushing for universal basic income

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Tarah Williams, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Allegheny College

Martin Luther King Jr. became involved not just in fights over racial equality but also economic hardship. Ted S. Warren/AP

Each year on the holiday that bears his name, Martin Luther King Jr. is remembered for his immense contributions to the struggle for racial equality. What is less often remembered but equally important is that King saw the fight for racial equality as deeply intertwined with economic justice.

To address inequality – and out of growing concern for how automation might displace workers – King became an early advocate for universal basic income. Under universal basic income, the government provides direct cash payments to all citizens to help them afford life’s expenses.

In recent years, more than a dozen U.S. cities have run universal basic income programs, often smaller or pilot programs that have offered guaranteed basic incomes to select groups of needy residents. As political scientists, we have followed these experiments closely.

One of us recently co-authored a study which found that universal basic income is generally popular. In two out of three surveys analyzed, majorities of white Americans supported a universal basic income proposal. Support is particularly high among those with low incomes.

King’s intuition was that white people with lower incomes would support this type of policy because they could also benefit from it. In 1967, King argued, “It seems to me that the Civil Rights Movement must now begin to organize for the guaranteed annual income … which I believe will go a long, long way toward dealing with the Negro’s economic problem and the economic problem with many other poor people confronting our nation.”

But there is one notable group that does not support universal basic income: those with higher levels of racial resentment. Racial resentment is a scale that social scientists have used to describe and measure anti-Black prejudice since the 1980s.

Notably, in our research, whites with higher levels of racial resentment and higher incomes are especially inclined to oppose universal basic income. As King well knew, this segment of Americans can create powerful opposition.

Economic self-interest can trump resentment

At the same time, the results of the study also suggest that coalition building is possible, even among the racially resentful.

Economic status matters. Racially resentful whites with lower incomes tend to be supportive of universal basic income. In short, self-interest seems to trump racial resentment. This is consistent with King’s idea of how an economic coalition could be built and pave the way toward racial progress.

Michael Tubbs, the mayor of Stockton, Calif., gestures with his hands while making a point.
As mayor of Stockton, Calif., Michael Tubbs ran a pioneering program that provided a basic income to a limited number of residents.
Rich Pedroncelli/AP

Income is not the only thing that shapes attitudes, however. Some of the strongest supporters of universal basic income are those who have higher incomes but low levels of racial resentment. This suggests an opportunity to build coalitions across economic lines, something King believed was necessary. “The rich must not ignore the poor,” he argued in his Nobel Peace Prize lecture, “because both rich and poor are tied in a single garment of destiny.” Our data shows that this is possible.

This approach to coalition building is also suggested by our earlier research. Using American National Election Studies surveys from 2004-2016, we found that for white Americans, racial resentment predicted lower support for social welfare policies. But we also found that economic position mattered, too.

Economic need can unite white Americans in support of more generous welfare policies, including among some who are racially prejudiced. At a minimum, this suggests that racial resentment does not necessarily prevent white Americans from supporting policies that would also benefit Black Americans.

Building lasting coalitions

During his career as an activist in the 1950s and 1960s, King struggled with building long-term, multiracial coalitions. He understood that many forms of racial prejudice could undermine his work. He therefore sought strategies that could forge alliances across lines of difference. He helped build coalitions of poor and working-class Americans, including those who are white. He was not so naive as to think that shared economic progress would eliminate racial prejudice, but he saw it as a place to start.

Martin Luther King Jr. speaks before a crowd at the 1963 March on Washington.
Martin Luther King Jr. believed Americans of different racial backgrounds could coalesce around shared economic interests.
AP

Currently, the nation faces an affordability crisis, and artificial intelligence poses new threats to jobs. These factors have increased calls for universal basic income.

Racial prejudice continues to fuel opposition to universal basic income, as well as other forms of social welfare. But our research suggests that this is not insurmountable.

As King knew, progress toward economic equality is not inevitable. But, as his legacy reminds us, progress does remain possible through organizing around shared interests.

The Conversation

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. Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in pushing for universal basic income – https://theconversation.com/martin-luther-king-jr-was-ahead-of-his-time-in-pushing-for-universal-basic-income-272963

Slanguage: The trouble with idioms is that they can leave even fluent English speakers behind

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Frank Boers, Professor of Applied Linguistics, Western University

Being a linguist — and someone who has tried to learn several languages (including English) in addition to my mother tongue (Flemish Dutch) — I have an annoying habit: instead of paying attention to what people are saying, I often get distracted by how they are saying it. The other day, this happened again in a meeting with colleagues.

I started writing down some of the expressions my colleagues were using to communicate their ideas that may be puzzling for users of English as a second or additional language.

In a span of about five minutes, I heard “it’s a no-brainer,” “to second something,” “being on the same page,” “to bring people up to speed,” “how you see fit,” “to table something” and “to have it out with someone.”

These are all expressions whose meanings do not follow straightforwardly from their lexical makeup — they’re called idioms by lexicologists.

Idioms are part of daily communication. But this anecdote also suggests that we take it for granted that such expressions are readily understood by members of the same community. However, when it comes to people who are new to said community, nothing could be further from the truth.


Learning a language is hard, but even native speakers get confused by pronunciation, connotations, definitions and etymology. The lexicon is constantly evolving, especially in the social media era, where new memes, catchphrases, slang, jargon and idioms are introduced at a rapid clip.
Slanguage, The Conversation Canada’s new series, dives into how language shapes the way we see the world and what it reveals about culture, power and belonging. Welcome to the wild and wonderful world of linguistics.


Idioms and the limits of language proficiency

Research conducted at the University of Birmingham several years ago revealed that international students for whom English is an additional language often misunderstand lecture content because they misinterpret their lecturers’ metaphorical phrases, including figurative idioms.

More recent research confirms that English idioms can remain elusive to second-language learners even if the expressions are intentionally embedded in transparent contexts.

One of my own recent studies, conducted with international students at Western University in Canada, also found that students incorrectly interpreted idioms and struggled to recall the actual meanings later on after being corrected.

This shows just how persistently confusing these expressions can be.

It’s worth mentioning that we’re talking about students who obtained high enough scores on standardized English proficiency tests to be admitted to English-medium universities. Knowledge of idioms appears to lag behind other facets of language.

When literal meanings get in the way

The challenge posed by idioms is not unique to English. All languages have large stocks of idioms, many of which second-language learners will find puzzling if the expressions do not have obvious counterparts in their mother tongue.

There are various obstacles to comprehending idioms, and recognizing these obstacles can help us empathize with those who are new to a community. For one thing, an idiom will inevitably be hard to understand if it includes a word that the learner does not know at all.

However, even if all the constituent words of an expression look familiar, the first meaning that comes to a learner’s mind can be misleading. For example, as a younger learner of English, I was convinced that the expression “to jump the gun” referred to an act of bravery because, to me, the phrase evoked an image of someone being held at gunpoint and who makes a sudden move to disarm an adversary.

I only realized that this idiom means “to act too soon” when I was told that the gun in this phrase does not allude to a firearm but to the pistol used to signal the start of a race.

I also used to think that to “follow suit” meant taking orders from someone in a position of authority because I thought “suit” alluded to business attire. Its actual meaning — “to do the same thing as someone else” — became clear only when I learned the other meaning of suit in card games such as bridge.

The idea that idioms prompt a literal interpretation may seem counter-intuitive to readers who have not learned a second language because we normally bypass such literal interpretations when we hear idioms in our first language. However, research suggests that second-language learners do tend to use literal meanings as they try to make sense of idioms.

Unfortunately, when language learners use a literal reading of an idiom to guess its figurative meaning, they are very often misled by ambiguous words. For example, they will almost inevitably misunderstand “limb” in the idiom “to go out on a limb” — meaning “to take a serious risk” — as a body part rather than a branch of a tree.

Recognizing the origin of an idiomatic expression can also be difficult because the domains of life from which certain idioms stem are not necessarily shared across cultures. For example, learners may struggle to understand English idioms derived from horse racing (“to win hands down”), golf (“par for the course”), rowing (“pull your weight”) and baseball (“cover your bases”), if these sports are uncommon in the communities in which they grew up.

A language’s stock of idioms provides a window into a community’s culture and history.

Same language, same idioms? Not exactly

Idiom repertoires vary across communities — whether defined regionally, demographically or otherwise — even when those communities share the same general language.

For example, if an Aussie were to criticize an anglophone Canadian for making a fuss by saying “you’re carrying on like a pork chop,” they may be lost in translation, even if there isn’t much of one. At least, linguistically that is.

Although people may have learned a handful of idioms in an English-language course taken in their home country, those particular idioms may not be the ones they will encounter later as international students or immigrants.

The moral is simple: be aware that expressions you consider perfectly transparent because you grew up with them may be puzzling to others. We need to have more empathy for people who are not yet familiar with the many hundreds of potentially confusing phrases that we use so spontaneously.

The Conversation

Frank Boers receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

ref. Slanguage: The trouble with idioms is that they can leave even fluent English speakers behind – https://theconversation.com/slanguage-the-trouble-with-idioms-is-that-they-can-leave-even-fluent-english-speakers-behind-271681

The Colombian border is one of the biggest obstacles to building a new Venezuela

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sally Sharif, Lecturer in Political Science, University of British Columbia

Since American forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, plunging the country into uncertainty, there have been hopes for a transition to democracy, the stabilization of its economy, a reduction in drug trafficking and conditions that might allow millions of Venezuelans abroad to return home.

But one factor will impede efforts at stabilizing the country: Venezuela’s hard-to-control border with Colombia, a shadow security zone that serves as a sanctuary and trafficking corridor for armed and dangerous organizations.

There are two main armed groups along the border:

  1. Leftist guerrillas in Colombia who have used Venezuelan territory to regroup, move supplies and evade counterinsurgency attacks.
  2. Leftist pro-government militias in Venezuela that have squashed dissent and exerted violence against civilians every time protests have erupted against Hugo Chávez and, later, Maduro.

Over time, these groups have often collaborated, turning a porous frontier into a shared operating space that any new Venezuelan government will have to dismantle.

The question, then, is whether any government — democratic or otherwise — can consolidate power in the presence of entities on both sides of an ungoverned international border with the most to lose from a change in the status quo.




Read more:
5 scenarios for a post-Maduro Venezuela — and what they could signal to the wider region


Venezuela: Shielding Colombian leftist rebels

I have been studying armed groups in Colombia for a decade. My research explains why about one-third of disarmed fighters of the guerrilla group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) have picked up arms again since a historic peace agreement in 2016.

The breakup in the organizational structure of FARC is one of these reasons. The other reason is Venezuela’s support.

When a handful of disarmed FARC commanders released a video in August 2019 announcing their return to taking up arms, they were able to do so because Maduro’s government had an ideological and strategic stake in keeping them afloat: a shared leftist, anti-imperialist world view that treated Colombia’s Marxist guerrillas as political allies.

In fact, when I interview disarmed FARC combatants in Colombian provinces on the border for my research, they consistently describe Venezuela as a place where they could recuperate, treat injured fighters and regroup after Colombian military pressure, which was equipped and funded in part by the U.S. government.

In the border province of Norte de Santander, the FARC and another leftist guerrilla group, the National Liberation Army (ELN), collaborate to ship coca paste from the expansive coca fields of northeastern Colombia through alluvial paths and dirt roads to Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela. From there, speed boats take the cocaine to the U.S.

In one interview, I asked a former FARC commander to draw the trafficking route on a map. To my surprise, it zig-zagged across the international border between Colombia and Venezuela.

Any attempt to change the status quo in Venezuela will therefore be met with fierce resistance by Colombian armed groups who have for decades benefited from a porous border and a helping hand across it.

Armed militias mobilized by Chavez

Colombia has done its share of influencing Venezuela’s politics, in particular during the presidency of Álvaro Uribe from 2002 to 2010, when
Colombia was closely tied to the U.S. and was perceived by former president Chávez as a threat to his revolution.

After the failed April 2002 coup attempt against Chávez — when some members of the military and opposition briefly removed him from office before he returned within two days — the president responded by backing armed pro-government militias, known as colectivos, so they could help defend his rule.

For years, Maduro consistently armed and provided impunity to militias that run street-level checkpoints and show up fast across the country when the regime feels threatened.

In the days after Maduro’s recent capture, those groups were visibly deployed across the capital of Caracas, patrolling on motorbikes with rifles, stopping cars and demanding access to people’s phones — signalling that Chávez’s ideology still has muscle on the street, even if its top leader is now in an American jail cell.

Militias are one of the most destructive forces for a society. Once mobilized, they allow governments to avoid accountability for violence and repression. They are also difficult to get rid of. My research also shows that almost half of armed groups return to fighting after going through disarmament.

With armed violence in Colombia surging again and leftist armed groups entrenched along the frontier, any crackdown on Venezuelan colectivos risks pushing them across the border into Colombia, where allied guerrillas can shelter them until the pressure eases.

Sore spots for state-building

International borders are sore spots for countries attempting to consolidate power and transition to peace. The civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been raging for decades because of neighbouring Rwanda’s support for the rebels.

The World Bank ran into this reality in the Great Lakes region of Africa: it helped launch the Multi-Country Demobilization and Reintegration Program because efforts to demobilize fighters in one country didn’t work when armed groups and combatants were moving and operating across borders.

Similarly, the Colombia-Venezuela border has long fuelled cycles of violence in Colombia. It will now be the main sticking point in any Venezuelan efforts to reduce drug trafficking, consolidate power and transition to democracy and the rule of law.

The Conversation

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

ref. The Colombian border is one of the biggest obstacles to building a new Venezuela – https://theconversation.com/the-colombian-border-is-one-of-the-biggest-obstacles-to-building-a-new-venezuela-272975

Slanguage: How ‘6-7’ makes sense even though it means nothing

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nicole Rosen, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Language Interactions, University of Manitoba

The expression “6-7” spread like wildfire last year, making its way outside the realm of usual adolescent slang and into the collective discourse, popping up at public sports events, in Halloween costumes and even in teachers’ lesson plans.

A couple of things are clear about the 6-7 phenomenon: kids love saying it and adults love hating it. But what does it actually mean? The answer — “It doesn’t mean anything” — appears to be the main complaint. But meaning nothing is kind of the whole point.

While it may not signify anything in the conventional sense of meaning, 6-7 expresses solidarity and belonging.

Users of the expression show that they’re part of the in-group as opposed to those who “just don’t get it.” They’re deploying something sociolinguists call “social meaning.”

Social meaning can be thought of as value-added information about the speaker and their attitude, their stance and how they want to portray themselves in the world. It’s an integral part to how we understand language, and the fact that this is being spread by young adolescents is no accident.


Learning a language is hard, but even native speakers get confused by pronunciation, connotations, definitions and etymology. The lexicon is constantly evolving, especially in the social media era, where new memes, catchphrases, slang, jargon and idioms are introduced at a rapid clip.
Slanguage, The Conversation Canada’s new series, dives into how language shapes the way we see the world and what it reveals about culture, power and belonging. Welcome to the wild and wonderful world of linguistics.


Not all meaning is about dictionary definitions

When people think about meaning, it’s normally semantic meaning. Six, for example, is a numerical concept that we understand to mean one more than five and one less than seven. It’s another way of saying half a dozen. It’s the age that most children enter Grade 1. Maybe it’s suppertime.

6-7, on the other hand, is void of any semantic meaning. It doesn’t even refer to quantity. Consider the difference between, “I’d like 6-7 crackers” versus simply yelling “6-7” and doing the viral hand gesture. The 6-7 in the first sentence means an amount of crackers, the 6-7 in the latter does not actually refer to an amount at all. But that doesn’t make it meaningless.

While 6-7 has no semantic meaning, it has a very definite social meaning. Social meaning involves how hearers interpret language not only on the basis of the meaning of the words, but on the basis of what kind of person is speaking and how they align themselves socially.

And the truth is that we rely on social meaning like this all the time, even if we don’t notice it.

Social meaning speaks volumes

Consider a person’s clothing and hairstyle, for example.

Wearing a Winnipeg Jets jersey and a mullet hairstyle signals to people in Canada things about you without you even opening your mouth: you’re a hockey enthusiast, invested in a team, and probably play or watch the game regularly. Then, to add to these visual cues, you can use a phrase such as “Fire that biscuit top shelf!” that lets people know not only that you want your player to “shoot the puck up high in the corner of the net,” (semantic meaning) but also that you’re positioning yourself as a hockey person who is knowledgeable on the matter (social meaning).

True synonyms are rare in languages. Even when there are two words that mean the same thing, they usually have different connotations, are used in different contexts or have different social meanings. Calling a “puck” a “biscuit” might be referring to the same object, but it certainly does not have the same overall meaning in discourse.

Usually, words have at least semantic meaning and sometimes also social meaning. 6-7 is interesting precisely because it has no semantic meaning, only social meaning, which is much more uncommon.

Slang, social development and growing up

The fact that an expression with only social meaning has been adopted primarily by adolescents is to be expected. Adolescence is a period of intense social development.

This age group is leaving childhood behind, and the teenage years have consistently been found to be a time of deep linguistic change when social meaning becomes paramount as they strive to stake their own place in the world. Adolescents are demarcating themselves both from younger children and from their parents.

This era results in what is often called the adolescent peak of 15 to 17, when the use of new slang and innovative items is most pronounced. That said, 6-7 is generally used by a younger group, more in the 11 to 14 age range — and even younger now, as it moves rapidly through the population.

It’s possible that we’re seeing the effects of children being online at a younger age, and that this intense social development is happening earlier.

In the end, the fact that 6-7 doesn’t mean anything is perfectly fine. It’s not simply “brain rot,” but rather the developmentally appropriate creation of a saying with social meaning for adolescents at a time when social dynamics are the most important aspect of their lives.

And if you really hate it, don’t worry, you don’t have to use it, and yes, it will pass. By now it’s so widespread that only the uncool (adults and younger kids) are using it anyway. It has already lost its cachet.

A new perplexing, yet socially meaningful, phrase or expression will soon take its place. In fact, it appears that 41 may be the new 6-7.

The Conversation

Nicole Rosen has received funding from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canada Research Chair program.

ref. Slanguage: How ‘6-7’ makes sense even though it means nothing – https://theconversation.com/slanguage-how-6-7-makes-sense-even-though-it-means-nothing-270006

The making and breaking of Uganda: an interview with scholar Mahmood Mamdani

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Mahmood Mamdani, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University

In his latest book, Slow Poison: Idi Amin, Yoweri Museveni, and the Making of the Ugandan State, anthropologist Mahmood Mamdani explains the factors and characters – Idi Amin and Yoweri Museveni – that shaped post-independence Uganda.

As he explains to The Conversation Africa, there are striking differences between the two men.

Museveni has been in office for almost four decades. Amin lasted eight years. What explains Museveni’s endurance?

I try to explain in the book some of the most important reasons Museveni has lasted for more than four decades. I think these reasons are both internal and external.

The internal reason is that he has tried to perfect what the British introduced as “divide and rule”, which is to undermine the basis of a unified citizenship in the country. Not just as the British did, taking existing ethnic groups and politicising them into political structures we call tribes. But more than that, taking some sub-ethnic groups and turning them into tribes. So from fewer than 20 tribes, he has created more than 100. It’s an endless process.

And then there is the external. Unlike Amin, who was the sworn enemy of big powers in the west, Museveni is the sworn protégé and the sworn friend of the big powers in the west.

Some analysts seem to suggest that it’s only now, particularly after his son has started making sort of political pronouncements, that Ugandan politics is being militarised. But a theme that comes out clearly in your book is that under both Amin and Museveni, the army has always been a substitute for political organisation in Uganda.

I think that’s a correct reading of the book. Now, within that very broad comparison, there are some important differences in the route taken by Amin.

Amin was recruited as a child soldier by the British at the age of 14 or so. He was trained in what they call the arts of counter insurgency, which is really a polite term for state terrorism. He used to publicly demonstrate, particularly to African heads of state, for example, at their meeting in Morocco, how he could suffocate with a handkerchief.

And Amin went through some kind of a transformation in the first year after he had gained power.

He gained power through the direct assistance of the British and the Israelis. The Israelis, in particular, advised Amin that he could not just overthrow Uganda’s first post-independence president Milton Obote and think that that was the end of the story. He would have to deal with his cohorts, the people he had brought to key positions, and the reckoning would be around the corner.

So the only way he could avoid the reckoning was to annihilate them. And his first year in power was brutal. I mean, he killed hundreds of people in different army barracks. These were massacres. There’s no other word to describe it.

And then, after that, he went to Israel and to Britain with sort of a list of what he wanted. He thought he had gone forward for the Israelis and the British, and now it was time for them to do him a favour. And they were amused, and he was humiliated. He looked for an alternative, and that is how he, through the then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, met Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and that is how, through Gaddafi, he met Sudanese leader Gaafar Muhammad Nimeiry. Amin, along with Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie, played a key role in the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972 which brought the first civil war in Sudan to an end.

After the second year of his coming to power, I don’t know of any massacres. He still killed opponents, but he did not generalise the killing to either family or friends or clans or just groups that the person was identified with or associated with. His killing was much more that of a dictator who uses violence to deal with his opposition.

It’s very different in Museveni’s case. Museveni came to power with the sense that violence is critical to politics, and especially critical to liberation politics. Museveni is an avid devotee of Frantz Fanon, particularly The Wretched of the Earth. And the key lesson he takes from Fanon is the essentiality of violence in any emancipatory politics.

And so I try to trace the path whereby Museveni begins by thinking of violence as central to dismantling an oppressive state and ends up with the notion that violence is central to building a state. He arrives at exactly the opposite conclusion. And this is long before his son comes into the picture.

There’s a whole chapter I have in the book on the first few decades after 1986 when Museveni comes to power in his operations in the north and in successive massacres and killings, claiming that what he was fighting in the north was a continuation of the war on terror, which had begun after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.

And these claims were just accepted at face value by the international community, which is the name we give to western powers.

So would you say the war on terror was a godsend for Museveni in helping him advance his agenda?

Definitely. Ever since the structural adjustment programme of the late 1980s, he understood that if he was going to stifle opposition at home, he would need support overseas, and this support would come to him if he claimed to be central to waging the war on terror.

Museveni was smart enough to realise that American foreign policy, American military involvement, had political limitations. And those limitations were: how many Americans could be killed? And when these killings took place in Somalia, the Black Hawk Down incident, Museveni offered his services.

He took his soldiers to Somalia. You remember that slogan, African solutions for African problems. Museveni offered that African solution in South Sudan, in Rwanda, in eastern Congo. The African solution was just a fancy name for Africans massacring Africans in the service of imperial powers. And that’s what happened at the end.

You recommend a federation as the most likely to succeed in post Museveni Uganda. Is there a political base for it at the moment? Or would something need to happen for the proposed federation to succeed?

Those of us who are militant nationalists and independents understood federation as a British project. We understood that it was the right wing, it was those who were interested in creating tribal fiefdoms, who used federation as a fig leaf to describe their agenda. We understood that this was their way of undercutting any attempt to build a strong nationalist state.

But since then, with a strong state having been built, we have understood the conditions have changed and the times have changed. Local organisation, local autonomy, has come to have a very different significance.

It is a way of resisting a development of autocracy in the centre and I think people are beginning to draw lessons from this.

Now, the thing is what kind of federation, because Museveni has also promoted something resembling a federation. But he has, as in Ethiopia, promoted what you can call an ethnic federalism. So in each single unit, he has divided the majority from the minority, the majority belonging to the ethnic group living in the country, and the minority having descended from other ethnic groups, even though living in the country, even though born in that place, still deprived of rights.

This is what’s happened in Ethiopia. If you look at Ethiopia, if you look at Sudan, you will see that the British politicised ethnic groups and turned them into tribes. And then after colonialism, what we have done is to militarise these tribes. So we have created tribal militias. That’s what they have done in Ethiopia. That’s the fighting between different tribal militias. That’s what they did in Sudan. They created tribal militias, starting in Darfur and then in other places. It is the state military which led the systems in creating these tribal militias. Then it is the tribal militias which have begun to swallow the state.

So this current civil war we have going on is between the state army and the tribal militias. It’s the same process you see in Uganda. We have not gone to the point of creating tribal militias, but we have been manufacturing tribe after tribe after tribe in order to fragment the country.

Some of these trends that you describe about Uganda can be found in most African countries. What are the lessons about the way forward for the rest of the African continent?

Broadly, we can see these trends in many African countries. The British model of colonialism became the general colonial model. Even the French, known for their assimilationist preferences, adopted indirect rule when they moved from assimilation to what they called association in the 1930s. And the Portuguese followed the French.

South Africans were the last ones in – they called it apartheid. But it was the same thing, the creation of homelands, the tribalisation of local differences. So that’s one trend in much of the thinking on the continent.

The alternative to that trend has been described as centralisation, so we’ve been moving between beefing up autocratic, centralised power and then opposing with fragmented, tribal powers.

I’m proposing a third way. I’m proposing a federation which is more ethnic. I’m proposing a federation which is more based on territory, more based on where you live. So it doesn’t matter where you’re from, but just the fact that you live there means that you have cast your lot with the rest of the people there in creating a common future.

And what matters in politics, more than where you came from, is the decision to make a common future. Migration is characteristic of human society. Human society has not come into being through homelands. So homeland is a colonial fiction.

The idea that Africans did not move, that they were tied to a particular piece of territory, is absurd, because Africans moved more than anybody else. We know that humanity began in Africa and spread to the rest of the world. So where is the homeland? You can have a homeland for this generation, for the previous few generations, but all African people have a story of migration. This is, I think, central.

So the way forward: one is a federation which consolidates democracy rather than eroding it.

The second way forward is to critically think through the whole neoliberal economic model and the empowering of elites, whether they are racial or ethnic or whatever.

I think we have to find a different economic model. But as you say, the book is not dedicated to looking for solutions. The book is dedicated to the proposition that we need to understand the problem before rushing to solutions.

And each country will have its own nuances. Different to Uganda.

The Conversation

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

ref. The making and breaking of Uganda: an interview with scholar Mahmood Mamdani – https://theconversation.com/the-making-and-breaking-of-uganda-an-interview-with-scholar-mahmood-mamdani-272181

Research institutions tout the value of scholarship that crosses disciplines – but academia pushes interdisciplinary researchers out

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bruce Weinberg, Professor of Economics, The Ohio State University

Interdisciplinary researchers are trained to conduct work that crosses between fields. PixelsEffect/E+ via Getty Images

The most exciting landmark scientific achievements don’t happen without researchers sharing and collaborating with others outside their field. When people first landed on the Moon in 1969, Neil Armstrong’s first footsteps marked the realization of a century-long vision that integrated a variety of scientific fields. Landing on the Moon required expertise in electrical, mechanical, chemical and computer engineering, as well as astronomy and physics.

Similarly, the advances in genetics that have made the biotechnology revolution possible involved contributions from disciplines as far ranging as biology, mathematics and statistics, chemistry and computer science.

Today, some of the biggest challenges that scientists face are interdisciplinary in nature – from studying the effects of climate change to managing generative artificial intelligence.

Climate change isn’t only an environmental problem, just like the impact of AI isn’t solely technological. Scientists in a variety of disciplines can independently come up with ways to examine these issues, but as research has shown, the most effective approaches often integrate multiple fields.

Our own interdisciplinary team of researchers in economics and informatics – itself an interdisciplinary field focused on technology, information and people – explored the career hurdles that many interdisciplinary researchers face in a study published in July 2024. We studied how these challenges affect their careers and the production of interdisciplinary research.

Infrastructure and interdisciplinary work

Government and private funders alike have introduced programs to support interdisciplinary work. Universities foster interdisciplinary research through joint appointments, hiring multiple faculty at once, centers that span disciplines, and graduate programs that join different fields.

With these efforts, you might expect a high demand and exceptional career outcomes for interdisciplinary researchers. However, this does not appear to be the case. The American academic system is still very much dominated by disciplines and academic departments. A researcher whose work doesn’t fit neatly into a category can easily fall through the cracks.

The structure of distinct disciplines and departments is deeply embedded in universities. Many researchers have trouble finding a journal willing to publish interdisciplinary papers or a department willing to offer interdisciplinary classes. Students interested in this work have difficulty finding mentors.

Interdisciplinary researchers may have a harder time publishing their work.
Maggie Villiger, CC BY-ND

When interdisciplinary researchers apply for jobs, promotion and tenure, hiring committees made up of members of a single discipline may have difficulty evaluating their work. That issue can put these researchers at a disadvantage, compared to candidates with more traditional backgrounds.

Interdisciplinary centers, institutes and programs are often less permanent structures than departments. Sometimes they’re devised as solutions to fill in the cracks between the work done in different departments or to address real-world problems. These centers are a kind of borderlands – they can attract scientists, especially established ones, who want to identify and pivot toward new research problems. But they’re not generally designed to support scientists’ careers long term.

Career challenges

Our 2024 study focused on biomedical research, which can benefit from an interdisciplinary approach because of the complexity of biological processes and human behavior.

A venn diagram of three circles
Interdisciplinary researchers work at the nexus of multiple academic subfields.
MirageC/Moment via Getty Images

To start, we wanted to understand whether researchers with interdisciplinary training had longer careers publishing their research than those without. The results were stark.

Interdisciplinary researchers stopped publishing much earlier than researchers who stuck to a single discipline. The most interdisciplinary researchers – those whose work draws the most on other disciplines beyond their primary field – had the shortest careers. Half of the most interdisciplinary researchers – the top 1% in terms of the interdisciplinarity of their work as graduate students – stopped publishing within eight years of graduation. Moderately interdisciplinary and single-discipline researchers kept publishing for more than 20 years.

Many interdisciplinary researchers left academia early in their career, by the point when most scholars transition into faculty positions and start to get promoted or receive tenure.

Many researchers who leave do important work in industry and other sectors. However, the high attrition rate of these researchers in biomedicine means that few senior scientists remain in academia to conduct interdisciplinary research or train future interdisciplinary researchers.

Researchers who started out as interdisciplinary tended to become more focused on one discipline early in their careers, as if recognizing that disciplinary work is the smoothest route to success.

However, we also found that over the 40-year period our study examined, biomedical research became more interdisciplinary overall. Ironically, single-discipline researchers, whose interdisciplinary work tends to be lower quality, drove that growth, becoming more interdisciplinary as their careers progressed.

But our study found that these researchers usually didn’t have specialized training in interdisciplinary research. They may have become more interdisciplinary through collaborations with researchers in other fields.

So, even though the overall level of interdisciplinarity in the field increased, trained interdisciplinary researchers left academia, and the single-discipline researchers without the same training were the ones conducting much of the interdisciplinary work.

Consequences for research

Our findings indicate another striking trend: Researchers entering the research community tended to be less interdisciplinary than the ones already in it.

Studies have shown that early career researchers often do the most innovative work. But at this formative career stage, they do not lend their talents to interdisciplinary work as frequently.

While many people in the academic community say they want to see more interdisciplinary research, the new, more discipline-focused scholars joining the system aren’t conducting this work.

Our analysis suggests that finding ways for universities, departments and funders to support early career interdisciplinary researchers could keep these scholars from leaving and increase the output of interdisciplinary work.

Many difficult societal problems will require research that cuts across the lines of established disciplines to solve. Right now, academia rewards scholars who work within disciplinary boundaries and climb the departmental career ladder.

To remedy this issue, universities and funding agencies could create better incentives for collaboration and research that addresses critical problems regardless of the discipline. These changes could create space for interdisciplinary researchers to thrive and become mentors for future generations of scientists.

The Conversation

Bruce Weinberg receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Ewing Marion Kauffman and Alfred P. Sloan Foundations, as well as the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Enrico Berkes received funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health while a postdoctoral researcher at The Ohio State University.

Monica Marion has received funding from the National Science Foundation.

Staša Milojević received funding from the National Science Foundation and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

ref. Research institutions tout the value of scholarship that crosses disciplines – but academia pushes interdisciplinary researchers out – https://theconversation.com/research-institutions-tout-the-value-of-scholarship-that-crosses-disciplines-but-academia-pushes-interdisciplinary-researchers-out-254034

Wars without clear purpose erode presidential legacies, and Trump risks political consequences with further military action in Venezuela

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University

The body of U.S. Army Spc. Israel Candelaria Mejias is carried in a transfer case at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware after he was killed on April 5, 2009, near Baghdad. AFP Photo/Paul J. Richards via Getty Images

Despite public support in the U.S. for deposing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump is unlikely to find that level of support for fighting an actual war in that country.

Even as Trump tries to work through Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president and now the acting leader of the country, to manage Venezuela, there are echoes of President George W. Bush in Iraq with Trump saying that the United States will “run” Venezuela and “nurse it back to health” with Venezuelan oil wealth. None of that – which requires a lot of control by Washington and a major presence on the ground – can or will happen without a significant commitment of U.S. military forces, however, which Trump hasn’t ruled out.

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” Trump said.

Yet U.S. citizens have been and remain deeply skeptical of military action in Venezuela. From Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush, history shows that leaders often pay a high political price – and costs to their legacy, too – when wars they start or expand become unpopular.

As an expert on U.S. foreign policy and regime change wars, my research shows that every major U.S. war since 1900 – especially those that involved regime change – was buoyed at its outset by a big story with a grand purpose or objective. This helped galvanize national support to bear the costs of these wars.

During the Cold War, a story about the dangers of Soviet power to American democracy and the need to combat the spread of communism brought strong public support, at least initially, for wars in Korea and Vietnam, along with smaller operations in the Caribbean and Latin America.

In the 2000s and 2010s, the dominant narrative about preventing another Sept. 11 and quelling global terrorism generated strong initial public support for wars in Iraq – 70% in 2003 – and Afghanistan, 88% in 2001.

A big problem Trump now faces is that no similar story exists for Venezuela.

President Donald Trump said on Jan. 3, 2026, that the US is “not afraid of boots on the ground” in Venezuela.

What national interest?

The administration’s justifications for war cover a hodgepodge of reasons, such as stopping drugs that flow almost exclusively to Europe, not the U.S.; seizing oil fields that benefit U.S. corporations but not the wider public; and somehow curtailing China’s efforts to build roads and bridges in Latin America.

All these are unrelated to any story-driven sense of collective mission or purpose. Unlike Korea or Afghanistan at the start, Americans don’t know what war in Venezuela will bring them and whether it is worth the costs.

This lack of a holistic story or broad rationale shows up in the polls. In November, only 15% of Americans saw Venezuela as a national emergency. A plurality, 45%, opposed an overthrow of Maduro. After Maduro was removed in early January 2026, Americans’ opposition to force in Venezuela grew to 52%. No rally around the flag here.

Americans also worry about where things are heading in Venezuela, with 72% saying Trump has not clearly explained plans going forward. Few want the mantle of regime change, either. Nine in 10 say Venezuelans, not the United States, should choose their next government. And more than 60% oppose additional force against Venezuela or other Latin American countries.

Only 43% of Republicans want the United States to dominate the Western Hemisphere, indicating Trump’s foreign policy vision isn’t even popular in his own party.

Overall, these numbers stand in sharp contrast to past U.S. wars bolstered by big stories, where there was generally a deep, bipartisan consensus behind using force.

For the moment, 89% of Republicans support removing Maduro. But 87% of Democrats and 58% of independents are opposed.

Reflecting the national skepticism – and in a rebuke of Trump – the U.S. Senate advanced a measure to final vote requiring Trump to get congressional approval before taking further military action in Venezuela. Five Senate Republicans joined all Democratic senators in voting for the measure.

All told, the U.S. political system is flashing red when it comes to war in Venezuela.

Hubris can turn deadly

Research shows that U.S. regime change wars almost never go as planned. Yet, the hubris of U.S. leaders sometimes causes them to ignore this fact, which can result in deadly trouble. In Iraq, influential Vice President Dick Cheney told one interviewer, “We’ll be greeted as liberators.” We weren’t, and U.S. forces got bogged down in a bloody insurgency war.

Experts say the same trouble could come in Venezuela.

US soldiers sitting at a table with a tv behind them showing an image of Barack Obama.
U.S. Army soldiers watch a TV airing election coverage of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama at a base located along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border on Nov. 4, 2008.
David Furst/AFP via Getty Images

What might stop the United States from rolling into a deeper war that’s not in line with how the public views U.S. interests? My research shows that the answer lies with U.S. leaders taking steps to back away from owning what comes next in Venezuela.

This turns a lot on presidential rhetoric. When leaders make robust commitments to action, it often boxes them in politically later on to follow through, even if they don’t want to do so. Their words create what political scientists call “audience costs,” which are domestic political setbacks, or punishment, that leaders will face if they fail to follow through on what they promised to do.

Audience costs can even form in a case like Venezuela, because despite limited public support for force, the media along with proponents of war inside and outside government often pick up on a president’s words and produce a churning conversation. That conversation is visible now in the news cycle, with leading Republicans and other prominent voices calling for more robust action. It’s the “you broke it, you fix it” discussion.

This churn raises questions about the president’s credibility that sometimes makes leaders feel boxed in to act, even when public support is questionable.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama promised to devote greater attention and resources to the war in Afghanistan. When he got in office, Obama’s words came back to bite him. Political pressure generated by his campaign pledge made it almost impossible for Obama to avoid surging troops into Afghanistan at a much higher level than what he intended.

While presidents should always strive to keep the public informed of the direction policy is headed, research shows that leaders can avoid the trap of audience costs by remaining relatively vague and noncommittal, which the public now prefers, about future military actions.

On Venezuela, Trump has done some of this vague language work already by sidestepping specifics about when and if force will be used again, and by also downplaying talk of U.S.-led democracy promotion. If he stops talking about “running” Venezuela and adopts the more measured language used by advisers such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who says the goal is to “move (Venezuela) in a certain direction” but not run the country, Trump could take another step away from being boxed in to do more militarily.

Events on the ground in Venezuela might also factor into future U.S. policy. Obama would not have faced the political pressure for the surge that he did when coming to office if the Afghan war had been going in a more positive direction.

Venezuela is close to economic collapse, according to some experts, due to Caracas’ inability to reap the profits of selling oil abroad. If that happens, political chaos could follow and leave Trump, like Obama in Afghanistan, feeling lots of pressure to act militarily, especially if Trump is still saying he “runs” Venezuela.

Again, Americans don’t want that, which means taking steps, such as loosening the current oil embargo, to alleviate economic pain in Venezuela might make sense for Trump. Otherwise, if American troops are sent in by Trump and deaths mount, even a president deemed virtually untouchable by scandal and failure could find himself finally paying a political price for his decisions.

The Conversation

Charles Walldorf is affiliated with Defense Priorities.

ref. Wars without clear purpose erode presidential legacies, and Trump risks political consequences with further military action in Venezuela – https://theconversation.com/wars-without-clear-purpose-erode-presidential-legacies-and-trump-risks-political-consequences-with-further-military-action-in-venezuela-273199