Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

When presidents have tried to make big changes through executive orders, they have often hit a roadblock: A single federal judge, whether located in Seattle or Miami or anywhere in between, could stop these policies across the entire country.

But on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court significantly limited this judicial power. In Trump v. CASA Inc., a 6-3 majority ruled that federal courts likely lack the authority to issue “universal injunctions” that block government policies nationwide. The ruling means that going forward federal judges can generally only block policies from being enforced against the specific plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, not against everyone in the country.

The ruling emerged from a case challenging President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. While three federal courts had blocked the policy nationwide, the Supreme Court allowed it to proceed against anyone who isn’t a named plaintiff in the lawsuits. This creates a legal environment where the same government policy can be simultaneously blocked for some people but enforced against others.

Crucially, the court based its decision on interpreting the Judiciary Act of 1789 – not the Constitution – meaning Congress could restore this judicial power simply by passing new legislation.

But what exactly are these injunctions, and why do they matter to everyday Americans?

Immediate, irreparable harm

When the government creates a policy that might violate the Constitution or federal law, affected people can sue in federal court to stop it. While these lawsuits work their way through the courts – a process that often takes years – judges can issue what are called “preliminary injunctions” to temporarily pause the policy if they determine it might cause immediate, irreparable harm.

A “nationwide” injunction – sometimes called a “universal” injunction – goes further by stopping the policy for everyone across the country, not just for the people who filed the lawsuit.

Importantly, these injunctions are designed to be temporary. They merely preserve the status quo until courts can fully examine the case’s merits. But in practice, litigation proceeds so slowly that executive actions blocked by the courts often expire when successor administrations abandon the policies.

More executive orders, more injunctions

Nationwide injunctions aren’t new, but several things have made them more contentious recently.

First, since a closely divided and polarized Congress rarely passes major legislation anymore, presidents rely more on executive orders to get substantive things done. This creates more opportunities to challenge presidential actions in court.

Second, lawyers who want to challenge these orders got better at “judge shopping” – filing cases in districts where they’re likely to get judges who agree with their client’s views.

Third, with growing political division, both parties used these injunctions more aggressively whenever the other party controls the White House.

Affecting real people

These legal fights have tangible consequences for millions of Americans.

Take DACA, the common name for the program formally called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects about 500,000 young immigrants from deportation. For more than 10 years, these young immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” have faced constant uncertainty.

That’s because, when President Barack Obama created DACA in 2012 and sought to expand it via executive order in 2015, a Texas judge blocked the expansion with a nationwide injunction. When Trump tried to end DACA, judges in California, New York and Washington, D.C. blocked that move. The program, and the legal challenges to it, continued under President Joe Biden. Now, the second Trump administration faces continued legal challenges over the constitutionality of the DACA program.

More recently, judges have used nationwide injunctions to block several Trump policies. Three courts stopped the president’s attempt to deny citizenship to babies born to mothers who lack legal permanent residency in the United States – the cases that led the Supreme Court to limit the reach of injunctions. Judges have also temporarily blocked Trump’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the military and to freeze some federal funding for a variety of programs.

Nationwide injunctions have also blocked congressional legislation.

The Corporate Transparency Act, passed in 2021 and originally scheduled to go into effect in 2024, combats financial crimes by requiring businesses to disclose their true owners to the government. A Texas judge blocked this law in 2024 after gun stores challenged it.

In early 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect, but the Trump administration announced it simply wouldn’t enforce it – showing how these legal battles can become political power struggles.

A ruling that Congress could change

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA was notably narrow in its legal reasoning. The court explicitly stated that its ruling “rests solely on the statutory authority that federal courts possess under the Judiciary Act of 1789” and that it expressed “no view on the Government’s argument that Article III forecloses universal relief.”

This distinction matters enormously. Because the court based its decision on interpreting a congressional statute rather than the Constitution itself, Congress has the power to overturn the ruling simply by passing new legislation that authorizes federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts” under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The court found these injunctions lack sufficient historical precedent in traditional equity practice.

However, the three dissenting justices strongly disagreed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, focused on the importance of birthright citizenship, explaining that “every court to evaluate the Order has deemed it patently unconstitutional.”

As a result, the dissent argues, “the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.”

Legislative solutions on the table

Congress was already considering legislation to limit judges’ ability to grant nationwide injunctions.

Another way to address the concerns about a single judge blocking government action would be to require a three-judge panel to hear cases involving nationwide injunctions, requiring at least two of them to agree. This is similar to how courts handled major civil rights cases in the 1950s and 1960s.

My research on this topic suggests that three judges working together would be less likely to make partisan decisions, while still being able to protect constitutional rights when necessary. Today’s technology also makes it easier for judges in different locations to work together than it was decades ago.

What comes next

With the Supreme Court limiting judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions based on an old statute, the ball is now in Congress’ court. Lawmakers could choose to restore this judicial power with new legislation, further restrict it, or leave the current limitations in place.

Until Congress acts, the legal landscape has fundamentally shifted.

Future challenges to presidential actions may require either cumbersome class action lawsuits or a patchwork of individual cases – potentially leaving many Americans without immediate protection from policies that courts determine violate the Constitution. But unlike a constitutional ruling, this outcome isn’t permanent: Congress holds the key to change it.

This is an updated and expanded version of a story originally published on April 3, 2025.

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

– ref. What the Supreme Court ruling against ‘universal injunctions’ means for court challenges to presidential actions – https://theconversation.com/what-the-supreme-court-ruling-against-universal-injunctions-means-for-court-challenges-to-presidential-actions-260040

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.

The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.

The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.

The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.

More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.

The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.

Implications for other laws

This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.

Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.

The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.

Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.

What comes next?

But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.

Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.

The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.

For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.

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

– ref. Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-upholds-childproofing-porn-sites-260052

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Katherine Kinzler, Professor of Psychology, University of Chicago

In the U.S. and elsewhere, nationality tends to be defined by a set of legal parameters. This may involve birthplace, parental citizenship or procedures for naturalization.

Yet in many Americans’ minds these objective notions of citizenship are a little fuzzy, as social and developmental psychologists like me have documented. Psychologically, some people may just seem a little more American than others, based on factors such as race, ethnicity or language.

Reinforced by identity politics, this results in different ideas about who is welcome, who is tolerated and who is made to not feel welcome at all.

How race affects who belongs

Many people who explicitly endorse egalitarian ideals, such as the notion that all Americans are deserving of the rights of citizenship regardless of race, still implicitly harbor prejudices over who’s “really” American.

In a classic 2005 study, American adults across racial groups were fastest to associate the concept of “American” with white people. White, Black and Asian American adults were asked whether they endorse equality for all citizens. They were then presented with an implicit association test in which participants matched different faces with the categories “American” or “foreign.” They were told that every face was a U.S. citizen.

White and Asian participants responded most quickly in matching the white faces with “American,” even when they initially expressed egalitarian values. Black Americans implicitly saw Black and white faces as equally American – though they too implicitly viewed Asian faces as being less American.

Similarly, in a 2010 study, several groups of American adults implicitly considered British actress Kate Winslet to be more American than U.S.-born Lucy Liu – even though they were aware of their actual nationalities.

Importantly, the development of prejudice can even include feelings that disadvantage one’s own group. This can be seen when Asian Americans who took part in the studies found white faces to be more American than Asian faces. A related 2010 study found that Hispanic participants were also more likely to associate whiteness with “Americanness.”

Language and nationality

These biased views of nationality begin at a young age – and spoken language can often be a primary identifier of who is in which group, as I show in my book “How You Say It.”

Although the U.S. traditionally has not had a national language, many Americans feel that English is critical to being a “true American.” And the president recently released an executive order claiming to designate English as the official language.

In a 2017 study conducted by my research team and led by psychologist Jasmine DeJesus, we gave children a simple task: After viewing a series of faces that varied in skin color and listening to those people speak, children were asked to guess their nationality. The faces were either white- or Asian-looking and spoke either English or Korean. “Is this person American or Korean?” we asked.

We recruited three groups of children for the study: white American children who spoke only English, children in South Korea who spoke only Korean, and Korean American children who spoke both languages. The ages of the children were either 5-6 or 9-10.

The vast majority of the younger monolingual children identified nationality with language, describing English speakers as American and Korean speakers as Korean – even though both groups were divided equally between people who looked white or Asian.

As for the younger bilingual children, they had parents whose first language was Korean, not English, and who lived in the United States. Yet, just like the monolingual children, they thought that the English speakers, and not the Korean speakers, were the Americans.

As they age, however, children increasingly view racial characteristics as an integral part of nationality. By the age of 9, we found that children were considering the white English speakers to be the most American, compared with Korean speakers who looked white or English speakers who looked Asian.

Interestingly, this impact was more pronounced in the older children we recruited in South Korea.

Deep roots

So it seems that for children and adults alike, assessments of what it means to be American hinge on certain traits that have nothing to do with the actual legal requirements for citizenship. Neither whiteness nor fluency in English is a requirement to become American.

And this bias has consequences. Research has found that the degree to which people link whiteness with Americanness is related to their discriminatory behaviors in hiring or questioning others’ loyalty.

That we find these biases in children does not mean they are in any way absolute. We know that children begin to pick up on these types of biased cultural cues and values at a young age. It does mean, however, that these biases have deep roots in our psychology.

Understanding that biases exist may make it easier to correct them. So Americans celebrating the Fourth of July perhaps should ponder what it means to be an American – and whether social biases distort your beliefs about who belongs.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on July 2, 2020.

Katherine Kinzler receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Who’s the most American? Psychological studies show that many people are biased and think it’s a white English speaker – https://theconversation.com/whos-the-most-american-psychological-studies-show-that-many-people-are-biased-and-think-its-a-white-english-speaker-256418

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Lincoln Mitchell, Lecturer, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University

Top Republicans and Democrats alike are talking about the sudden rise of 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a state representative who won the Democratic mayoral primary in New York on June 24, 2025, in a surprising victory over more established politicians.

While President Donald Trump quickly came out swinging with personal attacks against Mamdani, some establishment Democratic politicians say they are concerned about how the democratic socialist’s progressive politics could harm the broader Democratic Party and cause it to lose more centrist voters.

New York is a unique American city, with a diverse population and historically liberal politics. So, does a primary mayoral election in New York serve as any kind of harbinger of what could come in the rest of the country?

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Lincoln Mitchell, a political strategy and campaign specialist who lectures at Columbia University, to understand what Mamdani’s primary win might indicate about the direction of national politics.

Does Mamdani’s primary win offer any indication of how the Democratic Party might be transforming on a national level?

Mamdani’s win is clearly a rebuke of the more corporate wing of the Democratic Party. I know there are people who say that New York is different from the rest of the country. But from a political perspective, Democrats in New York are less different from Democrats in the rest of country than they used to be.

That’s because the rest of America is so much more diverse than it used to be. But if you look at progressive politicians now in the House of Representatives and state legislatures, they are being elected from all over – not just in big cities like New York anymore.

Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York, ran an absolutely terrible mayoral campaign. He tried to build a political coalition that is no longer a winning one, which was made up of majorities of African Americans, outer-borough white New Yorkers and orthodox and conservative Jews. Thirty or 40 years ago, that was a powerful coalition. Today, it could not make up a majority.

Mamdani visualized and created what a 2025 progressive coalition looks like in New York and recognized that it is going to look different than the past. Mamdani’s coalition was based around young, white people – many of them with college degrees who are worried about affordability – ideological lefties and immigrants from parts of the Global South, including the Caribbean and parts of Africa, South Asia and South America.

When you say a new kind of political coalition, what policy priorities bring Mamdani’s supporters together?

Mamdani reframed what I would call redistributive economic policies that have long been central to the progressive agenda. A pillar of his campaign is affordability – a brilliant piece of political marketing because who is against affordability? He came up with some affordability-related policies that got enough buzz, like promising free buses. Free buses are great, but it won’t help most working and poor New Yorkers get to work – they take the subway.

He has been very critical of Israel and has weathered charges of antisemitism.

In the older New York, progressive politicians such as the late Congressman Charlie Rangel were very hawkish on Israel.

What Mamdani understood is that in today’s America, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party does not care if somebody is, sounds like or comes close to being antisemitic. For those people, calling someone antisemitic sounds Trumpy, and they understand it as a right-wing hit, rather than the legitimate expression of concerns from Jewish people. Some liberals think that claims of antisemitism are simply something done just by those on the right to damage or discredit progressive politicians, but antisemitism is real.

Therefore, Mamdani’s record on the Jewish issue did not hurt him in the campaign, but he needs to build bridges to Jewish voters, or he will not be able to govern New York City.

How else did Mamdani appeal to a base of supporters?

He got the support of “limousine liberals” – including rich, high-profile, progressive people. His supporters include Ella Emhoff, a model and the stepdaughter of Kamala Harris, and the actress Cynthia Nixon, but there were many others. Supporting Mamdani became stylish – almost de rigueur – among certain segments of affluent New York.

Mamdani is also a true New Yorker and the voice of a new kind of immigrant. His parents are from Uganda and India. But he is also the child of extreme privilege – his mother, Mira Nair, is a well-known filmmaker, and his father is an accomplished professor. Mamdani went to top schools in New York and knows how to play in elite circles and with white people. He is a Muslim man whose roots are in the Global South, but he is not threatening because he knows how to speak their language.

To people of color and immigrants, Mamdani is also one of them. Because of Mamdani’s interesting background, he brought the limousine liberals together with the aunties from Bangladesh.

Finally, on the charisma scale, Mamdani was so far ahead of other Democratic candidates. Who is going to make better TikTok videos – the good-looking, young man whose mother is a world-famous movie producer, or the older guy who is a loving father and husband but gives off dependable dad, rather than hip young guy, vibes?

Is New York City so distinct that you cannot compare politics there to what happens nationwide?

I think that nationwide or at the state level there is a potential for something similar to a Mamdani coalition, but not a Mamdani coalition exactly. But in a place like Oklahoma, there are people who are in bad economic shape and who will also respond positively to an affordability-focused, Democratic political campaign. Mamdani remade a progressive New York coalition for this moment. Other progressives politicians should copy the spirit of that and reimagine a winning coalition in their city, state or district.

When Trump was campaigning, he focused at least on making groceries cheaper. Mamdani is one of the few Democrats who took the affordability issue back from Trump and addressed it head on and in a much more honest and relevant way. Trump has the phrase, “Make America Great Again!” That’s a popular slogan on baseball caps for Trump supporters.

If Mamdani wanted to make a baseball cap, he could just print “Affordability” on it. Boom.

Other Democratic politicians can take that approach of affordability and reframe it in a way that works in Kansas City or elsewhere.

Lincoln Mitchell supported Brad Lander in the primary election.

– ref. How Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York City mayoral primary could ripple across the country – https://theconversation.com/how-zohran-mamdanis-win-in-the-new-york-city-mayoral-primary-could-ripple-across-the-country-259951

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ryan Shandler, Professor of Cybersecurity and International Relations, Georgia Institute of Technology

American democracy runs on trust, and that trust is cracking.

Nearly half of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, question whether elections are conducted fairly. Some voters accept election results only when their side wins. The problem isn’t just political polarization – it’s a creeping erosion of trust in the machinery of democracy itself.

Commentators blame ideological tribalism, misinformation campaigns and partisan echo chambers for this crisis of trust. But these explanations miss a critical piece of the puzzle: a growing unease with the digital infrastructure that now underpins nearly every aspect of how Americans vote.

The digital transformation of American elections has been swift and sweeping. Just two decades ago, most people voted using mechanical levers or punch cards. Today, over 95% of ballots are counted electronically. Digital systems have replaced poll books, taken over voter identity verification processes and are integrated into registration, counting, auditing and voting systems.

This technological leap has made voting more accessible and efficient, and sometimes more secure. But these new systems are also more complex. And that complexity plays into the hands of those looking to undermine democracy.

In recent years, authoritarian regimes have refined a chillingly effective strategy to chip away at Americans’ faith in democracy by relentlessly sowing doubt about the tools U.S. states use to conduct elections. It’s a sustained campaign to fracture civic faith and make Americans believe that democracy is rigged, especially when their side loses.

This is not cyberwar in the traditional sense. There’s no evidence that anyone has managed to break into voting machines and alter votes. But cyberattacks on election systems don’t need to succeed to have an effect. Even a single failed intrusion, magnified by sensational headlines and political echo chambers, is enough to shake public trust. By feeding into existing anxiety about the complexity and opacity of digital systems, adversaries create fertile ground for disinformation and conspiracy theories.

Testing cyber fears

To test this dynamic, we launched a study to uncover precisely how cyberattacks corroded trust in the vote during the 2024 U.S. presidential race. We surveyed more than 3,000 voters before and after election day, testing them using a series of fictional but highly realistic breaking news reports depicting cyberattacks against critical infrastructure. We randomly assigned participants to watch different types of news reports: some depicting cyberattacks on election systems, others on unrelated infrastructure such as the power grid, and a third, neutral control group.

The results, which are under peer review, were both striking and sobering. Mere exposure to reports of cyberattacks undermined trust in the electoral process – regardless of partisanship. Voters who supported the losing candidate experienced the greatest drop in trust, with two-thirds of Democratic voters showing heightened skepticism toward the election results.

But winners too showed diminished confidence. Even though most Republican voters, buoyed by their victory, accepted the overall security of the election, the majority of those who viewed news reports about cyberattacks remained suspicious.

The attacks didn’t even have to be related to the election. Even cyberattacks against critical infrastructure such as utilities had spillover effects. Voters seemed to extrapolate: “If the power grid can be hacked, why should I believe that voting machines are secure?”

Strikingly, voters who used digital machines to cast their ballots were the most rattled. For this group of people, belief in the accuracy of the vote count fell by nearly twice as much as that of voters who cast their ballots by mail and who didn’t use any technology. Their firsthand experience with the sorts of systems being portrayed as vulnerable personalized the threat.

It’s not hard to see why. When you’ve just used a touchscreen to vote, and then you see a news report about a digital system being breached, the leap in logic isn’t far.

Our data suggests that in a digital society, perceptions of trust – and distrust – are fluid, contagious and easily activated. The cyber domain isn’t just about networks and code. It’s also about emotions: fear, vulnerability and uncertainty.

Firewall of trust

Does this mean we should scrap electronic voting machines? Not necessarily.

Every election system, digital or analog, has flaws. And in many respects, today’s high-tech systems have solved the problems of the past with voter-verifiable paper ballots. Modern voting machines reduce human error, increase accessibility and speed up the vote count. No one misses the hanging chads of 2000.

But technology, no matter how advanced, cannot instill legitimacy on its own. It must be paired with something harder to code: public trust. In an environment where foreign adversaries amplify every flaw, cyberattacks can trigger spirals of suspicion. It is no longer enough for elections to be secure − voters must also perceive them to be secure.

That’s why public education surrounding elections is now as vital to election security as firewalls and encrypted networks. It’s vital that voters understand how elections are run, how they’re protected and how failures are caught and corrected. Election officials, civil society groups and researchers can teach how audits work, host open-source verification demonstrations and ensure that high-tech electoral processes are comprehensible to voters.

We believe this is an essential investment in democratic resilience. But it needs to be proactive, not reactive. By the time the doubt takes hold, it’s already too late.

Just as crucially, we are convinced that it’s time to rethink the very nature of cyber threats. People often imagine them in military terms. But that framework misses the true power of these threats. The danger of cyberattacks is not only that they can destroy infrastructure or steal classified secrets, but that they chip away at societal cohesion, sow anxiety and fray citizens’ confidence in democratic institutions. These attacks erode the very idea of truth itself by making people doubt that anything can be trusted.

If trust is the target, then we believe that elected officials should start to treat trust as a national asset: something to be built, renewed and defended. Because in the end, elections aren’t just about votes being counted – they’re about people believing that those votes count.

And in that belief lies the true firewall of democracy.

Anthony DeMattee receives funding from National Science Foundation and various academic institutions. He is the Data Scientist in the Democracy Program at The Carter Center.

Bruce Schneier and Ryan Shandler 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. Cyberattacks shake voters’ trust in elections, regardless of party – https://theconversation.com/cyberattacks-shake-voters-trust-in-elections-regardless-of-party-259368

Source: – By Adriana Costa, Assistant Professor of Sustainable Bioproducts, Mississippi State University

People dedicated to the art of grilling often choose lump charcoal – actual pieces of wood that have been turned into charcoal – over briquettes, which are compressed charcoal dust with other ingredients to keep the dust together and help it burn better.

The kinds of wood used to make lump charcoal affect how it burns and how the food tastes when grilled. Dedicated grillers are often willing to pay a premium for higher heat, no additives, particular flavors and the cleaner burn they get from particular wood species in lump charcoal.

Buyers probably expect the label to accurately report how much charcoal they are getting, what kind of wood it is, and where the wood was grown.

A spot-check I helped conduct on lump charcoal for sale in the U.S. has revealed that the information on the label does not always match what is inside the bag. Customers might not know what they are actually buying, potentially affecting their purchasing choices and even their grilling experience.

Origin matters

Charcoal is made from wood heated in a low-oxygen environment to remove water and volatile compounds. This process leaves behind a carbon-rich material that burns hotter and more cleanly than raw wood, making it ideal for grilling.

The origin of the trees used affects charcoal’s ecological sustainability. Some charcoal produced in Mexico, Paraguay and Brazil has been linked to deforestation and unsustainable logging practices. Charcoal from hardwood trees harvested in the U.S. is generally considered to be more sustainable.

We decided to investigate more deeply what consumers are actually getting when they buy a bag of lump charcoal.

We looked at a range of products, some of which were labeled as from the U.S., some from other countries and others that did not specify a country of origin.

We purchased one bag each of 15 major U.S. lump charcoal brands online. We did not identify the specific producers. Instead, we wanted to give an overall sense of the products available on the market and evaluate how closely product claims on the packaging matched what was actually in the bags.

Kinds of charcoal we found

We determined the type of wood the charcoal was made from by examining each lump under a microscope or handheld magnifying lens and matching the patterns in the wood structure with the ones in our collection.

Identifying the species allowed us to broadly infer the origin of the charcoal based on where those kinds of trees typically grow.

Nearly half of all the lump charcoal we examined was oak or mesquite, which are both hardwoods that grow in North America, including in the U.S. and Mexico.

In two out of five bags claiming their charcoal had come from the U.S., 15% or more of the material was actually tropical woods, such as ipe, which are not native to the U.S. These woods may have been harvested unsustainably. Other species we found included pine and sweet gum, which perform poorly as grilling woods.

Much of the tropical wood was in small fragments, which made us think it might have been intentionally used as cheap filler.

We found one bag that was labeled “One ingredient: Oak hardwood” that contained no oak at all. Instead, it was a mix of at least six tropical woods.

What else was in the bag?

We also discovered concerns related to product weight and the quantity of extraneous material in the bags. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is a U.S. law that requires product containers to carry labels that accurately describe the contents. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has specific methods for measuring and characterizing contents of packaged goods.

These requirements do allow some variations in weight, but nearly half the bags we examined were underfilled, and one-third were far enough underweight that their label claims fell outside what is legally acceptable.

Also, in every bag we found bark and tiny charcoal fragments, which burn quickly and unevenly. Six bags had rocks in them. Without those extra materials, all 15 bags were underweight, and none gave buyers as much effective grilling fuel as they promised.

So when consumers pay more for what they think is a premium charcoal product, they may, in fact, be getting nothing of the sort.

Adriana Costa has received funding from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, McIntire Stennis, USDA Agricultural Research Service, and the USDA Forest Products Laboratory. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.

– ref. Grilling with lump charcoal: Is US-grown hardwood really in that bag? – https://theconversation.com/grilling-with-lump-charcoal-is-us-grown-hardwood-really-in-that-bag-258157

Source: – By Brian J. Yanites, Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Science. Professor of Surficial and Sedimentary Geology, Indiana University

Hurricane Helene lasted only a few days in September 2024, but it altered the landscape of the Southeastern U.S. in profound ways that will affect the hazards local residents face far into the future.

Mudslides buried roads and reshaped river channels. Uprooted trees left soil on hillslopes exposed to the elements. Sediment that washed into rivers changed how water flows through the landscape, leaving some areas more prone to flooding and erosion.

Helene was a powerful reminder that natural hazards don’t disappear when the skies clear – they evolve.

These transformations are part of what scientists call cascading hazards. They occur when one natural event alters the landscape in ways that lead to future hazards. A landslide triggered by a storm might clog a river, leading to downstream flooding months or years later. A wildfire can alter the soil and vegetation, setting the stage for debris flows with the next rainstorm.

I study these disasters as a geomorphologist. In a new paper in the journal Science, I and a team of scientists from 18 universities and the U.S. Geological Survey explain why hazard models – used to help communities prepare for disasters – can’t just rely on the past. Instead, they need to be nimble enough to forecast how hazards evolve in real time.

The science behind cascading hazards

Cascading hazards aren’t random. They emerge from physical processes that operate continuously across the landscape – sediment movement, weathering, erosion. Together, the atmosphere, biosphere and the earth are constantly reshaping the conditions that cause natural disasters.

For instance, earthquakes fracture rock and shake loose soil. Even if landslides don’t occur during the quake itself, the ground may be weakened, leaving it primed for failure during later rainstorms.

That’s exactly what happened after the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, which led to a surge in debris flows long after the initial seismic event.

Earth’s surface retains a “memory” of these events. Sediment disturbed in an earthquake, wildfire or severe storm will move downslope over years or even decades, reshaping the landscape as it goes.

The 1950 Assam earthquake in India is a striking example: It triggered thousands of landslides. The sediment from these landslides gradually moved through the river system, eventually causing flooding and changing river channels in Bangladesh some 20 years later.

An intensifying threat in a changing world

These risks present challenges for everything from emergency planning to home insurance. After repeated wildfire-mudslide combinations in California, some insurers pulled out of the state entirely, citing mounting risks and rising costs among the reasons.

Cascading hazards are not new, but their impact is intensifying.

Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires, storms and extreme rainfall. At the same time, urban development continues to expand into steep, hazard-prone terrain, exposing more people and infrastructure to evolving risks.

The rising risk of interconnected climate disasters like these is overwhelming systems built for isolated events.

Yet climate change is only part of the equation. Earth processes – such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions – also trigger cascading hazards, often with long-lasting effects.

Mount St. Helens is a powerful example: More than four decades after its eruption in 1980, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to manage ash and sediment from the eruption to keep it from filling river channels in ways that could increase the flood risk in downstream communities.

Rethinking risk and building resilience

Traditionally, insurance companies and disaster managers have estimated hazard risk by looking at past events.

But when the landscape has changed, the past may no longer be a reliable guide to the future. To address this, computer models based on the physics of how these events work are needed to help forecast hazard evolution in real time, much like weather models update with new atmospheric data.

Thanks to advances in Earth observation technology, such as satellite imagery, drone and lidar, which is similar to radar but uses light, scientists can now track how hillslopes, rivers and vegetation change after disasters. These observations can feed into geomorphic models that simulate how loosened sediment moves and where hazards are likely to emerge next.

Researchers are already coupling weather forecasts with post-wildfire debris flow models. Other models simulate how sediment pulses travel through river networks.

Cascading hazards reveal that Earth’s surface is not a passive backdrop, but an active, evolving system. Each event reshapes the stage for the next.

Understanding these connections is critical for building resilience so communities can withstand future storms, earthquakes and the problems created by debris flows. Better forecasts can inform building codes, guide infrastructure design and improve how risk is priced and managed. They can help communities anticipate long-term threats and adapt before the next disaster strikes.

Most importantly, they challenge everyone to think beyond the immediate aftermath of a disaster – and to recognize the slow, quiet transformations that build toward the next.

Brian J. Yanites receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Hurricane Helene set up future disasters, from landslides to flooding – cascading hazards like these are now upending risk models – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-helene-set-up-future-disasters-from-landslides-to-flooding-cascading-hazards-like-these-are-now-upending-risk-models-259502

Source: – By Stan Meiburg, Executive Director, Sabin Center for Environment and Sustainability, Wake Forest University

To understand the federal government’s true priorities, follow the money.

After months of saying his administration is committed to clean air and water for Americans, President Donald Trump has proposed a detailed budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 2026. The proposal is more consistent with his administration’s numerous recent actions and announcements that reduce protection for public health and the environment.

To us, former EPA leaders – one a longtime career employee and the other a political appointee – the budget proposal reveals a lot about what Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin want to accomplish.

According to the administration’s Budget in Brief document, total EPA funding for the fiscal year beginning October 2025 would drop from US$9.14 billion to $4.16 billion – a 54% decrease from the budget enacted by Congress for fiscal 2025 and less than half of EPA’s budget in any year of the first Trump administration.

Without taking inflation into account, this would be the smallest EPA budget since 1986. Adjusted for inflation, it would be the smallest budget since the Ford administration, even though Congress has for decades given EPA more responsibility to clean up and protect the nation’s air and water; handle hazardous chemicals and waste; protect drinking water; clean up environmental contamination; and evaluate the safety of a wide range of chemicals used in commerce and industry. These expansions reflected a bipartisan consensus that protecting public health and the environment is a national priority.

The budget process in brief

Federal budgeting is complicated, and EPA’s budget is particularly so. Here are some basics:

Each year, the president and Congress determine how much money will be spent on what things, and by which agencies. The familiar aphorism that “the president proposes, Congress disposes” captures the Constitution’s process for the federal budget, with Congress firmly holding the “power of the purse.”

EPA’s budget can be difficult to understand because individual programs may be funded from different sources. It is useful to consider it as a pie sliced into five main pieces:

• Environmental programs and management: the day-to-day work of protecting air, water and land.
• Science and technology: research on pollution, health effects and new environmental tools.
• Superfund and trust funds: cleaning up contaminated sites and responding to emergency releases of pollution.
• State and Tribal operating grants: supporting local implementation of environmental laws.
• State capitalization grants: revolving loans for water infrastructure.

The Trump administration’s budget proposals for EPA represent a striking retreat from the national goals of clean air and clean water enacted in federal laws over the past 55 years. In the budget document, the administration argues that the federal government has done enough and that the protection of gains already achieved, as well as any further progress, should not be paid for with federal money.

This budget would reduce EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment to a bare minimum at best. Most dramatic and, in our view, most significant are the elimination of operating grants to state governments, drastic reductions in funding for science of all kinds, and elimination of EPA programs relating to climate change and environmental justice, which addresses situations of disproportionate environmental harm to vulnerable populations. It would cut regulatory and enforcement activities that the administration sees as inconsistent with fossil energy development. Other proposed changes, notably for Superfund and capitalization grants, are more nuanced.

These changes to EPA’s regular budget allocation are separate from changes to supplementary EPA funding that have also been in the news, including for projects specified in the Inflation Reduction Act and other specific laws.

Environmental programs and management

Funding for basic work to protect the environment and prevent pollution would be cut by 22%. The reductions are not spread equally, however. All activities related to climate change would be eliminated, including the Energy Star program and greenhouse gas reporting and tracking. Funding for civil and criminal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations would be cut by 69% and 50%, respectively.

The popular Brownfields program would be cut by 50%. Since 1995, $2.9 billion in federal funds have produced public and private investments totaling $42 billion for cleaning and redeveloping contaminated sites, and created more than 200,000 jobs.

A program to set standards and conduct training for safe removal of lead paint and other lead-containing materials from homes and businesses would be eliminated.

The administration has been clear that EPA will no longer do environmental justice work, such as funding to monitor toxic air emissions in low-income neighborhoods adjacent to industrial areas. This budget is consistent with that.

Science and technology

Scientific support functions would be cut by 34%. The Office of Research and Development would go from about 1,500 staff to about 500 and would be redistributed throughout the agency. This would diminish science that supports not just EPA’s work but that of organizations, industries, health care professionals and public and private researchers who benefit from EPA’s research.

Superfund and other trust funds

Superfund is by far the largest of EPA’s cleanup trust funds. It allows EPA to clean up contaminated sites. It also forces the parties responsible for the contamination to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-led cleanup work. When there is no viable responsible party, Superfund gives EPA the funds and authority to clean up contaminated sites.

Prior to 2021, Superfund was funded through EPA’s annual budget. In 2021 and 2022, Congress restored taxes on selected chemicals and petroleum products to help pay for Superfund. During the Biden administration, EPA reduced the Superfund’s line in the general budget, with the expectation that the Superfund tax revenues would more than make up for the reduction. Administrator Zeldin, who has said that site cleanup is a priority, is proposing to shift virtually all funding for cleanups to these new tax revenues.

There is risk in this approach, however. The Superfund tax expires in 2031 and has raised less than Treasury Department predictions in both 2023 and 2024. In fiscal year 2024, available tax receipts were predicted to be $2.5 billion, but only $1.4 billion was collected. Future funding is uncertain because it depends on the amounts of various chemicals that companies actually use. Experts disagree on whether this is significant for the Superfund program. The petrochemical industry, on whom this tax largely falls, is lobbying for its repeal.

Funds to address leaks at gas station tanks would be cut nearly in half. Funds to clean up oil and petroleum spills would be cut by 24%.

State operating grants

The budget proposal seeks to reset the EPA’s relationship with state agencies, which implement the vast majority of environmental regulations.

EPA has long delegated some of its powers to state environmental agencies, including permitting, inspections and enforcement of regulations that govern air, water and soil pollution. Since the 1970s, EPA has helped fund those activities through basic operating grants that require minimum state contributions and reward larger state investments with additional federal dollars.

The proposed budget would eliminate all of those grants to states – totaling $1 billion. The document itself explains that federal funding over decades has totaled “hundreds of billions of dollars” and has resulted in programs that “are mature or have accomplished their purpose.”

States disagree. They note that EPA has delegated 90% of the nation’s environmental protection work to state authorities, and states have accepted that workload based on the expectation of federal funding. The states say reduced funding would greatly diminish the actual work of environmental protection – site inspections, air and water monitoring, and enforcement – across the country.

State capitalization grants

Since 1987, EPA has given states money for revolving loan programs that provide low-interest loans to state and local governments to clean up waterways and provide safe drinking water. The proposed budget would cut that funding by 89%, from $2.8 billion to $305 million.

These capitalization grants were originally envisioned as seed money, with future loans available as the initial and subsequent loans were repaid. But the need for water infrastructure continues to grow, and Congress has for many years allocated additional money to the program.

In protecting the environment, you get what you pay for. In past years, Congress has refused to accept proposed drastic cuts to EPA’s budget. It remains to be seen whether this Congress will go along with these proposed rollbacks.

Stan Meiburg is a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network. He was an employee of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1977 to 2017.

i have worked at the US EPA twice. During the Obama Administration, i was first principal deputy to the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation and then Acting Assistant Administrator. During the Biden Administration, I was Deputy Administrator. I am also a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network.

– ref. What Trump’s budget proposal says about his environmental values – https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-budget-proposal-says-about-his-environmental-values-258962

Source: – By Mariah Meek, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University

The largest tract of public land in the United States is a wild expanse of tundra and wetlands stretching across nearly 23 million acres of northern Alaska. It’s called the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, but despite its industrial-sounding name, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, is much more than a fuel depot.

Tens of thousands of caribou feed and breed in this area, which is the size of Maine. Migratory birds flock to its lakes in summer, and fish rely on the many rivers that crisscross the region.

The area is also vital for the health of the planet. However, its future is at risk.

The Trump administration announced a plan on June 17, 2025, to open nearly 82% of this fragile landscape to oil and gas development, including some of its most ecologically sensitive areas.

I am an ecologist, and I have been studying sensitive ecosystems and the species that depend on them for over 20 years. Disturbing this landscape and its wildlife could lead to consequences that are difficult – if not impossible – to reverse.

What is the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska?

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was originally designated in 1923 by President Warren Harding as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy.

In the 1970s, its management was transferred to the Department of Interior under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act. This congressional act requires that, in addition to managing the area for energy development, the secretary of the interior must ensure the “maximum protection” of “any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value.”

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for overseeing the reserve and identifying and protecting areas with important ecological or cultural values – aptly named “special areas.”

The Trump administration now plans to expand the amount of land available for drilling in the NPR-A from about 11.7 million acres to more than 18.5 million acres – including parts of those “special areas” – as part of its effort to increase U.S. oil drilling and reduce regulations on the industry.

I recently worked with scientists and scholars at The Wilderness Society to write a detailed report outlining many of the ecological and cultural values found across the reserve.

A refuge for wildlife

The reserve is a sanctuary for many Arctic wildlife, including caribou populations that have experienced sharp global declines in recent years.

The reserve’s open tundra provides critical calving, foraging, migratory and winter habitat for three of the four caribou herds on Alaska’s North Slope. These herds undertake some of the longest overland migrations on Earth. Infrastructure such as roads and industrial activity can disrupt their movement, further harming the populations’ health.

The NPR-A is also globally significant for migratory birds. Situated at the northern end of five major flyways, birds come here from all corners of the Earth, including all 50 states. It hosts some of the highest densities of breeding shorebirds anywhere on the planet.

An estimated 72% of Arctic Coastal Plain shorebirds – over 4.5 million birds – nest in the reserve. This includes the yellow-billed loon, the largest loon species in the world, with most of its U.S. breeding population concentrated in the reserve.

Expanding oil and gas development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska could threaten these birds by disrupting their habitat and adding noise to the landscape.

Many other species also depend on intact ecosystems there.

Polar bears build dens in the area, making it critical for cub survival. Wolverines, which follow caribou herds, also rely on large, connected expanses of undisturbed habitat for their dens and food. Moose browse along the Colville River, the largest river on the North Slope, while peregrine falcons, gyrfalcons and rough-legged hawks nest on the cliffs above.

A large stretch of the Colville River is currently protected as a special area, but the Trump administration’s proposed plan will remove those protections. The Teshekpuk Lake special area, critical habitat for caribou and migrating birds, would also lose protection.

Indigenous communities in the Arctic, particularly the Iñupiat people, also depend on these lands, waters and wildlife for subsistence hunting and fishing. Their livelihoods, food security, cultural identity and spiritual practices are deeply intertwined with the health of this ecosystem.

Oil and gas drilling’s impact

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is vast, and drilling won’t occur across all of it. But oil and gas operations pose far-reaching risks that extend well beyond the drill sites.

Infrastructure like roads, pipelines, airstrips and gravel pads fragment and degrade the landscape. That can alter water flow and the timing of ice melt. It can also disrupt reproduction and migration routes for wildlife that rely on large, connected habitats.

Networks of winter ice roads and the way exploration equipment compacts the land can delay spring and early summer thawing patterns on the landscape. That can upset the normal pattern of meltwater, making it harder for shore birds to nest.

ConocoPhillips’ Willow drilling project, approved by the Biden administration in 2023 on the eastern side of the reserve, provides some insight into the potential impact: An initial project plan, later scaled back, included up to 575 miles (925 kilometers) of ice roads for construction, an air strip, more than 300 miles (nearly 485 kilometers) of new pipeline, a processing facility, a gravel mine and barge transportation, in addition to five drilling sites.

Many animals will try to steer clear of noise, light and human activity. Roads and industrial operations can force them to alter their behavior, which can affect their health and how well they can reproduce. Research has shown that caribou mothers with new calves avoid infrastructure and that this impact does not lessen over time of exposure.

At Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, the largest oilfield in the U.S., decades of oil development have led to pollution, including hundreds of oil spills and leaks, and habitat loss, such as flooding and shoreline erosion, extensive permafrost thaw and damage from roads, construction and gravel mining. In short, the footprint of drilling is not confined to isolated locations — it radiates outward, undermining the ecological integrity of the region. Permafrost thaw now even threatens the stability of the oil industry’s own infrastructure.

Consequences for the climate

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the surrounding Arctic ecosystem also play an outsized role in regulating the global climate.

Vast amounts of climate-warming carbon is currently locked away in the wetlands and permafrost of the tundra, but the Arctic is warming close to three times faster than the global average.

Roads, drilling and development can increase permafrost thaw and cause coastlines to erode, releasing carbon long locked in the soil. In addition, these operations will ultimately add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, further warming the planet.

The decisions made today will shape the future of the Arctic – and one of the last wild ecosystems in the United States – for generations to come.

Mariah Meek has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and several state agencies. In addition to being a professor, she is also the director of research for The Wilderness Society, where she supervises a team of scientists doing research to understand ecological interactions in the Alaskan Arctic.

– ref. What’s at risk for Arctic wildlife if Trump expands oil drilling in the fragile National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska – https://theconversation.com/whats-at-risk-for-arctic-wildlife-if-trump-expands-oil-drilling-in-the-fragile-national-petroleum-reserve-alaska-259493

Source: – By Chris Vagasky, Meteorologist and Research Program Manager, University of Wisconsin-Madison

About 600 miles off the west coast of Africa, large clusters of thunderstorms begin organizing into tropical storms every hurricane season. They aren’t yet in range of Hurricane Hunter flights, so forecasters at the National Hurricane Center rely on weather satellites to peer down on these storms and beam back information about their location, structure and intensity.

The satellite data helps meteorologists create weather forecasts that keep planes and ships safe and prepare countries for a potential hurricane landfall.

Now, meteorologists are about to lose access to three of those satellites.

On June 25, 2025, the Trump administration issued a service change notice announcing that the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP, and the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center would terminate data collection, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30. The data termination was postponed until July 31 following a request from the head of NASA’s Earth Science Division.

I am a meteorologist who studies lightning in hurricanes and helps train other meteorologists to monitor and forecast tropical cyclones. Here is how meteorologists use the DMSP data and why they are concerned about it going dark.

Looking inside the clouds

At its most basic, a weather satellite is a high-resolution digital camera in space that takes pictures of clouds in the atmosphere.

These are the satellite images you see on most TV weather broadcasts. They let meteorologists see the location and some details of a hurricane’s structure, but only during daylight hours.

Meteorologists can use infrared satellite data, similar to a thermal imaging camera, at all hours of the day to find the coldest cloud-top temperatures, highlighting areas where the highest wind speeds and rainfall rates are found.

But while visible and infrared satellite imagery are valuable tools for hurricane forecasters, they provide only a basic picture of the storm. It’s like a doctor diagnosing a patient after a visual exam and checking their temperature.

For more accurate diagnoses, meteorologists rely on the DMSP satellites.

The three satellites orbit Earth 14 times per day with special sensor microwave imager/sounder instruments, or SSMIS. These let meteorologists look inside the clouds, similar to how an MRI in a hospital looks inside a human body. With these instruments, meteorologists can pinpoint the storm’s low-pressure center and identify signs of intensification.

Precisely locating the center of a hurricane improves forecasts of the storm’s future track. This lets meteorologists produce more accurate hurricane watches, warnings and evacuations.

Hurricane track forecasts have improved by up to 75% since 1990. However, forecasting rapid intensification is still difficult, so the ability of DMPS data to identify signs of intensification is important.

About 80% of major hurricanes – those with wind speeds of at least 111 mph (179 kilometers per hour) – rapidly intensify at some point, ramping up the risks they pose to people and property on land. Finding out when storms are about to undergo intensification allows meteorologists to warn the public about these dangerous hurricanes.

Where are the defense satellites going?

NOAA’s Office of Satellite and Product Operations described the reason for turning off the flow of data as a need to mitigate “a significant cybersecurity risk.”

The three satellites have already operated for longer than planned.

The DMSP satellites were launched between 1999 and 2009 and were designed to last for five years. They have now been operating for more than 15 years. The United States Space Force recently concluded that the DMSP satellites would reach the end of their lives between 2023 and 2026, so the data would likely have gone dark soon.

Are there replacements for the DMSP satellites?

Three other satellites in orbit – NOAA-20, NOAA-21 and Suomi NPP – have a microwave instrument known as the advanced technology microwave sounder.

The advanced technology microwave sounder, or ATMS, can provide data similar to the special sensor microwave imager/sounder, or SSMIS, but at a lower resolution. It provides a more washed-out view that is less useful than the SSMIS for pinpointing a storm’s location or estimating its intensity.

The U.S. Space Force began using data from a new defense meteorology satellite, ML-1A, in late April 2025.

ML-1A is a microwave satellite that will help replace some of the DMSP satellites’ capabilities. However, the government hasn’t announced whether the ML-1A data will be available to forecasters, including those at the National Hurricane Center.

Why are satellite replacements last minute?

Satellite programs are planned over many years, even decades, and are very expensive. The current geostationary satellite program launched its first satellite in 2016 with plans to operate until 2038. Development of the planned successor for GOES-R began in 2019.

Similarly, plans for replacing the DMSP satellites have been underway since the early 2000s.

Delays in developing the satellite instruments and funding cuts caused the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and Defense Weather Satellite System to be canceled in 2010 and 2012 before any of their satellites could be launched.

The 2026 NOAA budget request includes an increase in funding for the next-generation geostationary satellite program, so it can be restructured to reuse spare parts from existing geostationary satellites. The budget also terminates contracts for ocean color, atmospheric composition and advanced lightning mapper instruments.

A busy season remains

The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, is forecast to be above average, with six to 10 hurricanes. The most active part of the season runs from the middle of August to the middle of October, after the DMSP satellite data is set to be turned off.

Hurricane forecasters will continue to use all available tools, including satellite, radar, weather balloon and dropsonde data, to monitor the tropics and issue hurricane forecasts. But the loss of satellite data, along with other cuts to data, funding and staffing, could ultimately put more lives at risk.

Chris Vagasky is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association.

– ref. Hurricane forecasters are losing 3 key satellites ahead of peak storm season − a meteorologist explains why it matters – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-forecasters-are-losing-3-key-satellites-ahead-of-peak-storm-season-a-meteorologist-explains-why-it-matters-260190