Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Susan L. Cutter, Distinguished Professor of Geography and Director of the Hazards Vulnerability & Resilience Institute, University of South Carolina

When the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s urban search and rescue team resigned after the deadly July 4, 2025, Texas floods, he told colleagues he was frustrated with bureaucratic hurdles that had delayed the team’s response to the disaster, acccording to media reports. The move highlighted an ongoing challenge at FEMA.

Ever since the agency lost its independent status and became part of the Department of Homeland Security in the early 2000s, it has faced complaints about delays caused by layers of bureaucracy and red tape, leaders at the top with little experience in emergency response, and whiplash policy changes.

Now, the Trump administration is cutting jobs at FEMA and talking about dismantling the agency, which would push more responsibility for disaster response to the states.

Yet, federal emergency management is crucial in America.

I run the Hazards Vulnerability & Resilience Institute at the University of South Carolina and for years have worked with states and communities facing hazards and disasters. To better understand FEMA’s value, let’s take a look back at how the nation responded to disasters before the agency existed, and what history reveals about when FEMA was most effective.

Disaster response without the US government

Before 1950, disaster relief and response were not considered a federal responsibility. When a hurricane, flood or tornado hit, community members and humanitarian groups, such as the American Red Cross or Salvation Army, brought in food, shelter and medical aid and solicited charitable donations to help people rebuild.

State and local governments had primary responsibility for disaster response. But mostly people relied on family, neighbors and charity.

Federal aid was approved on a case-by-case basis. War Department guidelines in 1917 stated that aid would be allowed only if a senior military officer certified that responding to the disaster would exceed local and state resources.

Then the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and the 1930s Dust Bowl gave new meaning to the concept of disaster in America.

In 1927, the Mississippi River broke through its levees, submerging more than 1 million acres of land across seven states. An estimated 700,000 people were displaced from their homes and workplaces.

Herbert Hoover, then U.S. commerce secretary, was given full authority to create, coordinate and carry out the federal relief effort. The Red Cross set up camps using tents provided by the War Department. Coast Guard and Navy boats rescued people stranded by flooding. But the response drew criticism for the lack of direct federal money to help flood survivors and the treatment of Black sharecroppers and laborers.

A few years later, the droughts of the Dust Bowl era began destroying crops in the Great Plains, causing widespread damage.

Federal disaster aid begins to take shape

After the flood, the federal government began to formalize its role in disaster management.

Flood control projects became a federal responsibility with the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1928. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal provided emergency relief to farmers in the Great Plains and set up the Soil Conservation Service to help them reduce the effects of future droughts. These were among the first disaster mitigation policies at the federal level.

There was little coordination among agencies, however. Various aspects of disaster relief and recovery were handled by the departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration. Each had its own rules and requirements.

In 1950, Congress passed the Federal Disaster Relief Act, establishing the first permanent authority for federal disaster relief.

The act gave the president the responsibility to determine how aid would be distributed and which agencies would be involved. The legislation also broadened the federal mission to include disaster preparedness and mitigation and formalized the process for issuing presidential disaster declarations.

The creation of FEMA

By the 1970s, large-scale disasters such as hurricanes Betsy (1965) and Camille (1969), and the fragmented disaster response, led the National Governors Association to call for a single comprehensive emergency management agency. Its report provided the blueprint for President Jimmy Carter’s 1979 executive order that established the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.

The new agency became the home for emergency management within the executive branch. It was intentionally designed as an independent federal administrative agency that could work across federal agencies to support state and local governments in times of crisis.

FEMA wasn’t created to lead the disaster response. Instead it helps state and local officials by mobilizing federal resources, such as search and rescue, debris removal and funding when a disaster overwhelms the state’s capacity. FEMA could do this quickly because of established federal contracts and its ability to move equipment and responders into the region before a disaster hits.

When things began to fall apart

However, FEMA’s ability to act fast changed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The agency was restructured as a unit in the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. But the Department of Homeland Security’s focus was on terrorism and law enforcement, not natural disasters.

The loss of autonomy and direct reporting to Congress, unfunded mandates outside the scope of the 1988 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and major increases in the number of large and complex disasters stretched FEMA’s capabilities.

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, FEMA’s response drew widespread criticism. It was slow to deploy people and supplies and lacked enough experienced responders who knew what to do. Decision-makers were not familiar with new national response plans. Further breakdowns in communications and a lack of coordination among agencies led Congress to declare the Hurricane Katrina response a failure of initiative and agility.

FEMA’s reputation improved after the government brought in more experienced leadership and committed to preparedness planning and better response capabilities.

However, the first Trump administration, from 2017 to 2021, reversed those gains. Three different heads of FEMA in four years led to understaffing and conflicting directions.

As Trump took office for the second time in 2025, he and his administration talked about dismantling FEMA and pushing more disaster management to states. Job cuts and resignations at FEMA reduced the number of employees with training and experience vital in disasters. Political appointees to senior roles in the agency and in the Department of Homeland Security lacked emergency management training and experience.

A new policy that all purchases over US$100,000 be personally approved by Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem led to more resignations. For disaster response, a delay in waiting for a signature to work its way up the chain can cost lives.

What now?

Dismantling FEMA and leaving little or no federal coordination of disaster response puts states in a difficult position.

States must balance their budgets every year, and increasingly “rainy day” funds are insufficient to cover unexpected large disasters. As the federal government shifts other financial responsibilities to states, funds will diminish further.

A single disaster can cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and require widespread disaster response and then relief efforts. Since 1980, the cumulative cost of weather-related disasters has exceeded $2.9 trillion. With a warming atmosphere producing more intense storms, increasing human and economic harm are likely.

Members of Congress have proposed making FEMA an independent, Cabinet-level agency again. I see some distinct advantages in doing so:

• Fewer management layers would enable faster deployment of federal supplies and personnel to assist disaster response.

• A streamlined, more nimble agency could cut red tape for disaster survivors needing assistance, meaning delivering relief funding faster and more equitably.

• If an independent FEMA had responsibility for recovery beyond its current 180-day reimbursement limits, that could improve long-term recovery efforts, especially if Congress provided permanent funding streams and consistent rules and regulations.

The Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle FEMA are shortsighted in my view. Instead, I believe the best move is to restore FEMA as an independent executive agency as it was originally envisioned.

Susan L. Cutter receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation.

– ref. History shows why FEMA is essential in disasters, and how losing independent agency status hurt its ability to function – https://theconversation.com/history-shows-why-fema-is-essential-in-disasters-and-how-losing-independent-agency-status-hurt-its-ability-to-function-262477

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Hilary Lustick, Associate Professor of Education, UMass Lowell

It’s been about six months since the U.S. Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to all schools that receive federal funding, warning them that they could risk losing this money if they promote what the department calls “pervasive and repugnant” racial preferences.

The letter, among other things, reversed previous presidents’ positions on how diversity, equity and inclusion influences schools’ disciplinary measures. It advised schools to, within two weeks, begin to eliminate all discipline protocols rooted in DEI, on the grounds that this work is discriminatory against white students.

Trump also issued an executive order, “Reinstating Commonsense School Discipline Policy,” in April 2025, doubling down on the letter.

Trump’s letter and executive order exert an unusual level of influence over how schools can decide the best way to teach and, when necessary, discipline students. It also cuts against recognized research that Black, Latino and Native American students are disciplined more frequently and harshly than white and Asian students.

I am an educational scholar who has spent the past 13 years analyzing school discipline policy. While previous administrations have issued “Dear Colleague” letters to schools, Trump’s is the first that frames itself as though it were law – setting a potential new precedent for the executive branch to issue educational mandates without the approval of the judicial or congressional branches of government.

While all but two states have responded to Trump’s letter, about half of them have said they are not going to comply with its terms – despite the administration’s threat of cutting funding if they do not follow the guidance.

Understanding DEI in education

Equity-oriented education, or diversity, equity and inclusion, refers to an ideology and programming that intend to ameliorate patterns of racial inequality. In the context of discipline in schools, DEI strategies could include teachers having conversations with children about their behavior, rather than immediately suspending them.

Research shows that these techniques can help reduce racial discipline gaps in academic achievement and disciplinary outcomes.

The Obama administration in 2014 recognized this research in its own “Dear Colleague” letter to schools. The administration advised schools to either reform their discipline practices toward nonpunitive alternatives to suspension or risk being investigated for discrimination.

The first Trump administration rescinded this letter in 2018.

Then, in 2023, the Biden administration released a document along the same lines as Obama’s letter.

Trump’s February 2025 letter grouped all of these recommendations under the banner of “DEI” and argued that such practices are discriminatory, privileging students of color over white and Asian students.

In his April executive order, Trump reiterated that if schools did not eliminate DEI, they would be out of compliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin,

Public school districts regularly have to issue a certificate of compliance to the government showing that their work is in line with Title VI.

While the Trump administration characterizes DEI as “smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline,” it does not define exactly what constitutes DEI programming.

This puts school districts at risk of losing funding if they maintain any initiatives related to racial equality.

Legal concerns with Trump’s directives

The executive office and members of Congress typically issue “Dear Colleague” letters, which are not legally binding, to advise schools and others on policy.

Yet Trump’s letter was written like a mandate and reinforced by an executive order, which is legally binding.

Some scholars are calling the letter an “overreach” of legal authority.

In the spring of 2025, I analyzed states’ responses to Trump’s letter and executive order.

Two states, Iowa and Tennessee, had not yet provided public responses.

Twenty-three states complied with the administration’s directive by signing the letter as of May 30. Some, like Oklahoma, not only certified the letter but also passed state laws banning DEI policies and programs.

The remaining 25 states refused to certify the letter, asserting that they already complied with Title VI and that their policies are not discriminatory.

In addition, 19 of those 25 states sued the Trump administration over the letter in April, culminating in a court injunction later that month that temporarily released states from having to comply with its demands.

I noticed that many states that refuted Trump’s letter used the same exact words in their responses, signaling a concerted effort to resist Trump’s directives. States that did not sign on to the letter but objected to its intent generally resisted on legal grounds, ethics or both.

A legal argument

Most states that rejected it grounded their refusal to sign Trump’s letter in federal law. They cited the Civil Rights Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act, which protects states from having to file redundant paperwork. Because these states already certified compliance with Title VI, this argument goes, they should not have to do so again under Trump’s directive.

Education commissioners from a few states, including Illinois and Minnesota, also cited specific language used by Betsy DeVos, Trump’s former education secretary in his first term, who supported DEI policies.

Charlene Russell-Tucker, the education commissioner for Connecticut, also pointed out that in order for the federal government to cancel DEI programming, it would have to first legally change the definition of Title VI.

States resisting on other grounds

Some education officials also argued that their DEI work is ideologically necessary for providing supportive learning environments for all students.

Patrick Tutwiler, Massachusetts’ interim education commissioner, wrote in an April 16 letter, for example, that “Massachusetts will continue to promote diversity in our schools because we know it improves outcomes for all of our kids.”

Other officials displayed more subtle resistance. Randy Watson, Kansas’ education commissioner, for example, affirmed the state’s “commitment to comply with all Federal statutes,” including Title VI – but did not explicitly address Trump’s “Dear Colleague” letter.

Similarly, Kentucky informed the Department of Education of its compliance with federal law, while simultaneously encouraging local districts to continue diversity, equity and inclusion work.

Mississippi’s state department of education pointed out that school districts operate independently, so the state cannot force policies on them. However, Mississippi signaled compliance by citing a new state law banning DEI and confirmed that each of its individual school districts have already certified compliance with federal laws.

More legal pushback

It is not yet clear what might follow the April court injunction, which largely prevented the Department of Education from cutting federal funding to schools that continued their DEI-related programs and policies.

While the Trump administration has made major cuts to the Department of Education, it has not announced that states refusing to certify the letter will lose funding.

This is the first time an administration is issuing such a direct threat to withhold K-12 funding, placing schools in an unknown place, without a clear blueprint of how to move forward.

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

– ref. Trump has promised to eliminate funding to schools that don’t nix DEI work – but half of the states are not complying – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-promised-to-eliminate-funding-to-schools-that-dont-nix-dei-work-but-half-of-the-states-are-not-complying-260479

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Helen Colby, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Indiana University

Have you ever noticed a sign in a doctor’s office saying that you may have to pay extra insurance costs if you discuss additional problems with your physician?

If so, you’re not alone. As health care spending continues to rise, providers are being asked to warn patients about any potential unexpected costs – for example, insurance charges for additional services at an otherwise fully covered annual wellness visit.

But our research shows these warning signs could have an unintended consequence, discouraging patients from speaking openly with their doctors.

We are professors who research how people make spending decisions and were inspired to study this issue by real signs at a university-affiliated health care office. Other researchers have found many reasons why people hesitate to speak openly with their doctors, and we wondered whether these signs might be another factor. So we conducted some experiments.

In two studies, we found that when people saw an insurance warning sign, they were less willing to raise a wide variety of issues during a physical exam. These included both short-term issues such as headaches, fatigue and arthritis pain in the finger joints, and previously diagnosed, chronic conditions including high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes and asthma.

In a third study, we tested whether it was what the sign said – or just the mere presence of a sign mentioning costs – that made people reluctant to speak up. We showed participants either no sign, an insurance warning sign, or a sign about a prescription drug discount program, which was also modeled after a real sign in the same doctor’s office. Only people who saw the insurance sign were less likely to speak up.

Why it matters

Frank conversations between patients and providers are essential for good health care. They allow providers to tailor medications, reduce side effects and find treatments that are right for each patient. What’s more, treating issues earlier rather than later generally leads to better outcomes and costs less in the long run.

We found that insurance warning signage, no matter how necessary or well intended, can discourage patients from sharing important health information. This could cause delays in important care, leading to unnecessary discomfort and stress as patients suffer with untreated issues.

Health care offices need to include certain insurance disclosures to inform patients of their rights under the No Surprises Act, which took effect in 2022. However, providers and administrators should be aware that their patients may often have cost concerns.

Doctors’ offices can try to find ways to communicate potential insurance costs while also encouraging patients to have open and honest discussions with their providers. The signage at the office that inspired this work had many words bolded and underlined, which may have made it feel especially aggressive to some patients.

It’s important for patients to know that they should never ignore symptoms. In fact, raising a concern as early as possible with a doctor or another health care provider can save more money down the road.

What still isn’t known

We weren’t able to study the long-term impacts of such signs, and it’s possible they have even more negative effects than we uncovered – for example, by making patients reluctant to have annual wellness visits.

It’s also unclear how often health care professionals actually report such conversations to insurers, especially when the issues are brought up briefly during a checkup and don’t require additional testing or treatment at that time.

But the research is clear on one point: When patients feel they can speak freely to their doctors, they get better care. That’s why doctors and other health care professionals should be aware that even well-intended warning signs may encourage patients to keep silent.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Deidre Popovich has received grant funding from BlueCross BlueShield of Texas and Providence Health.

Helen Colby and Tony Stovall 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. Insurance warning signs in doctors’ offices might discourage patients from speaking openly about their health – https://theconversation.com/insurance-warning-signs-in-doctors-offices-might-discourage-patients-from-speaking-openly-about-their-health-262303

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By David B. Sarwer, Professor of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University

On July 28, 2025, a 27-year-old gunman entered a New York City office building that is home to the National Football League’s headquarters. He shot and killed four people and injured one other before killing himself.

In a note found in his wallet, he claimed he had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, a degenerative brain condition believed to develop from repeated traumatic brain injuries. He asked experts to study his brain.

CTE has received much attention over the past two decades as multiple NFL players have been diagnosed with the condition after their deaths. The 2015 movie “Concussion,” about a forensic pathologist named Dr. Bennet Omalu who documented the first case of CTE in an NFL player, also highlighted the issue.

The gunman in the New York City shooting played high school football, but he did not play professionally. It is not known whether he had CTE.

I’m a clinical psychologist who studies mental health issues and their relationship to physical illness. Although people generally associate CTE with professional athletes, a growing body of research, including my own work, shows that adolescents and young adult athletes experience traumatic brain injuries that can have both short-term and long-term effects on mental health. In my view, young players and their families, as well as coaches, should pay attention to these emerging risks.

From traumatic brain injuries to CTE

At least 55 million people worldwide are thought to experience a traumatic brain injury each year. The actual number may be higher, as many brain injuries are never diagnosed or treated.

Some people with a brain injury recover quickly. Others do not. Over half of people with a brain injury reported mental health symptoms one year later. These include difficulties concentrating, memory problems and irritability, as well as physical concerns such as recurrent headaches and difficulties with balance. Many people who sustain a traumatic brain injury also report difficulties with anxiety, depression and substance misuse as they are recovering. Some report thoughts about ending their lives or suicide attempts.

Although the link between traumatic brain injuries and CTE is still being studied, many experts believe that the condition is caused not by a single, severe blow to the head but by repeated trauma to the head over time.

It is not uncommon for former competitive athletes across a range of contact sports to believe they may have CTE – not only because they remember the injuries or being diagnosed with a concussion, but also because they experience many of the cognitive symptoms that affect people with traumatic brain injuries and sometimes misuse alcohol, pain medications or other substances to cope with them.

However, there’s no way for someone to get a diagnosis for the condition while they are experiencing these symptoms. There is currently no test for CTE. Doctors generally diagnose it after an autopsy.

Repeated brain injuries in youth sports

The focus on CTE has brought greater interest in the effects of traumatic brain injuries in general. Such injuries are common not only in professional athletes but also in adolescents and young adults who play sports. They are seen frequently in military veterans as well.

In a study published in March 2025, my colleagues and I assessed more than 500 varsity and club sport athletes. We found that 75% said they had experienced a head injury before starting college. Almost 40% reported being diagnosed with at least one concussion, and just over half of those athletes experienced a loss of consciousness.

We also found that student athletes who had experienced head injuries were much more likely to be diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder in their lifetime. They were more likely to drink alcohol excessively and have a substance use disorder in their history. Greater symptoms of an alcohol use disorder were associated with having their first head injury at an earlier age, as well as having more head injuries, diagnosed concussions and losing consciousness from those injuries.

These troubling observations highlight the often overlooked mental health effects of head injuries in adolescents and young adults. Our study aligns with others that have found a relationship between sports-related traumatic brain injuries and mental health symptoms – and it is among the first to look not only at self-reported symptoms but also at formal psychiatric diagnoses.

How exactly these cases might relate to CTE is unknown, but there are hints of a link: Researchers examining the records of 152 former contact sport athletes who died before age 30 identified signs of CTE in the brains of 40% of them. Family members described mental health symptoms in the majority of them, and alcohol and substance misuse were reported in approximately one-third.

Increasing safeguards for brain health in young athletes

While head injuries in youth sports were once met with a shrug, youth sports leagues are increasingly paying attention to the issue.

Studies suggest that limiting the amount of physical contact in preseason training or between games can reduce young players’ head injury risks. Coaches of contact sports such as football and soccer often receive training on identifying the signs and symptoms of head injuries and are given strategies to manage them.

Athletic trainers, routinely available at many high school sporting events, are involved in sporting events for younger children as well. As first responders to athletic injuries, they are trained to assess symptoms of head injuries and can provide guidance, as part of a medical team, on when an athlete can return to play. Athletic trainers also may be well positioned to observe some of the mental health symptoms commonly seen after head injuries.

Following a head injury, parents and guardians should also keep an eye on their athlete. Changes in mood or behavior after a head injury warrant a referral to a neurologist or mental health professional for additional assessment and treatment.

The study was supported by a multi-project grant from the FY2015 Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program Formula Funding (PA CURE). .

– ref. Youth athletes, not just professionals, may face mental health risks from repeated traumatic brain injuries – https://theconversation.com/youth-athletes-not-just-professionals-may-face-mental-health-risks-from-repeated-traumatic-brain-injuries-262207

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Mireille Rebeiz, Chair of Middle East Studies, Dickinson College

Violence continues several weeks after clashes started between armed Bedouin clans, Sunni jihadist groups and Druze fighters on July 14, 2025, in Sweida, a city in southern Syria.

Hundreds of Druze were killed in the clashes, and Syria’s defense minister deployed forces to contain the sectarian fighting.

The Druze are a religious minority in the Levant, the region covering roughly modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories. The faith originated in Egypt as an offshoot of the Fatimid tradition, a branch of Shiite Islam. Today, there are about 1 million to 1.5 million Druze worldwide, more than half of whom live in Syria. Most others live in Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

We are experts in Druze and Lebanese history, and we know that the conflict in Sweida is regarded by the Druze of Lebanon – and the Druze everywhere – as a deeply personal matter.

What’s more, the horror stories coming out of Sweida are reverberating in Lebanon, where many Druze also fear the risk of sectarian violence, and distrust in current leadership.

Bonds forged through a long history

Many scholars attribute the strong bond between the Druze of Syria and Lebanon to their shared faith – which is partly true – but they often overlook an equally vital element: a collective conscience shaped by a distinctive origin story.

The Druze see themselves as an ancient, blood-related tribal coalition that evolved into an extended family spread across regions. This self-perception is so deeply rooted that it gave rise to a well-known Levantine saying: “The Druze are like a copper plate – wherever you strike it, it rings.”

According to local tradition, several Druze families from Mount Lebanon migrated to the Hawran region, south of Damascus, more than three centuries ago, paving the way for thousands of others to follow. Sweida is the capital city of the Druze region in Ḥawran. The region of Ḥawran is the second-youngest Druze settlement – after Jordan – dating back to the 18th century.

A foundational event in the community’s modern history was the Druze uprising in Ḥawran against the Ottoman governor of Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha, in 1837.

The governor had insisted on imposing conscription and disarmament on the Druze. The community rebelled since both measures would put their security and autonomy at risk, and the governor sent the army to occupy the Levant.

During the revolt, Druze from Mount Lebanon and Wadi al-Taym – a historical Druze region encompassing the modern-day Lebanese districts of Rashayya and Hasbayya in the southeast, near the Syrian border – rose up to divert the Egyptian army and sent fighters to support their Syrian kin.

In 1838, many of these Lebanese fighters were killed, particularly in what is known as the Battle of Wadi Bakka, near the Lebanese-Syrian border; an entire Druze battalion was besieged by the Egyptian forces and nearly wiped out.

In 1860, a third civil war involving the Druze under the Ottomans broke out in Mount Lebanon between the Druze and the Maronites. The Maronites are a group of Eastern Catholic Christians predominantly in Lebanon. The conflict centered on control of the southern regions of the mountain – historically known as the Druze Country.

As violence escalated between the two communities, the Druze of Ḥawran came to the aid of their fellow Druze in Mount Lebanon, tipping the balance in their favor.

During World War I, Mount Lebanon was hit by a famine and around 200,000 people died. The Druze of Ḥawran supported the Druze in Lebanon by supplying them with essential grain, and many Lebanese Druze resettled in Ḥawran to escape starvation.

These are just a few examples from a long history of mutual support that, in the Druze collective memory, reinforces the belief that they are not merely a community – but a tightly knit extended family that spans national borders.

Shifting borders

As a religious minority in the Levant, the Druze have long defended their religious freedom and identity.

The principalities in Mount Lebanon were most successful at realizing and keeping religious autonomy from at least the 12th century to the 19th century; they ensured the Druze were ruled by one of their own emirs and could practice their religious and social customs freely. The modern state of Lebanon evolved out of these autonomous principalities.

However, the Druze never viewed their struggle for social and religious autonomy as a license to attack their neighbors – especially fellow Arab Muslims – but rather as a safeguard for their faith and security.
The Druze do not equate religious freedom and autonomy with independence. In fact, many Druze in the region oppose the idea of a Druze state.

Starting in the 1930s, Zionist leaders hoping to create a Jewish state sought to exploit this Druze desire toward autonomy by proposing the creation of a Druze state in Ḥawran. They envisioned it as a friendly buffer state bordering the future state of Israel. More importantly, they wanted to push Druze out of Galilee and Mount Carmel knowing that they lived there for many centuries.

After the Six-Day War in 1967 between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria, this idea expanded into a broader Israeli plan to fragment Syria and Lebanon into five sectarian states: an Alawite state in the north, a Christian state in the west, a Druze state in the south, a Kurdish state in the east and a Sunni state at the center.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, some Druze leaders – such as Walid Jumblatt, former minister, and head of the Progressive Socialist Party – have raised concerns that Israel could be attempting to revive this plan to reshape the region into a “New Middle East” with potentially new borders in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. In fact, since the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, Jumblatt has been vocal about the rise of potential new borders.

Historically, the highest Druze religious authorities rarely engage in day-to-day politics. Yet, they are still expected to offer moral and political guidance during times of crisis, as the community sees them as guardians of faith, identity and ethics.

Recently, the leading Druze spiritual authority in Lebanon, Sheikh Amin al-Sayegh – who has been at odds with Jumblatt on internal communal affairs – voiced similar concerns in a public letter of condolence and support to the Syrian Druze. He emphasized the community’s Arab Islamic identity and warned against prioritizing material security over the historical Druze identity. Al-Sayegh’s stance reflects long-standing Druze political principles rooted in centuries of tradition.

The political message was clearly hinting at a rising tendency among some Druze, including Syrians, to consider stronger ties with Israel for security purposes.

Growing fear of sectarian violence

Lebanon has a long history of sectarian violence, and the recent events in Syria are indeed alarming to Lebanon’s religious minorities, including the Druze.

In March 2025, over 1,400 Alawite civilians were massacred, mostly in coastal cities like Latakia and Baniyas, by the newly formed Syrian forces.

In June, 25 Syrian civilians were killed and over 60 injured when a Sunni extremist group attacked the Greek Orthodox Church of the Prophet Elias in Damascus. And as of mid-July, Bedouin clans and the state security forces of the Sharaa regime have been targeting and killing Druze civilians in Sweida.

With numerous Bedouin tribes present in Lebanon, and tension evolving into an open sectarian confrontation, Druze leaders there fear that the sectarian violence could spill over into their own communities due to the Syrian Bedouins’ call for general mobilization of Arab tribes in the region against the Druze. This call is based on unverified reports of Druze killing Bedouin civilians.

Druze leadership in Lebanon

Despite growing frustration over Lebanon’s deepening economic crisis – partly attributed to political leadership – most Lebanese Druze remained loyal to traditional figures like Jumblatt, who was long viewed as the most capable guardian of their security and communal interests.

But the shock of recent violence in Sweida, where militias aligned with the Syrian regime targeted Druze civilians, has unsettled that loyalty. Many Lebanese Druze had expected their leaders to use their external influence to shield their kin across the border. The perceived failure to do so – combined with Jumblatt’s continued support for the regime led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Syria – has sparked widespread criticism within the community. Jumblatt himself acknowledged this strong criticism in a recent interview.

For many Druze, the brutal events in Sweida were fiercely traumatic and have forced them to painfully confront their long-standing core political priorities: security and the preservation of religious and social autonomy. And in light of this, some are beginning to reassess long-held assumptions that current leadership can preserve their religious autonomy and, more importantly, keep them safe.

Mireille Rebeiz is affiliated with the American Red Cross.

Said Abou Zaki 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. The Druze are a tightly knit community – and the violence in Syria is triggering fears in Lebanon – https://theconversation.com/the-druze-are-a-tightly-knit-community-and-the-violence-in-syria-is-triggering-fears-in-lebanon-261931