Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA – By William Garriott, Professor of Law, Politics and Society, Drake University

Thousands of Americans will soon gather to celebrate April 20 – or “4/20” – the most important day of the year for cannabis enthusiasts.

But this year, a cloud of uncertainty will hang over these celebrations. After years of success, the movement to legalize recreational and medical cannabis has stalled.

It’s a moment unlike any that I have seen in the 12 years that I’ve been researching cannabis legalization as part of my broader interest in U.S. drug policy.

Not so long ago, the movement had so much momentum that nationwide cannabis legalization felt virtually inevitable. That momentum is now gone.

The strategy to legalize cannabis through ballot initiatives is no longer working. The coalition of supporters that made this strategy work has frayed, and new research is raising concerns about the health impact of regular cannabis use. All of this constitutes the most significant challenge to the movement since it went mainstream in the 21st century.

Years of success

As a social movement, cannabis legalization has been extremely successful. Since 2012, 24 states and Washington have legalized recreational cannabis use. Forty-nine states and Washington have legalized medical cannabis use, though programs vary from state to state.

While cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, changes have happened there, too.

The 2018 Farm Bill, for instance, legalized hemp, a non-psychoactive derivative of the cannabis plant used to make textiles, rope and other consumer goods. While it wasn’t lawmakers’ intent, entrepreneurs figured out how to make products from hemp that contain enough of the chemical compound tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, to be psychoactive. This fueled growth of the hemp market, which in 2023 was valued at US$1.63 billion.

Additionally, the Biden administration in 2024 began the process of rescheduling cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act. It’s a course that has continued under the second Trump administration.

The scheduling system classifies substances based on accepted medical use and potential for abuse. Federal rescheduling would not legalize cannabis, but it would move it from the most restrictive Schedule I – which includes substances like heroin and LSD – to Schedule III, with substances like anabolic steroids, ketamine and codeine. It would recognize cannabis as having medical use.

Challenges emerge

With rescheduling still underway, it may seem odd to say that the legalization movement has stalled. But a closer look reveals significant challenges.

The biggest challenge can be found at the ballot box. The 2024 election was the legalization movement’s worst showing in years.

All three recreational legalization ballot measures failed. Only Nebraska’s medical legalization measures passed, but it has yet to be fully implemented due to ongoing political and legal challenges.

Then there’s the 2025 tax and spending package approved by Congress. When its new provisions go into effect later this year, they will dramatically alter the hemp market.

Many hemp products currently on shelves, like THC-infused beverages and gummies, will become illegal. Many businesses currently selling these products will be forced to close.

Some of this is already happening, as states like Tennessee and Iowa rush to pass restrictions on hemp products.

For instance, the dispensary closest to my university in Iowa has just closed. Once a growing business that employed 30 people, it was forced to shut down after new state laws significantly limited what they could sell. This crackdown on the hemp market is particularly significant in states like Iowa that have no legal market for recreational marijuana use and only a limited medical marijuana market.

No single reason for current slump

Several factors are driving these changes.

One is politics. While the vast majority of Americans support marijuana legalization, the approval is much higher among Democrats and independents than it is among Republicans.

Of the 26 states where recreational marijuana has not been legalized, 20 of them have state governments that are under total Republican control. Another four have Republican-controlled legislatures. Pennsylvania’s legislature is split between Republicans and Democrats. Only Hawaii has a Democrat-controlled state government that has not legalized recreational cannabis.

Then there is the health issue. A growing body of evidence is raising concerns about the negative impact of regular cannabis use that includes the risk of cannabis addiction, psychosis, anxiety and depression.

Researchers are also questioning cannabis’ efficacy as medicine. Several recent reviews have concluded that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the therapeutic use of cannabis for most of the conditions for which it is consumed, such as insomnia and acute pain. A review of cannabis’s use for treating mental health conditions came to a similar conclusion.

Citing such evidence, The New York Times editorial board recently recanted some of its earlier support for legalization. The newspaper wrote, “The unfortunate truth is that the loosening of marijuana policies … has led to worse outcomes than many Americans expected,” adding, “It is time to acknowledge reality and change course.”

The coalition of supporters frays

Still another issue is conflict within the legalization movement itself, particularly between the business and activist wings.

The tension between these groups is long-standing, with activists often accusing members of industry of being more focused on money than justice. And as the cannabis industry has grown, these tensions have become more acute.

In 2022, for example, the pro-cannabis organization True Social Equity in Cannabis sued three Illinois cannabis companies for engaging in coordinated anticompetitive practices and violating federal antitrust laws. In court documents, they called the three companies the “Chicago cartel,” before voluntarily dismissing the case.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis used a similar strategy in 2024 in his successful campaign against the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in the state. He consistently criticized “corporate cannabis,” a catchall phrase often used by critics to describe the large cannabis companies that increasingly dominate state markets. He warned voters that the law would create a “weed cartel.”

Prominent cannabis activists like former Massachusetts regulator Shaleen Title have also called out corporate cannabis in their accounts of what’s wrong with the legalization movement.

In many ways, these challenges are the result of the movement’s earlier success. Making marijuana legal has meant more people trying it, more people studying it and more people making money from it.

The insights from the past 12 years could help inform whatever comes next. The fact that public support for legalization remains high suggests that a return to the days of blanket prohibition is unlikely.

Still, as the history of cannabis law and policy has shown, there are no guarantees.

William Garriott’s work has been supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

– ref. Why the future of marijuana legalization remains hazy despite high public support – https://theconversation.com/why-the-future-of-marijuana-legalization-remains-hazy-despite-high-public-support-279960

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Daniela R. P. Weiner, Teaching Assistant Professor of the First Year Experience and Humanities, Stevens Institute of Technology

In 2025, 48% of Americans ages 18-29 could not name a single concentration or death camp, according to a survey by the nonprofit Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, which works to secure compensation and restitution for Holocaust survivors.

Another 53% of surveyed Americans said that they had encountered Holocaust “denial or distortion while on social media.”

Given their ages, approximately 70% of living Holocaust survivors will likely die by 2035. As they do, more and more people will never hear firsthand experiences about the atrocities Nazis perpetuated during the genocide of European Jews.

My research shows that Holocaust education and awareness, though, doesn’t always follow a linear path.

Teaching a dark chapter

In my 2024 book, “Teaching a Dark Chapter: History Books and the Holocaust in Italy and the Germanys”, I study how Holocaust education evolved in East Germany, West Germany and Italy from the 1940s through the 1980s. In particular, I focus on the content of history textbooks that schools used for middle school students.

I also explore how two antisemitic incidents, one in 1959-60 and then another in 1977, revealed West German students’ lack of Holocaust knowledge.

Both times, international and domestic West German news outlets expressed alarm about students’ ignorance.

These antisemitic incidents also led to a series of educational reforms, in which educational leaders affirmed the need for Holocaust education and specified how educators should teach about the Holocaust.

The ‘swastika epidemic’

All of the synagogues in Cologne, Germany, were either destroyed or badly damaged during the Nazi pogroms of 1938, sometimes called Kristallnacht, or the “Night of the Broken Glass.”

The prominent, historic Roonstrasse synagogue was among the badly damaged Jewish houses of worship and was one of the few synagogues in West Germany to be rebuilt following World War II. In September 1959, West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer attended a high-profile ceremony when the synagogue’s reconstruction was complete.

But then on Christmas Day of that year, Roonstrasse was defaced with antisemitic graffiti.

Two 25-year-old men were arrested for the vandalism. They testified during their 1960 trial that they never learned about Nazism in school. At the time, West Germany had vague guidelines on how to teach students about the Nazis and the Holocaust.

Historian James Loeffler has challenged whether these arrested men were actually responsible for the vandalism. He argues that the Soviet KGB actually drew the swastikas in order to discredit West Germany.

Regardless, following the Roonstrasse defacement, a wave of additional antisemitic vandalism spread throughout West Germany and other places, including the United States. The press called this trend the “swastika epidemic.”

Many people attributed the rise in antisemitic activity to a lack of education about the Nazi period. They questioned what West German students were learning about their country’s recent past.

New guidelines on how to teach Nazism

The swastika epidemic wasn’t happening in isolation.

In April 1959, the TV documentary “Blick auf unsere Jugend,” meaning “Focus on Our Youth”, focused on a class of West German high school students. Very few of them knew how many Jews were killed by the Nazis.

The negative media coverage coincided with representatives of German and international Jewish organizations meeting with the West German federal president, Theodor Heuss, regarding the antisemitic vandalism and the failures of the West German education system to teach about Nazism.

A committee of West German state cultural representatives called the Kultusministerkonferenz, or KMK, began issuing new guidelines in 1960 and again in 1962 about how to teach about Nazism in schools.

The West German federal states were instructed to examine how Nazism and what we now know as the Holocaust – the term was not used at the time – was depicted in school textbooks. Feedback was then provided to the textbook publishers.

How books were revised

I analyzed many versions of the same middle school history textbook called “Kletts geschichtliches Unterrichtswerk Ausgabe B,” which translates into “Klett’s Historical Instructional Materials Version B.”

Between 1959 and 1960, the textbook authors completely revised a subsection on “Terror and Crimes,” which examined how the Nazis murdered disabled people, as well as how the Nazis persecuted and murdered Jews.

The subsection tripled in size between the 1959 and 1960 textbook editions. The new version also included important new information, such as that the Nazis murdered an estimated 6 million Jews.

Previous editions had used generalizations like “many million,” without providing actual numbers.

A second controversy

Seventeen years later, in 1977, a West German teacher named Dieter Bossmann published a widely publicized study that offered more detail on the widespread ignorance among West German students, at every level.

Some students admitted to knowing almost nothing about Hitler. Some said relatively positive things about Hitler. One student thought that the Nazis had killed tens of thousands of Jews. Another thought that 16 million Jews had been killed.

The West German news magazine Der Spiegel observed at the time that the issue was perhaps not so much what students were learning, but rather how they were being taught. Although West German textbooks had been revised in the 1960s, somehow there was a disconnect between the textbook page and students’ understanding.

The KMK issued a new resolution in April 1978 that called for new curricular material for schools.

After this, more West German teachers began to prioritize an active teaching model. They encouraged students to analyze primary sources and participate in experiential learning activities, such as visiting concentration camp memorials and conducting local history research.

Remembering history

Holocaust education in West Germany was not perfect after 1978 – or any time since.

For example, Deutsche Welle, Germany’s public news broadcaster, quoted a Berlin history teacher saying in 2023 that among his students, “Adolf Hitler is known by most; the term National Socialism too. Some of them also know about the Holocaust, but knowledge is selective and it contains many blank spots.”

An estimated 18% of German adults incorrectly said in 2025 that 2 million or fewer Jews were killed during the Holocaust.

My particular focus on textbooks and curricular guidelines, though, demonstrates that sometimes, knowledge gaps lead to leaps forward.

Today, in part because of these developments, it’s mandatory to teach about the Holocaust in all federal states in Germany.

In the U.S., Holocaust education requirements are determined at the state level, and not all states provide Holocaust education guidance or mandates. If the West German case shows anything, I think, it is that guidance on teaching history should be continuously updated and reiterated.

Daniela R. P. Weiner has received funding from the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the German-American Fulbright Commission, the German Historical Institute, Washington, DC, the Leibniz Institute for Educational Media | Georg Eckert Institute, the Carolina Center for Jewish Studies, the Stanford Graduate School of Education, and the Department of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is also affiliated with the Association for Jewish Studies.

– ref. About half of young Americans can’t name a single Holocaust site, repeating a pattern of ignorance seen in postwar Germany – https://theconversation.com/about-half-of-young-americans-cant-name-a-single-holocaust-site-repeating-a-pattern-of-ignorance-seen-in-postwar-germany-278507

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology; Institute for Humane Studies

Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives set April 21, 2026, as the date to hear from and question top Pentagon officials Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. Dagvin R.M. Anderson, head of U.S. Africa Command, about the war in Iran. But Republican legislators put off the hearing for a month, giving up – for now – the opportunity to exercise oversight of the war.

Adam Smith, the top Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee, told The New York Times, “We are six weeks into this conflict. And we still haven’t gotten a public briefing from anyone in the administration about the war.”

President Donald Trump’s military campaign against the Iranian regime is currently in a ceasefire. Despite the low approval rating of the war, the president has not drawn the conflict to a close, and the result of the operation is so far unclear.

The postponed hearing was only one example of how Congress has been noticeably meek about the war, with most Republicans killing the many Democratic efforts to exercise constitutionally granted power over engaging in such military conflicts. For the fourth time, the Senate on April 16, 2026, rejected a war powers resolution.

As scholars who research war powers and have a book coming out about President Barack Obama’s decision-making about the Afghan war, we know that the reluctance of Congress to assert its power is, in fact, history repeating itself, as is the president’s unilateral action.

Historically meek Congress

Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president. But most modern presidents and their legal counsel have asserted that Article 2 of the Constitution allows the president to use the military in certain situations without prior congressional approval – and have acted on that, sending troops into conflicts from Panama to Libya with no regard for Congress’ will.

Based on the 1973 War Powers Resolution – passed over President Richard Nixon’s veto – the president has an obligation to inform Congress about his actions within 48 hours of initiating military action and requires him to seek legislative authorization if the military operation will last over 60 days.

Since its passage, presidents have dutifully informed Congress within the 48-hour window when they unilaterally initiate military operations. Typically, they use the following language: “Pursuant to” their power as commander in chief and chief executive, they are initiating an operation.

Yet presidents since Nixon have never formally acknowledged the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. They have, however, mentioned it in their letters to Congress about their actions, and for the most part they have abided by its restrictions. So language is crucial and presidents tend to use the phrase “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution when they inform Congress about military operations.

The second Trump administration has broken with that standard. In Trump’s message to Congress about the Iran war, sent on March 2 2026, he did not acknowledge the War Powers Resolution or the Constitution, let alone pay lip service to either.

Instead, Trump has sidestepped the traditional use of the War Powers Resolution – and avoided the congressional oversight that comes with it – by relying on executive orders to convey his intent to use military power against the Iranian regime. That move, whether legal or not, has provided the president with a great deal of freedom to decide what the military can do, what tools they can use to do it and how long they can do it. His decision to send another carrier group and the addition of thousands of U.S. troops to the region is just the latest example.

Congress has proved incapable or unwilling to check this presidential unilateralism. Shortly after the start of the military campaign against Iran, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy introduced war powers legislation to constrain Trump that failed to pass the Senate. In the House on March 5, members narrowly rejected a resolution to impede a broader or longer operation.

To a meaningful extent, we are watching history repeat itself: Over the past seven decades during times of war, members of Congress have not wanted to act, and presidents have not wanted to ask permission.

From alacrity to deference

Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt made their case for war and obtained a formal declaration from Congress within three days in 1917 and within the same afternoon in 1941, respectively.

Since the start of the Korean War, however, members of Congress have demonstrated more deference and less assertiveness.

In Korea, President Truman did not get congressional authorization for the war.

Following North Korea’s invasion of the South in June 1950, Truman bypassed Congress, making his case for war to the United Nations Security Council. In July 1950, United Nations Security Council Resolution 84 “authorized the United States to establish and lead a unified command comprised of all military forces from UN member states, and authorized that command to operate under the UN flag.”

Truman’s rhetoric about American combat operations on the Korean peninsula being part of a U.N. “police action” became increasingly tenuous, but he managed to avoid seeking congressional permission. In doing so, Truman created a precedent in which a congressional declaration of war was no longer necessary for the American military to carry out combat operations. Sen. Robert Taft, a Republican, opposed this lack of congressional deliberation, declaring that Truman’s actions represented a “usurpation” of the war powers authority.“ But Congress did nothing to stop the war as the tactical and strategic picture in Korea stalemated.

In Vietnam, in the aftermath of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident – a purported attack by the North Vietnamese on American naval vessels that did not, in fact, occur – President Lyndon Johnson used the alleged crisis to push for congressional authorization for the escalation of force in Southeast Asia.

Johnson presented the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to Congress, which quickly passed it. The resolution allowed Johnson to freely escalate American military involvement in Southeast Asia with a vague authorization to engage militarily as he saw fit, in contrast to the very clear declarations of war that came before it for previous wars.

Col. Harry G. Summers, who wrote an influential strategic analysis of the Vietnam War, points to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as evidence that the relevant actors – the executive, Congress and the military – failed to foresee the scale of the course of action they were embarking on.

The resolution significantly increased the president’s freedom of action – and freedom from oversight – and marked a major step toward the Americanization and escalation of the war in July 1965. Despite the deeply troubled engagement in South Vietnam and the passage of the War Powers Resolution, we still see presidents acting alone, without consulting members of Congress, let alone getting authorization.

Refusing responsibility

In Summers’ Vietnam postmortem, he relates a telling anecdote of a professor at West Point. The professor, an Army officer, remarked, “When people ask me why I went to Vietnam I say, ‘I thought you knew. You sent me,’” a comment indicative of “the civilian sector’s growing refusal to take responsibility for the kind of army it needs.”

In the case of Trump’s decision-making concerning hostilities with Iran, Americans will one day need answers to the questions: Why did the United States engage in this war with unclear political objectives? And why did Congress allow it to continue?

This story contains material from an article published on March 6, 2026.

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

– ref. Trump sidelined Congress’ authority over war on Iran – and lawmakers allowed it, extending a 75-year trend – https://theconversation.com/trump-sidelined-congress-authority-over-war-on-iran-and-lawmakers-allowed-it-extending-a-75-year-trend-280671

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By James R. Elliott, Professor of Sociology, Rice University

Ten years ago, the infamous Tax Day storm swamped the Houston area with off-the-charts rainfall. Nearly 2 feet of rain fell in less than 15 hours in parts of the region, starting on April 17, 2016. The rain flooded thousands of homes and exceeded a 10,000-year event at some gauges.

But the storm’s damage could have been much worse.

The brunt of the deluge hit Waller County, west of Houston, where the impact was largely on farms and ranches. Had the same volume of water fallen just a few miles to the east, over Houston’s dense urban core, the tragedy would have been far worse.

What made the Tax Day flood so devastating was its speed. It was a flash event that struck overnight, without warning.

At Rice University’s Center for Coastal Futures and Adaptive Resilience, we used state-of-the-art hydrological modeling conducted by our colleagues at Rice’s Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center to see what would happen if a similar storm struck more populated parts of the city today.

The results suggest that current flood planning strategies in Houston – and similar strategies used in communities across the U.S. – are dangerously narrow in how they consider what’s at risk. In today’s world of increasingly extreme downpours, preparing for flood disasters means preparing for more than just what’s probable – it means also preparing for extreme situations that are less likely but could be far more dangerous.

The perils of relying on probability

In the United States, flood risk is publicly defined by maps produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These maps, suggesting which properties face flood risks, guide everything from emergency planning to decisions related to the National Flood Insurance Program.

However, FEMA’s risk maps are based on probabilistic modeling that typically stops at the 500-year flood risk level, meaning a property has 0.2% odds – a 1 in 500 chance – of being flooded in any given year. There is a mathematical reason for doing this: There are simply too few cases to reliably estimate probabilities below that threshold.

Consequently, “off the charts” events like the Tax Day flood are effectively ignored in official planning. Authorities often prefer to view them as unrealistic until more data is collected – a process that can take decades. Yet, parts of Houston suffered another 1,000-year event the following year when remnants of Hurricane Harvey stalled over the city in 2017, and Houston has seen other 500-year floods in recent years.

The Dutch, who are global leaders in flood science by necessity, since more than half their country is at risk of flooding, use a different approach. They take what they consider “worst credible floods” seriously. These are events that extend beyond standard probability models but are still considered by experts to be realistic, or credible, possibilities.

If the Tax Day storm hit today

To get a clearer picture of the Houston area’s credible risks, we simulated the impact of the Tax Day flood from rainfall alone if the storm had centered over two different watersheds in Houston’s Harris County.

The suburban risk: Clear Creek runs through a middle-class suburban area near NASA’s Johnson Space Center. Vast stretches of suburban concrete block its natural drainage, and thousands of homes have been built along its winding, sluggish tributaries.

Even moderate rainfall can quickly transform these waterways into destructive torrents that overflow into nearby townships, including Friendswood and League City.

Our simulations show that if the Tax Day storm had centered over the Clear Creek area, more than 13,500 properties with homes would have quickly flooded with at least 6 inches of water. Above 6 inches is the danger zone where roads become unsafe for most passenger vehicles. In a home, when drywall gets wet it begins to wick water upward, requiring tear-outs. Even in elevated homes, that much water can damage equipment and contaminate water systems. In some areas, our simulations indicate the water depths would have exceeded 3 feet within hours.

The financial “what if” is even more staggering. Our analysis of publicly available data indicates that 92% of homes in Clear Creek’s flood zone likely have no flood insurance, and 52% fall outside the 100-year flood plain in FEMA’s latest proposed maps. Even with FEMA’s latest map updates, most mortgage holders would not be required to carry flood insurance on homes in the area that would have flooded.

The equity gap: When we moved the storm over Hunting Bayou, a working-class area in inner Houston populated largely by residents of color, the results were even more severe. Here, flooding represents the legacy risk of midcentury urbanism, where a naturally shallow, sluggish stream was penned in by industrial warehouses and tightly packed residential streets long before modern drainage standards existed, restricting the waterway’s ability to expand and meander gracefully.

Because much of the area has flat, poorly draining soils, this watershed has become a bottleneck that can rapidly overflow during heavy rains. We found the Tax Day storm would have flooded more than half of all residential lots there with at least 6 inches of water, compared to 16% of residential lots in the Clear Creek area. And flood insurance in the Hunting Bayou area is nearly nonexistent.

Both simulations, viewable through our interactive online tool at the Center for Coastal Resilience and Adaptive Futures, reveal a sobering reality: Devastation that local, state and federal government planning dismisses as improbable is, in fact, entirely possible.

When FEMA or state planners prioritize probabilistic mapping over “worst-case” modeling like we conducted, they treat historic deluges like the Tax Day flood as improbable anomalies rather than predictable consequences of a changing climate and rapid urban expansion. Moreover, unlike hurricanes, which typically arrive with several days’ notice, the sudden destructive force of “normal” storm systems like the Tax Day storm is discounted.

Learning from ‘worst cases’

The levels of destruction we simulated could easily occur in the coming years as global temperatures rise and storm intensity increases.

To prepare, U.S. emergency planners and flood authorities can look to three lessons from the Dutch planners’ possibilistic playbook.

Embrace flexible planning: Overly detailed plans can create a false sense of control and end up paying less attention to neighborhoods considered to be outside the flood plain. Simple and flexible plans that empower local officials to repurpose everyday assets in real time work best. That might include preemptively mobilizing high-water rescue vehicles into geographically vulnerable areas.

Map potential disruption, not just probability: Extending flood planning beyond who is in or out of the 100-year flood zone can also help identify where road networks and critical infrastructure are likely to fail during extreme events. This approach also helps identify infrastructure such as public parks that can double as temporary water retention basins.

Raise public risk perception: Residents can respond more effectively when local flood authorities share plans for “what if” scenarios with the public, along with guidance on how best to prepare.

The 10th anniversary of the Tax Day flood is a reminder of why it’s crucial to stop ignoring improbable events and start scientifically leveraging the possible to make all cities safer in an age of worsening climate change.

This article, originally published April 14, 2026, has been updated to include the Rice University SSPEED Center’s contribution to the research.

Dominic Boyer receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the John S. Guggenheim Foundation.

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

– ref. What if Texas’ destructive Tax Day storm had centered on inner Houston instead? It’s why cities should plan for the improbable – https://theconversation.com/what-if-texas-destructive-tax-day-storm-had-centered-on-inner-houston-instead-its-why-cities-should-plan-for-the-improbable-279964

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Anisah Bagasra, Associate Professor of Psychology, Kennesaw State University

The war with Iran has led to a surge in anti-Muslim rhetoric – spilling into political discourse.

U.S. Rep. Randy Fine of Florida posted on X that “the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one,” and added in another post, “We need more Islamophobia, not less.” Similarly, U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas called for stopping the entry of “Muslims immigrating to America.”

A study by the Center for the Study of Organized Hate found that the average number of Islamophobic posts jumped from 2,000 to 6,000 each day on X alone in the first six days of the conflict.

I have studied the impact of Islamophobia on mental health over the past two decades, following soaring hate crimes in the wake of 9/11. Research consistently shows that negative portrayals of Muslims shape public attitudes toward Muslims and can lead to increased discrimination, hate crimes and psychological consequences.

Increase in Islamophobia

Islamophobia in the United States tends to surge during global conflicts, political campaigns and terrorist attacks. Human Rights First, an organization that works to promote human rights in the U.S. and abroad, documented surges in Islamophobia in 2015 following the Syrian refugee crisis, when a large number of people were displaced. That same year the 2015 attacks in Paris and shooting in San Bernardino, California, intensified public anxiety about terrorism, and a surge in crimes against Muslims followed.

Islamophobic rhetoric in the U.S. intensified during Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and continued into his presidency, often framing Muslims as a security threat. Burton Speakman, a scholar of digital media, and I found an increasing acceptance of such rhetoric among the political right in social media posts from 2016-19.

Social media posts and comments showed an increasing use of dehumanizing language toward Muslims. In a study I conducted in 2020, a majority of 830 Muslim Americans reported encountering the most Islamophobic content on Facebook, followed by Twitter and Instagram. This shift was also reflected in the language and coverage of Islam in right-wing media, which often portrayed Muslims as invaders wanting to impose Sharia law and as a drain on social welfare.

Mainstream media can also amplify negative depictions of Muslims by often discussing Islam within the context of terrorism and portraying Muslims more negatively than other racial, ethnic or religious minority groups.

Hate crimes tend to increase alongside Islamophobic rhetoric. During 2016, a period with high rates of Islamophobic rhetoric, there were 307 reported incidents – the highest recorded number immediately following 9/11. The numbers dropped the following year but were followed by an increase in 2024 with the start of the Israel-Hamas war; the number of reported anti-Muslim hate crimes was 288 that year.

A 2025 poll found that 63% of American Muslims reported experiencing religious discrimination, with many reporting at least one such incident every year since 2016.

Mental health of Muslim Americans

The cumulative effects of Islamophobia have an impact an American Muslims’ mental health and access to care.

Numerous studies since 9/11 link the high rates of discrimination experienced by the Muslim American
community to higher rates of depression. Experiences of discrimination also lead some Muslim Americans to believe they are not viewed as being American.

Thirty-one percent of participants in my 2020 study described the impact of social media on their mental health: Many said they avoided displaying their Muslim identity in social media posts, supporting a Muslim political candidate on social media, or even sharing religious content or videos. Some just withdrew – 27% deactivated or deleted their social media accounts.

In addition, many Muslims report feeling discouraged from seeking both physical and psychological treatment from non-Muslim providers, leading Muslim Americans to significantly underutilize available services compared to other ethnic and religious minority groups.

A 2015 study found that nearly one-third of Muslim Americans report experiencing discrimination in health care settings, which has an impact on their trust in providers. The majority reported being treated rudely by providers, insensitivity regarding modesty requirements, or having their pain disregarded. One participant in that study said: “Going into a surgery, health care providers didn’t recognize the importance of me keeping my hijab on and wanting most of my body covered.”

In my 2023 study, a number of participants described personal experiences with mental health professionals who seemed not to see them as individuals beyond their religious affiliation. One participant described a provider as being “quick to attribute problems” to religion or culture. “I worry about them stereotyping and end up feeling as if I’m on the defense,” this participant said.

My most recent study, conducted in 2024, which is currently under review, asked 325 Muslim Americans who had used any psychological services about their health-seeking behavior: 56% said they were worried ; 57% were worried about being misunderstood.

Following Trump’s travel ban targeting several Muslim countries in 2017, a study conducted by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health found that many Muslim Americans skipped their primary care appointments; at the same time, their visits to the emergency room went up.

Addressing the challenges

In response, a number of initiatives have emerged at the local and national levels.

One approach involves increasing mental health literacy within Muslim communities and creating networks of mental health professionals working with Muslim clients.

For example, mental health professionals and community leaders are working to increase mental health literacy through in-person education and digitally. Muslim community members learn about symptoms of mental health disorders through training, such as Mental Health First Aid. Online directories of Muslim mental health providers have also been created.

Another approach involves training mental health professionals. A team at Stanford University has created a six-part training module that provides therapists with knowledge of religious norms and an opportunity to reflect on their own possible biases.

Finally, Muslim researchers and providers have begun to develop therapies and resources that integrate Muslim beliefs and spiritual approaches with treatment. These include psychotherapy that is inspired by the Quran, the teachings of the prophet and spiritual practices such as self-reflection, prayer and mindfulness.

Muslim Americans can often feel helpless in combating the hate they experience – more awareness and advocacy could reduce Islamophobia and address the mental health needs of an already vulnerable community.

Anisah Bagasra received funding from Meta’s Content Policy Research on Social Media Platforms research award in 2019 to study Islamophobic rhetoric and imagery on social media platforms.

– ref. How Islamophobic rhetoric leaves an impact on the mental health of Muslim Americans – https://theconversation.com/how-islamophobic-rhetoric-leaves-an-impact-on-the-mental-health-of-muslim-americans-279046