MIL-OSI – Page 59 – MIL Submissions Engine

January 26, 2026

How political leanings affect views on academic freedom – new research

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steven David Pickering, Honorary Professor, International Relations, Brunel University of London

Academic freedom is often described as a cornerstone of democratic society. Politicians regularly claim to defend it, universities invoke it in mission statements and most members of the public say they support it in principle.

So why does it provoke such intense disagreement once it becomes concrete? At first glance, these disputes look like arguments about universities. But our research suggests something else is going on. Public disagreements over academic freedom are not simply about campus policy. They reflect deeper divides over political ideology and trust in expertise.

Debates about academic freedom have become increasingly prominent in the UK. New free speech legislation to protect academic freedom in universities was introduced in 2025. Disputes over offensive research, controversial speakers or international partnerships routinely make headlines.

Similar tensions exist elsewhere, even if they are less visible. In Japan, for example, academic freedom is formally protected in article 23 of the constitution, but scholars often report subtle pressures to avoid politically sensitive topics.

In a new study, we surveyed over 3,300 people in the UK and Japan to examine how citizens understand academic freedom when it is presented in concrete terms rather than abstract slogans.

Instead of asking whether people support “academic freedom” in general, we asked how much they agreed or disagreed with specific scenarios. These included whether universities should protect research that causes offence, and whether academics should be free to publish controversial findings. We also asked whether universities should collaborate with multinational corporations or political regimes accused of human rights abuses.

This approach matters. In surveys, people often express strong support for free inquiry in the abstract. But once academic freedom is tied to real-world trade-offs, such as offence, harm, reputation or political controversy, agreement tends to fracture.

Across both countries, political ideology emerged as one of the strongest predictors of attitudes toward academic freedom.

Right-leaning respondents were consistently more supportive of academic freedom. They were more likely to oppose restrictions on offensive research and more likely to agree that academics should be protected even when their work provokes controversy. This pattern appeared not only in the UK, where universities are deeply entangled in culture-war debates, but also in Japan, where such disputes are less visible in public life.

Left-leaning respondents, by contrast, were more likely to emphasise accountability. They tended to support limits on research perceived as offensive or harmful, reflecting greater concern for social sensitivity and the potential impact of academic work on marginalised groups.

These differences suggest that academic freedom is not a single, universally understood value. Instead, people interpret it through broader political worldviews. For some, it primarily means freedom from interference. For others, it is inseparable from social responsibility.

Trust in scientists matters

Trust also plays a crucial role. In both countries, people who trusted scientists more strongly were more likely to support academic freedom, particularly when asked whether researchers should be protected regardless of whether their findings cause offence.

Trust appears to act as a kind of permission structure. When people believe scientists are acting in good faith, they are more willing to tolerate controversial outcomes.

Two scientists in lab — Levels of trust in scientists affects views on academic freedom.
YAKOBCHUK VIACHESLAV/Shutterstock

This effect was especially pronounced in Japan. There, trust in scientists was one of the strongest predictors of support for academic freedom across multiple scenarios. This likely reflects Japan’s institutional culture. Deference to expertise remains relatively high and political conflict over universities is more muted than in the UK.

In Britain, by contrast, trust in scientists mattered most when academic freedom was framed as protection for individual researchers, but less so when questions involved partnerships with controversial regimes. In those cases, trust was more conditional. This suggests that even trusted experts are expected to exercise judgement about ethical boundaries.

Taken together, these findings point to a deeper pattern. Public attitudes toward academic freedom are structured by two competing logics.

One emphasises autonomy. This is the idea that scholars must be insulated from political and social pressure in order to pursue knowledge freely. The other emphasises accountability: the belief that universities, as publicly funded institutions, should be responsive to social norms and moral concerns.

Most people do not fully embrace one logic or the other. Instead, they shift between them depending on the issue at hand. Many support free research in principle but draw lines when offence, ethics or international politics enter the picture.

This helps explain why debates over academic freedom so often feel polarised and unresolved. They are not simply disputes about policy details. They are disagreements about which values should take priority when liberal principles collide.

These findings have important implications.

First, they suggest that appeals to “academic freedom” alone are unlikely to persuade sceptics. Because people understand the concept differently, arguments that assume a shared meaning often talk past their audience.

Second, they highlight the importance of trust. Where confidence in scientists and universities is high, support for academic autonomy is more resilient. Where trust erodes, demands for oversight and restriction grow stronger.

Finally, disputes over academic freedom reflect broader tensions within democratic societies between liberty and accountability. These tensions are not new, but they are becoming more visible as universities sit at the centre of political and cultural change.

Rather than asking whether academic freedom is under threat, a better question may be this: how can institutions sustain public trust while defending the autonomy that makes academic inquiry possible in the first place?

Steven David Pickering received funding from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS, grant reference JPJSJRP 20211704) and the UK Research and Innovation’s Economic and Social Research Council (UKRI-ESRC, grant reference ES/W011913/1).

Yosuke Sunahara receives funding from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (grant reference JPJSJRP 20211704.

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

– ref. How political leanings affect views on academic freedom – new research – https://theconversation.com/how-political-leanings-affect-views-on-academic-freedom-new-research-273408

January 26, 2026

Suella Braverman defects: is Reform becoming a magnet for Tory baggage?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Lockwood, PhD Researcher in Politics, York St John University

Suella Braverman’s decision to defect to Reform UK is not just another blow to Kemi Badenoch’s attempt to stabilise the Conservatives after their 2024 defeat. It also changes what Reform is being judged on.

Earlier this month, Badenoch sacked Robert Jenrick from the shadow cabinet for plotting to defect to Reform. Hours later, he did just that. Braverman’s move takes Reform’s number of MPs to eight. Party leader Nigel Farage has said Reform had been in talks with her for a year.

At this point, though, Reform is at risk of absorbing so many former Tories that it starts to look like the establishment it denounces. This recruitment spree rewrites the insurgent brand.

Reform’s leadership will understandably celebrate Braverman’s arrival as a serious coup. She is a former home secretary and a national media figure. Her departure is an unmistakable signal that the Conservative right is fragmenting. The Times reports she told supporters it felt like she had “come home”, but there is a basic strategic tension here. Reform has thrived by arguing that British politics is run by a closed circle of insiders who fail repeatedly and then reshuffle into new jobs. A rapid intake of ex-ministers risks making Reform look less like a clean break and more like a migration route for political careers.

That attack line is already being deployed. After former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi’s switch earlier this month, the Liberal Democrats described Reform as “a retirement home for disgraced former Conservative ministers”. The same basic charge has followed Braverman’s move: critics argue that people who helped shape the recent Conservative record are now trying to rebrand themselves inside Reform rather than account for that record.

For Reform, then, the immediate gain in publicity comes with a reputational cost: the party becomes easier to frame as a collection of defectors rather than a coherent alternative.

The May deadline: Reform knows the danger

If Reform were confident that any defection is good news, it would have no need for a cut-off date. But Farage has set the local elections date of May 7 as the latest date he will take Conservative switchers. After that, he believes his party would start to look like “a rescue charity for every panicky Tory MP”.

That is revealing. It implies Reform is trying to capture the benefits of defections (experience, profile, the aura of inevitability) while limiting the downside (brand dilution, factional chaos, accusations of being “Tories in new colours”). A deadline is, in effect, an admission that there is such a thing as too many ex-Tories… or at least too many arriving too quickly.

The deeper issue is organisational. Recruiting MPs is not the same as building a party machine. Defectors bring personal followings, constituency operations, donor networks and ideological baggage. They can add reach but they can also add volatility, especially if Reform’s appeal relies on projecting discipline and clarity.

And internal tensions are not theoretical. Braverman and Jenrick are not merely Conservatives who happen to have drifted rightwards. They were also senior figures in a government that Reform has attacked as incompetent and deceitful.

That is why a July 2025 post on X by Zia Yusuf (widely circulated as Braverman joined) lands so sharply. In the post, the head of policy at Reform UK referred to the Conservative government’s handling of an Afghan data leak and secret resettlement, asking “who was in government?”, and then named Braverman as home secretary and Jenrick as immigration minister.

The point isn’t whether Yusuf’s earlier argument was fair or unfair. It’s that it feeds an “own goal” narrative. Reform’s senior figures have recently depicted these people as emblematic of the failures of the Conservative state, and now the party is inviting them into the tent.

That forces Reform into a delicate position. If it embraces defectors uncritically, it weakens its anti-establishment brand. If it keeps attacking them, it destabilises its own recruitment strategy.

Braverman’s seat: opportunity and risk

Braverman’s own constituency, Fareham and Waterlooville, illustrates why Reform wants converts of her stature and why the strategy can backfire.

On official local results for the 2024 general election, Braverman won with 35% of the vote; Reform placed fourth on 18%, behind Labour (23%) and the Liberal Democrats (19%).

That is the kind of compressed result Reform dreams about: a sizeable right-populist base already present, plus a Conservative vote that if transferred could turn a marginal into a secure Reform seat. From this perspective, defections are not just PR. They are an attempt to solve Reform’s hardest electoral problem: converting diffuse national support into winnable constituency coalitions.

But the same numbers show the danger. If Braverman fails to bring a large share of Conservative voters with her, the most likely short-term effect is to make the seat more competitive for her opponents through vote fragmentation and tactical voting. Defections can therefore produce a paradox: they make Reform look bigger nationally while making individual contests messier locally.

And at the national level, the risk is huge. Reform’s central claim – that it is the “alternative” to a failed political class – is now colliding with the reality of who it is recruiting from that class.

If Reform wants to remain a pure insurgency, it must keep its distance from establishment figures and prioritise new candidates. If it wants to look like a credible government-in-waiting, it will keep collecting experienced politicians, but it must then accept the costs – intensified scrutiny, more ammunition for opponents, and the constant suspicion that it is simply rebranding Conservatism rather than replacing it.

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

– ref. Suella Braverman defects: is Reform becoming a magnet for Tory baggage? – https://theconversation.com/suella-braverman-defects-is-reform-becoming-a-magnet-for-tory-baggage-274344

January 26, 2026

En 2025, les protéines sont passées de nutriment discret à aliment miracle. Voici pourquoi cette surenchère n’a rien de scientifique

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Stuart Phillips, Professor, Kinesiology, Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Skeletal Muscle Health, McMaster University

Il y a trente ans, lorsque j’ai commencé à étudier le métabolisme des protéines, je n’aurais jamais imaginé qu’en 2025, je passerais l’essentiel de mon temps à expliquer pourquoi consommer davantage de protéines n’est pas toujours préférable.

Pendant longtemps, les protéines ont été le macronutriment discret, celui dont on présumait qu’il était forcément consommé en quantité suffisante. Les glucides ont connu leur heure de gloire, tout comme les lipides. Les protéines sont arrivées plus tard dans le cycle des obsessions nutritionnelles, et j’avoue avoir d’abord apprécié l’attention.

L’expression anglaise « jump the shark » (« sauter le requin ») provient d’un épisode désormais tristement célèbre de la sitcom culte Happy Days, dans lequel le personnage de Fonzie (interprété par Henry Winkler) fait littéralement du ski nautique au-dessus d’un requin. Ce moment est devenu le symbole d’une série qui abandonne cohérence et crédibilité au profit du sensationnalisme. En 2025, les protéines alimentaires ont connu un sort comparable : elles ont franchi la ligne qui sépare la nutrition fondée sur des données probantes d’une mise en scène spectaculaire.

En 2025, les protéines sont devenues un nutriment prétendument universel : protéines pour la perte de graisse, protéines pour la longévité, protéines pour la perte de poids, protéines pour l’équilibre hormonal, protéines pour la ménopause, protéines pour les personnes sous médicaments GLP-1, protéines pour les personnes qui font de l’exercice, protéines pour les personnes qui n’en font pas. Des protéines partout, et toujours avec le même refrain : plus il y en a, mieux c’est.

Malgré la présence de voix influentes promouvant une consommation très élevée de protéines, les données scientifiques, elles, n’ont pas fondamentalement évolué. Ce qui a changé, ce sont les discours, leur omniprésence et leur intensité.

Les protéines ne sont pas la panacée

Si les protéines sont si souvent surestimées, c’est parce que leurs effets sont bien réels, mais fortement conditionnels. Elles soutiennent la fonction musculaire et l’adaptation à l’effort, mais elles n’agissent jamais seules.

J’ai souvent recours à des analogies, car elles reflètent étonnamment bien la biologie. Ce n’est pas la protéine qui fait le gâteau : c’est l’exercice. La protéine, c’est le glaçage, parfois même seulement les décorations. Une fois le gâteau correctement glacé, ajouter davantage de glaçage ne le transforme pas en autre chose. À partir d’un certain point, on ne fait plus qu’orner.

La biologie est jalonnée de plafonds d’efficacité. Les protéines n’y échappent pas.

Quelle quantité de protéines est réellement suffisante ?

L’apport nutritionnel recommandé (ANR) de 0,8 g de protéines par kilogramme de poids corporel et par jour n’a jamais eu pour objectif d’optimiser la masse ou la force musculaires, ni de favoriser un vieillissement en santé. Il s’agit d’un seuil minimal, conçu pour maintenir l’équilibre azoté de l’organisme. Cet indicateur est utilisé parce que les protéines constituent la principale source d’azote dans notre alimentation.

Au cours des deux dernières décennies, de nombreux chercheurs, moi compris, ont soutenu qu’un apport plus élevé pouvait être pertinent dans certains contextes. Un apport de 1,2 à 1,6 g/kg/jour semble effectivement favoriser le maintien et l’adaptation musculaires, mais uniquement lorsqu’il est combiné à des exercices de résistance.

Or, dans l’engouement protéique de 2025, un point essentiel a été largement oublié : il n’existe aucune preuve solide et cohérente justifiant de dépasser cette fourchette pour la majorité de la population. Oui, cela inclut les personnes en perte de poids et celles qui s’entraînent intensément plusieurs fois par semaine.

Les méta-analyses regroupant des dizaines d’études sur l’entraînement par résistance montrent de façon constante que les bénéfices des apports protéiques supplémentaires plafonnent autour de 1,6 g/kg/jour. Au-delà, ni la masse maigre ni la force n’augmentent de manière significative.

Ce constat ne fait pas débat dans la littérature scientifique, même s’il est devenu controversé dans l’univers des influenceurs.

Les muscles se construisent grâce à la musculation

Les protéines sont les briques. La musculation, c’est l’équipe de chantier. Vous pouvez livrer des briques toute la journée : sans plan ni ouvriers, rien ne sera construit. Chez les personnes qui ne pratiquent pas d’exercices de résistance, augmenter l’apport en protéines au-delà d’un seuil minimal entraîne des changements négligeables, voire inexistants, de la masse maigre.

Lorsque l’exercice de résistance est présent, un apport protéique plus élevé peut améliorer modestement les gains de masse maigre et de force. Mais ces effets sont limités et atteignent rapidement un plateau. Là encore, plus n’est pas nécessairement mieux.

Protéines et perte de poids : remettre les choses en perspective

L’enthousiasme autour des protéines a été particulièrement marqué dans les discours sur la perte de poids. On leur a prêté la capacité d’accélérer le métabolisme, de faire fondre les graisses, de prévenir la prise de poids en périménopause ou de supprimer durablement l’appétit. Ces promesses sont attrayantes, mais largement exagérées.

Les protéines ne provoquent pas, à elles seules, une perte de poids : celle-ci repose avant tout sur un déficit énergétique. Elles n’augmentent pas de manière significative la dépense énergétique à long terme et, si elles peuvent réduire l’appétit à court terme, ces effets s’estompent souvent avec le temps, pour ne laisser qu’un bénéfice global modeste.

Le principal intérêt des protéines en contexte de perte de poids est leur rôle dans la préservation des tissus maigres, surtout lorsqu’elles sont associées à des exercices de résistance. Même dans ce cas, leur impact demeure limité, et la distinction entre masse maigre et masse musculaire est souvent mal comprise.

Sans entraînement de résistance, un apport protéique élevé pendant une phase de perte de poids a très peu d’effet. L’exercice physique demeure le principal déterminant pour préserver la masse maigre ; les protéines n’en sont qu’un complément.

Effet de levier des protéines : réel, mais pas illimité

En 2025, le concept de « l’effet de levier des protéines » a refait surface. Selon cette hypothèse, les êtres humains mangeraient jusqu’à satisfaire leurs besoins protéiques, ce qui pourrait entraîner une surconsommation d’énergie lorsque l’alimentation est pauvre en protéines.

Les données soutenant l’existence de cet effet sont solides. Toutefois, il fonctionne dans des limites bien précises. Une fois les besoins protéiques de base comblés, l’ajout de protéines supplémentaires ne continue pas à réduire l’appétit ni l’apport énergétique de façon illimitée.

Il faut aussi souligner que le seuil à partir duquel l’effet coupe-faim des protéines s’atténue n’est – au grand désarroi des experts autoproclamés des réseaux sociaux – que légèrement supérieur à l’apport que la majorité des gens consomme déjà. Une fois de plus, la biologie ne se laisse pas impressionner par l’abondance.

Pourquoi cela s’est-il produit en 2025 ?

Mon hypothèse la plus plausible est qu’il faut souvent environ 17 ans pour que des données scientifiques robustes s’infiltrent réellement dans la conscience collective et les pratiques du grand public.

Peut-être que l’écosystème des réseaux sociaux avait simplement besoin de temps pour « faire ses propres recherches », c’est-à-dire lire des articles et tirer ses conclusions, afin de rattraper ce que les chercheurs en physiologie des protéines savent depuis des décennies. Mais les réseaux sociaux ont la capacité à déformer les messages, et pas nécessairement dans le bon sens.

La recherche sur les protéines a atteint une certaine maturité dans les années 1990 et au début des années 2000. Les méthodes ont été affinées, les relations doses-réponses soigneusement examinées et les mécanismes biologiques clarifiés. Ce à quoi nous assistons aujourd’hui ne correspond pas à une percée scientifique, mais à une adoption culturelle tardive, amplifiée par les plates-formes numériques, le marketing et une industrie du bien-être qui prospère sur les positions extrêmes.

Comme une autre leçon de 2025 l’a tristement rappelé, la science – et surtout ses nuances – est rarement bien représentée en ligne.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

Ramener les protéines à leur juste place

Les protéines sont importantes. Elles l’ont toujours été. Elles soutiennent les muscles, les fonctions physiologiques et la santé tout au long de la vie. De nombreuses personnes, en particulier les personnes âgées, gagneraient sans doute à consommer davantage que l’apport nutritionnel de référence.

Mais 2025 n’a pas été l’année où les protéines ont enfin obtenu la reconnaissance qu’elles méritaient. C’est plutôt l’année où elles ont été survendues, surestimées et surmédiatisées. Les protéines facilitent l’adaptation, elles ne la déclenchent pas. Elles contribuent à préserver les tissus maigres – qui ne se confondent pas avec la masse musculaire – lors d’une perte de poids, mais elles ne provoquent pas la perte de graisse. Et au-delà d’un certain seuil, plus de protéines signifient simplement plus de protéines, pas davantage de bénéfices.

La science des protéines n’a pas besoin d’être réinventée. Elle a simplement besoin d’être entendue de nouveau.

Stuart Phillips détient des brevets concédés sous licence à Exerkine et a reçu des honoraires de conférence de Nestlé, Optimum Nutrition et Danone. Il reçoit des financements du Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en génie du Canada, des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada, des National Institutes of Health aux États-Unis, de Dairy Farmers of Canada et du National Dairy Council américain.

– ref. En 2025, les protéines sont passées de nutriment discret à aliment miracle. Voici pourquoi cette surenchère n’a rien de scientifique – https://theconversation.com/en-2025-les-proteines-sont-passees-de-nutriment-discret-a-aliment-miracle-voici-pourquoi-cette-surenchere-na-rien-de-scientifique-272940

January 26, 2026

US hospitality and tourism professors don’t mirror the demographics of the industry they serve

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Michael D. Caligiuri, Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Tourists are diverse. Are tourism professors? Grant Baldwin/Getty Images

White and male professors continue to dominate U.S. hospitality and tourism education programs, our new research has found, even as the industry is growing increasingly diverse. This imbalance raises questions about who shapes the future of hospitality and whose voices are left out of the conversation.

Our analysis of 862 faculty members across 57 of the top U.S. college hospitality programs found that nearly three-quarters of these professors were white, and more than half were male. White men alone represented 43.5% of all faculty, showing persistent overrepresentation.

By comparison, only 3.7% of faculty identified as Black, far below the 14.4% share of the U.S. population that identifies as Black. Asian faculty accounted for 22.5% – significantly more than the Asian share of the U.S. population, with slightly more Asian women than men represented.

Because publicly available data did not allow us to reliably identify faculty from Hispanic or Indigenous backgrounds, our analysis focuses on representation among Black and Asian professors.

Our findings are based on a review of online faculty directories for every U.S. hospitality and tourism program included in the Academic Ranking of World Universities for 2020. We coded each faculty member by gender, race and academic rank using publicly available information gathered through university websites, LinkedIn and other professional profiles.

While this approach cannot capture the full complexity of individual identity, it reflects how representation is typically perceived by students and prospective faculty. For example, when a student browses a university’s website or sits in a classroom, they notice who looks like them and who does not.

Our results point to a stark imbalance. The people teaching, researching and preparing the next generation of hospitality leaders do not mirror the demographics of either the workforce or the student population.

Despite growing institutional attention to fairness and belonging across higher education, the tourism and hospitality field has been slow to evolve.

Why it matters

Representation in higher education isn’t just a matter of fairness. It affects student outcomes and the long-term sustainability of the field. Researchers have found that when students see role models who share their racial or ethnic identity, they report stronger connections to their academic community, higher retention rates and greater academic confidence.

For hospitality programs, which emphasize service, empathy and cultural understanding, these effects are especially meaningful. The hospitality workforce is one of the most diverse in the United States, spanning global hotels, restaurants, events and tourism operations. Yet the lack of variety among those teaching hospitality sends a conflicting message. Diversity is valued in the workforce, but it remains underrepresented in the classrooms training future leaders.

Major employers such as Marriott, Hyatt and IHG have invested heavily in programs that promote access and belonging, creating leadership pipelines for underrepresented groups. Meanwhile, academic programs that prepare these future leaders have not made comparable progress.

The absence of representation among hospitality and tourism academia also shapes the kinds of research questions that get asked. When faculty from underrepresented backgrounds are missing, issues such as racialized guest experiences, workplace bias and equitable career advancement may be overlooked.

What still isn’t known

Our study provides a snapshot, rather than a complete picture of faculty representation in U.S. hospitality and tourism programs. Because the sample focused on research-intensive universities, it excluded many historically Black universities and teaching-focused institutions, which may have more professors of color.

The research also relied on publicly available photographs and institutional profiles to identify race and gender. While this method mirrors how students visually perceive representation, it cannot fully capture multiethnic or intersectional identities.

We believe that future studies should track how faculty composition evolves over time and explore the lived experiences of educators from underrepresented backgrounds. Understanding the barriers that prevent these scholars from entering or staying in academia is essential for creating environments where all faculty can thrive.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Abigail Foster, admissions specialist at the University of the District of Columbia’s David A. Clarke School of Law, contributed to this article.

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. US hospitality and tourism professors don’t mirror the demographics of the industry they serve – https://theconversation.com/us-hospitality-and-tourism-professors-dont-mirror-the-demographics-of-the-industry-they-serve-273345

January 26, 2026

Rebirth of the madman theory? Unpredictability isn’t what it was when it comes to foreign policy

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew Latham, Professor of Political Science, Macalester College

🎶 When the madman flips the switch, the nuclear will go for me 🎶 Columbia Pictures, CC BY-SA

Tariffs are on, until they are not. Military force is an option … and then it’s off the table.

Erratic behavior and unpredictability is having a moment in foreign policy circles. In the White House and elsewhere, it is seemingly being viewed as a strategic asset rather than a weakness.

But it is far from a new strategy. Wild threats, sudden policy reversals and intentionally confusing language have long been used to keep adversaries off balance and gain leverage.

In fact, the concept has its own name in international relations: “madman theory.” As outlined by Cold War strategists Daniel Ellsberg and Thomas Schelling, it holds that projecting a readiness to take extreme action can shape an opponent’s calculations by heightening fears of escalation.

While the theory was meant to be explanatory, in the sense that observers used it to explain apparently irrational behavior, it has sometimes been used in a prescriptive way, as an approach consciously adopted by leaders.

The 3 conditions for madman success

The madman theory has historical roots going back to Machiavelli, but it is most closely associated with Richard Nixon, who, as incoming president, reportedly used the term to explain his approach to trying to force North Vietnam’s surrender in the Vietnam War.

Historians see evidence of the theory’s limited applicability in episodes such as Nixon’s 1969 placing of the U.S. military on nuclear alert, which appeared to have reinforced Soviet caution even if it did not bring about an end of the Vietnam War.

A man holds a long scroll of paper. — President Richard Nixon is closely associated with the ‘madman theory.’
Bettmann/Getty Images

The theory was more applicable in Nixon’s era because of three background conditions that were in place.

The first was information scarcity. During the Cold War, signals traveled more slowly than they do today and through narrow channels. Messages were filtered by professional diplomats, intelligence analysts and military officers.

Ambiguity could be sustained. A country’s leader could appear possibly unhinged without being instantly decoded, contextualized or publicly dissected. “Madman” signaling depended on this controlled opacity.

The second condition was a stable adversary with a shared notion of risk. Nixon’s gambit worked, when it worked at all, because Soviet leaders were deeply conservative risk managers operating inside a rigid hierarchy. They feared miscalculation because they believed it could lead to the Soviet Union’s fall — or at least their fall within it.

The third condition was credibility built through restraint elsewhere. The madman pose only works if it is exceptional. Nixon appeared dangerous to adversaries precisely because the American system normally appeared controlled. His apparent erratic behavior was exceptional in a context of bureaucratic orderliness.

But the world of those three conditions is gone.

Threats today are tweeted, clipped, reframed, leaked, mocked and talked about in real time. Unpredictability doesn’t have time to breathe public fear into existence. Rather, it can devolve into noise.

And nations such as Iran, Russia and China operate in a world they already regard as unstable and unjust. Volatility does not frighten them; it is the environment they expect. In such conditions, apparent irrationality can invite probing, hedging or reciprocal escalation.

Meanwhile, erratic behavior is no longer exceptional or unexpected.

Many a madman would struggle today

Unpredictability only works if it’s strategic rather than designed on the fly. Trump has blustered, contradicted himself publicly, ramped-up rhetorically and then backed down, mostly without receiving obvious concessions.

The more this happens, the more predictability he creates about unpredictability.

And once unpredictability becomes expected, it loses its coercive force.

This dynamic is evident in Trump’s handling of both Iran and Greenland. In the Iranian case, pressure — including military strikes — has been applied without clearly defining where escalation would end.

With Greenland, coercive threats aimed at an ally only strained NATO without producing compliance.

In neither instance did unpredictability translate into durable leverage. Instead, it generated uncertainty about objectives and limits.

A man in a suit and red tie stands. — Is Donald Trump’s unpredictability becoming predictable?
Samuel Corum/Getty Images

A bigger problem for any leader wishing to adopt a madman strategy is that today’s international order and media ecosystem are more inured to volatility. Threats no longer freeze opponents into caution.

Friendly nations hedge their bets. For example, faced with U.S. threats over tariffs, India strengthened ties with China.

Meanwhile, enemies test boundaries. Russia, for example, has treated Trump’s ambiguous signaling on Ukraine as little more than a green-light for it to continue its campaign to conquer the Donbas region.

Does the madman have a future?

There are still limited circumstances in which ambiguity can serve a strategic purpose.

Limited uncertainty about specific responses can reinforce deterrence by keeping adversaries cautious. U.S. strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan, for example, leaves it unclear whether Washington would intervene militarily in the case of an attack by Beijing, discouraging the locking of any side into automatic escalation.

That part of the madman approach remains effective. But what no longer works is volatility untethered from clear objectives and visible limits.

The madman theory was built for a rigid, rule-bound world. It is least effective precisely where today’s politics feels most chaotic.

This article is part of a series explaining foreign policy terms commonly used but rarely explained.

Andrew Latham 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. Rebirth of the madman theory? Unpredictability isn’t what it was when it comes to foreign policy – https://theconversation.com/rebirth-of-the-madman-theory-unpredictability-isnt-what-it-was-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy-274098

January 26, 2026

Grains of sand prove people – not glaciers – transported Stonehenge rocks

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Anthony Clarke, Research Associate, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University

Ask people how Stonehenge was built and you’ll hear stories of sledges, ropes, boats and sheer human determination to haul stones from across Britain to Salisbury Plain, in south-west England. Others might mention giants, wizards, or alien assistance to explain the transport of Stonehenge’s stones, which come from as far as Wales and Scotland.

But what if nature itself did the heavy lifting in transporting Stonehenge’s megaliths? In this scenario, vast glaciers that once covered Britain carried the bluestones and the Altar Stone to southern England as “glacial erratics”, or rocks moved by ice, leaving them conveniently behind on Salisbury Plain for the builders of Stonehenge.

This idea, known as the glacial transport theory, often appears in documentaries and online discussions. But it has never been tested with modern geological techniques.

Our new study, published today in Communications Earth and Environment, provides the first clear evidence glacial material never reached the area. This demonstrates the stones did not arrive through natural ice movement.

While previous research had cast doubt on the glacial transport theory, our study goes further and applies cutting-edge mineral fingerprinting to trace the stones’ true origins.

A clear mineral fingerprint

Giant ice sheets are messy, leaving behind piles of rock, scratched bedrock and carved landforms.

However, near Stonehenge, these tell-tale clues are either missing or ambiguous. And because the southern reach of ice sheets remains unclear, the glacial transport idea is open to debate.

So, if no big and obvious clues are present, could we look for tiny ones instead?

If glaciers had carried the stones all the way from Wales or Scotland, they would also have left behind millions of microscopic mineral grains, such as zircon and apatite, from those regions.

When both minerals form, they trap small amounts of radioactive uranium – which, at a known rate, will decay into lead. By measuring the ratios of both elements using a technique called U–Pb dating, we can measure the age of each zircon and apatite grain.

Because Britain’s rocks have very different ages from place to place, a mineral’s age can indicate its source. This means that if glaciers had carried stones to Stonehenge, the rivers of Salisbury Plain, which gather zircon and apatite from across a wide area, should still contain a clear mineral fingerprint of that journey.

Searching for tiny clues

To find out, we got our feet wet and collected sand from the rivers surrounding Stonehenge. What we discovered was striking.

Despite analysing more than seven hundred zircon and apatite grains, we found virtually no mineral ages that matched the bluestone sources in Wales or the Altar Stone’s Scottish source.

Zircon is exceptionally tough: grains can survive being weathered, washed into a river, buried in rocks, and recycled again millions of years later. As such, zircon crystals from Salisbury Plain rivers span an enormous stretch of geological time, covering half the age of the Earth, from around 2.8 billion years ago to 300 million years ago.

However, the vast majority fell within a tight band, spanning between 1.7 and 1.1 billion years old. Intriguingly, Salisbury River zircon ages match those from the Thanet Formation, a blanket of loosely compacted sand that covered much of southern England millions of years ago before being eroded.

This means zircon in river sand today is the leftovers from ancient blankets of sedimentary rocks, not freshly delivered sand from glaciers during the last Ice Age 26,000 to 20,000 years ago.

Apatite tells a different story. All grains are about 60 million years old, at a time when southern England was a shallow, subtropical sea. This age doesn’t match any potential source rocks in Britain.

Instead, apatite ages reflect the squeezing and uplifting caused by distant mountain-building in the European Alps, causing fluids to move through the chalk and “reset” apatite’s uranium-lead clock. In other words, the heating and chemical changes erased the mineral’s previous radioactive signature and started the clock ticking again.

Much like zircon, apatite isn’t a visitor brought in by glaciers but is local and has been sitting on Salisbury Plain for tens of millions of years.

A new piece of the Stonehenge story

Stonehenge sits at the crossroads of myth, ancient engineering and deep-time geology.

The ages of microscopic grains in river sand have now added a new piece to its story. This gives us further evidence the monument’s most exotic stones did not arrive by chance but were instead deliberately selected and transported.

Anthony Clarke receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

– ref. Grains of sand prove people – not glaciers – transported Stonehenge rocks – https://theconversation.com/grains-of-sand-prove-people-not-glaciers-transported-stonehenge-rocks-271310

January 26, 2026

Shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis has put America’s gun lobby at odds with the White House

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

Another US citizen has allegedly been killed by immigration agents in Minnesota, raising tensions between state and federal governments. The actions of the federal agencies involved has drawn fierce criticism not only from former Democratic presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, but also America’s powerful pro-gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).

If you were to think it unusual that the people named in the previous sentence appear to be on the same side over this issue, you’d be right. But these aren’t usual times in America.

Video footage taken at the scene reportedly shows agents of the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – working with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) in Minnesota to detain people they suspect of being illegal migrants – tackling 37-year-old nurse, Alex Pretti.

The footage reportedly shows they wrestled him to the ground, beat him and apparently removed a handgun from a holster he was wearing, before firing ten shots at him.

Since his killing a lot of attention has focused on his gun. Carrying a handgun, whether openly or holstered, is legal in Minnesota, and Pretti had a license for his gun. So he was perfectly within his rights to be carrying it. And there is nothing to suggest from the footage that he attempted to draw it or use it while being tackled by the ICE agents.

Of course, in the United States, the right to keep and bear arms – the second amendment – is a pretty big deal to a lot of people, especially conservatives. So when various figures in the Trump regime suggested that CBP agents had been justified in shooting Pretti because he was carrying a holstered weapon, they provoked outrage from gun rights activists. And, significantly, many of these people are usually on the same page as the White House about pretty much anything.

First there was FBI director Kash Patel, who told Fox News: “You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want.” Dead wrong, replied the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the group Gun Owners of America – you’re legally entitled to bring a gun to a protest.

Then a Trump-appointed district attorney waded in, arguing: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”

This drew a rebuke from the NRA, one of the most prolific and important right-wing groups in America and a big donor to Trump’s campaigns, which replied that: “This sentiment … is dangerous and wrong. Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”

The problem that the Trump regime has is that it appears from abundant video evidence that Pretti was not handling his gun irresponsibly. He wasn’t waving it around, he wasn’t threatening anyone, in fact he wasn’t even touching it. He didn’t approach the federal agents – they appeared to pile on him. And he was disarmed of his holstered weapon by one of them before he was killed.

Second amendment vs tyrannical government

The reason that this touches such a raw nerve, even with many people who usually support Trump’s agenda, is that this cuts to the core of what the second amendment is about. In the eyes of the right, the amendment’s whole legitimacy rests on the idea that it allows the populace to arm in order to protect itself against a tyrannical government.

This means that Pretti was doing exactly what second amendment advocates say they need guns for. And while some gun rights advocates may have been willing to keep quiet while federal agents were trampling on the rights of migrants and brown-skinned citizens, the murder of Pretti is a bridge too far.

That’s not to say that the gun lobby is turning on the Trump administration – at least, not yet. But it is notable that ICE’s outrages (and those of the related Customs and Border Protection Agency) are becoming so hard to ignore that they’re increasingly drawing opposition not just from the left but also from traditionally right-wing groups.

The NRA is not about to flip and start fundraising for the next Democratic party presidential candidate. But its willingness to call out the regime is unusual to say the least. And it increases pressure on Trump to change course and damages the credibility of key people in the regime among conservatives.

The whole sequence of events also reveals something more concerning – the fact that more and more people in America on both left and right are carrying weapons. The idea of arming for self-defense has been quietly gaining ground in left-wing circles for around a decade.

Gun clubs have sprung up to serve LGBTQ+ people, black people, white liberals – anyone who fears they might one day be a target of violence from the Trump-ified federal authorities or right-wing militia. Nearly one-third of self-identified liberals now live in a gun-owning household.

And while it’s hard to find fault with their fears, this is another reason why America’s knife-edge politics is so terrifying. What happens when things fall apart in a country in which hatred and fear have driven so many people to arm themselves?

Let’s hope that Alex Pretti’s death serves as a reminder of the importance of stepping back from the brink rather than pushing the country closer to it.

A version of this article also appears on the author’s Substack series, America Explained.

Andrew Gawthorpe is affiliated with the Foreign Policy Centre, a London-based think tank.

– ref. Shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis has put America’s gun lobby at odds with the White House – https://theconversation.com/shooting-of-alex-pretti-in-minneapolis-has-put-americas-gun-lobby-at-odds-with-the-white-house-274343

January 26, 2026

Tout comprendre à l’ICE, la police de l’immigration au cœur des polémiques aux États-Unis

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Frédérique Sandretto, Adjunct assistant professor, Sciences Po

Le Service de l’immigration et des douanes des États-Unis, ou ICE, est l’une des agences fédérales favorites de Donald Trump, qui en a très largement augmenté le budget alors même qu’il réduisait celui de bien d’autres administrations. Chargée avant tout d’arrêter et d’expulser les supposés millions de clandestins se trouvant sur le territoire national, elle recrute des milliers d’agents, qui sont rapidement formés et quasi immédiatement envoyés sur le terrain. Très critiquée pour ses méthodes violentes, l’organisation est plus que jamais sous le feu des projecteurs actuellement, après deux arrestations à Minneapolis (Minnesota) qui ont provoqué la mort des personnes interpellées. L’administration Trump fait bloc autour du Service, tandis que le Parti démocrate et de très nombreux simples citoyens la dénoncent et, souvent, réclament sa dissolution immédiate.

L’Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), agence fédérale américaine chargée de l’application des lois sur l’immigration et les douanes, a été officiellement créée le 1^er mars 2003, dans le cadre d’une vaste réorganisation gouvernementale consécutive aux attentats du 11 septembre 2001. Son instauration résulte directement du Homeland Security Act de 2002, signé par le président George W. Bush, qui visait à renforcer la sécurité intérieure des États-Unis en consolidant plusieurs agences fédérales sous l’égide du nouveau Département de la Sécurité intérieure (DHS).

L’ICE a absorbé les fonctions de l’ancien Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) et de l’United States Customs Service, deux entités dissoutes pour permettre une gestion plus centralisée et plus efficace des questions migratoires et douanières, dans un contexte marqué par la lutte contre le terrorisme et la criminalité transnationale.

Sa création est donc indissociable des bouleversements politiques et sécuritaires provoqués par les attaques du 11 septembre 2001, qui ont conduit les autorités américaines à repenser en profondeur leur approche de la sécurité nationale, en intégrant notamment une dimension plus répressive et plus préventive à la gestion des flux migratoires et des échanges commerciaux. L’ICE a été conçue pour jouer un rôle clé dans cette stratégie, en combinant des pouvoirs civils et pénaux afin de mieux protéger le territoire national contre les menaces extérieures, qu’elles soient terroristes, criminelles ou liées à l’immigration illégale.

Explosion budgétaire sous la seconde présidence Trump

Sous Bush puis sous son successeur Barack Obama, l’agence se consacre essentiellement à la lutte contre le terrorisme et contre les gangs transnationaux, même si elle procède déjà à de nombreuses expulsions de sans-papiers. Ses capacités seront accrues lors du premier mandat Trump, et Joe Biden ne les réduira pas : lors de sa dernière année à la Maison Blanche, 274 000 personnes seront expulsées, soit un peu plus que lors de l’année la plus « productive » en la matière du premier mandat Trump. Mais c’est le retour de Donald Trump à la Maison Blanche en janvier 2025 qui marquera un véritable tournant majeur pour l’ICE, avec une augmentation spectaculaire de ses moyens financiers.

En juillet 2025, le Congrès, à majorité républicaine, a adopté la loi dite « One Big Beautiful Bill Act », qui a alloué environ 75 milliards de dollars (plus de 63 milliards d’euros) supplémentaires à l’ICE sur plusieurs années, dont une grande partie disponible jusqu’en 2029. Sur ce montant, 45 milliards (soit quelque 37,8 milliards d’euros) sont destinés à l’expansion massive des capacités de détention (visant potentiellement à la création de plus de 100 000 places supplémentaires), et environ 30 milliards (environ 25,2 milliards d’euros) à l’intensification des opérations d’arrestation, de traque et d’expulsion.

Ajoutés au budget annuel classique d’environ 10 milliards de dollars, environ 8,4 milliards d’euros, (maintien pour l’exercice fiscal 2026), ces fonds portent le budget effectif de l’agence à des niveaux inédits, souvent estimés autour de 28 milliards à 30 milliards de dollars (de 23,5 milliards à 25,2 milliards d’euros) par an en 2025-2026, soit près du triple du budget d’avant 2025.

Cette manne financière a permis de doubler les effectifs (passés à environ 22 000 agents aujourd’hui), d’offrir des primes d’embauche allant jusqu’à 50 000 dollars (plus de 42 000 euros) et de financer la plus grande opération d’expulsions de l’histoire américaine : plus de 300 000 personnes sur la seule année 2025 – comme promis par le président.

Post de l’ICE sur X, reprenant une esthétique bien connu de l’appel à s’engager (le dessin d’origine, montrant l’Oncle Sam invitant les jeunes Américains à rejoindre l’armée avec le slogan « *I want you for U.S. Army* » datait de 1917, en pleine Première Guerre mondiale). Le texte dit : « Pas de limite d’âge. Prime à la signature de 50 000 $. Défendre la patrie. Qu’attendez-vous ? Répondez à l’appel pour servir au sein de l’ICE. »
@Icegov/X

Les critiques, qui viennent notamment de la part des élus démocrates au Congrès, dénoncent un « fonds sans garde-fous » favorisant une machine répressive sans précédent, tandis que les partisans de Trump y voient un outil indispensable pour « rendre l’Amérique sûre à nouveau ».

L’ICE et la crise de Minneapolis

Depuis le début du second mandat de Donald Trump, l’ICE s’est imposée comme l’une des institutions fédérales les plus sujettes à controverse, en raison notamment de pratiques opérationnelles fréquemment dénoncées pour leur caractère excessif, voire abusif.

Cette polarisation a atteint son paroxysme en janvier 2026, lorsque l’agence s’est retrouvée au centre d’une crise sociopolitique majeure à Minneapolis (Minnesota), ses agents ayant abattu deux personnes dans le courant de ce mois. Cette séquence, encore loin d’être achevée au moment où ces lignes sont écrites, a catalysé les tensions latentes, accumulées depuis plusieurs années, concernant tant les modalités d’intervention de l’ICE que la légitimité même de son mandat institutionnel.

Petit rappel des faits : le 7 janvier dernier, Renée Nicole Good, une mère de famille américaine de 37 ans, a été tuée par balles par un agent de l’ICE lors d’une opération de contrôle de l’immigration dans la métropole du Minnesota. Les circonstances de sa mort, rapidement appuyées par des vidéos tournées par des témoins diffusées sur les réseaux sociaux, ont révélé une scène d’une grande violence : alors que Good se trouvait dans son véhicule, garé en travers de la route depuis seulement quelques minutes, un agent de l’ICE a fait usage de son arme à feu, la touchant à quatre reprises, dont deux balles dans la poitrine et une à la tête.

Le 24 janvier 2026, dans la même ville, des agents de l’ICE tuaient Alex Pretti, un infirmier américain venu filmer une de leurs opérations. Pretti a reçu plusieurs balles dans le corps alors qu’il se trouvait au sol, immobilisé et ne présentant aucun danger, le pistolet qu’il portait – légalement – sur sa personne lui ayant été retiré, sans qu’il n’ait d’ailleurs cherché à s’en saisir.

L’impact de ces deux événements a été immédiat et profond, tant sur le plan local que national. Minneapolis, déjà marquée par la mort de George Floyd en 2020 et les mouvements de protestation contre les violences policières qui avaient suivi, est devenue une nouvelle fois l’épicentre d’une mobilisation citoyenne massive.

Dès le lendemain de la mort de Renée Good, des manifestations ont éclaté dans plusieurs villes américaines, dénonçant ce que les participants qualifiaient de « meurtre » et assimilant les actions de l’ICE à des pratiques « terroristes ». Les images des rassemblements, où des milliers de personnes brandissaient des pancartes et des photos de la victime, ont circulé massivement, tandis que des personnalités publiques, comme l’artiste Bruce Springsteen, ont publiquement exprimé leur indignation et leur soutien aux familles touchées.

Le maire de Minneapolis Jacob Frey ainsi que le gouverneur du Minnesota Tim Walz, tous deux démocrates (Walz était le colistier de Kamala Harris à la dernière présidentielle), ont rapidement condamné les actions de l’ICE, exigeant le retrait immédiat des agents fédéraux de leur État et dénonçant « le chaos, les perturbations et les traumatismes » infligés à la communauté locale. Ces prises de position ont mis en lumière les tensions persistantes entre les autorités locales, souvent démocrates et favorables à une approche plus humaniste de l’immigration, et le gouvernement fédéral, dont la politique migratoire s’est durcie sous l’administration Trump, spécialement depuis son retour au pouvoir en 2025.

La mort d’Alex Pretti a suscité les mêmes réactions, encore plus fortes peut-être du fait de la répétition à court terme, dans la même ville, d’une scène similaire à celle du décès de Renée Good : les protestations massives consécutives à la tragédie du 7 janvier n’avaient donc pas suffi à empêcher un bis repetita.

Sur le plan politique, l’affaire a également révélé les profondes divisions qui traversent la société américaine. Alors que des enquêtes fédérales et locales ont été ouvertes pour éclaircir les circonstances exactes de la mort de Renée Good, les réactions des responsables politiques ont été plus que contrastées.

Le vice-président J. D. Vance, par exemple, a rapidement soutenu la version des faits avancée par l’ICE à propos de la mort de Renée Good, selon laquelle la victime aurait tenté de faire obstruction à l’opération en cours, une affirmation infirmée par les vidéos et les témoignages indépendants. De même, Greg Bovino, l’un des principaux responsables de l’ICE, est allé jusqu’à affirmer que les agents ayant abattu Alex Pretti avaient agi en « légitime défense » et que l’infirmier avait eu pour objectif de « massacrer » des agents des forces de l’ordre. Quant à Donald Trump, il a dans les deux cas imputé la responsabilité des faits au « chaos » créé par les démocrates.

Dans le camp d’en face, la condamnation des méthodes de l’ICE et du soutien systématique que lui offrent les responsables républicains, qu’il s’agisse de Trump, de Vance, ou encore de la secrétaire à la sécurité intérieure Kristi Noem, a été tout aussi unanime. De Bernie Sanders à Bill Clinton et Barack Obama, en passant par le leader des démocrates au Congrès Hakeem Jeffries, les leaders démocrates ont tous fait part de leur consternation et de leur dégoût, dans des termes très vifs.

L’ICE et au-delà : illustration d’une société plus polarisée que jamais

Cette polarisation des discours a alimenté une crise de confiance envers les institutions fédérales, déjà fragilisées par des années de controverses autour des pratiques de l’ICE.

En effet, les morts de Renée Good et d’Alex Pretti ont relancé le débat sur la légitimité même de l’ICE en tant qu’institution. Des appels à sa dissolution, portés par des mouvements militants et des élus locaux, se sont multipliés, tandis que des sondages réalisés dans les jours suivant l’incident ont révélé une désapprobation majoritaire de l’action de l’agence parmi la population américaine. Plus de 50 % des personnes interrogées ont jugé les méthodes de l’ICE « trop énergiques », et une majorité a exprimé une forte désapprobation de son fonctionnement, soulignant un fossé croissant entre les objectifs affichés de sécurité nationale et les réalités vécues par les communautés directement affectées par ses opérations.

En définitive, l’affaire de Minneapolis s’inscrit dans une trajectoire historique plus large. L’ICE, née dans le sillage des attentats du 11-Septembre, est devenue le symbole d’une approche sécuritaire de l’immigration, souvent au détriment des droits humains et de la cohésion sociale. Les événements de janvier 2026, en révélant les excès et les dangers d’une telle politique, ont non seulement ravivé les mémoires des violences passées, mais ont aussi posé avec une acuité nouvelle la question de l’équilibre entre sécurité et liberté dans une démocratie libérale.

Frédérique Sandretto ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Tout comprendre à l’ICE, la police de l’immigration au cœur des polémiques aux États-Unis – https://theconversation.com/tout-comprendre-a-lice-la-police-de-limmigration-au-coeur-des-polemiques-aux-etats-unis-274229

January 26, 2026

Ontario’s Bill 33 raises serious concern about campus equity and student rights

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Aasiya Satia, Doctoral candidate, Higher Education Leadership, Western University

Ontario’s Bill 33, passed in November 2025, could change how post-secondary admissions decisions are made, as well as how student fees are managed and what campus services they fund.

Each year, tens of thousands of university and college applicants come from communities that are historically underrepresented in higher education.

These policy changes could shape who gains access to programs, supports and opportunities for success.

The Council of Ontario Universities (COU) and many other educational groups and advocates and students have raised serious concerns about how the bill reaches into educational affairs. Some note that the bill comes at a time when there are ongoing public debates about institutional independence and decision-making.

The provincial government says Bill 33, which it termed the Supporting Children and Students Act, will make education more transparent and consistent. The law affects school boards, colleges and universities.

For us as scholars whose combined expertise spans strategic planning, equity, anti-oppressive forms of education and learning accessibility, the bill’s reach into admissions raises serious concerns about equity and student rights.

Discussion of ‘merit’

A section of the bill “requires colleges of applied arts and technology and publicly assisted universities to assess applicants based on merit and to publish the criteria and process to be used for assessment into programs of study.”

Greater transparency in admissions is positive. But if merit is defined too narrowly, it could block diverse pathways to post-secondary admissions that recognize different kinds of achievement, leaving out students from marginalized communities.

Steps leading up to an archway. — If merit is defined too narrowly, it could block diverse pathways to post-secondary admissions.
(Saforrest/Wikimedia Commons), CC BY-SA

Studies in professional and medical education show that relying only on grades can miss other signs of potential, like life experience, community work and meeting the needs of society.

Grades seem objective, but they depend on many factors like family income and access to school and community resources — along with teacher and parent expectations and how much time students have to study while balancing work, family, community and other responsibilities.

Students from low-income, Black, Indigenous, rural or otherwise marginalized communities often face big challenges even before applying to college or university. These challenges reflect longstanding gaps in income and education.

Bill 33 doesn’t explain what “merit” means. Without a clear definition, admissions could end up favouring students who already have advantages. New rules will soon define how merit is measured, and these rules will be very important. If they don’t protect equity-focused pathways, the law could make existing gaps even worse.

Student fees and risk to campus services

Fair admissions are only part of the story. Bill 33 also changes how student fees are handled. These changes could harm students from marginalized communities.

Student groups have raised strong concerns about how Bill 33 could affect ancillary fees and the services they fund.

According to the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, “ancillary fees are democratically approved by students, for students.” These are extra student fees that fund essential services such as food banks, wellness centres, accessibility programs, cultural programs, transportation and safety programs. These services could be at risk if the province gains more control over how fees are defined and charged.

In 2019, student groups successfully challenged Ontario’s Student Choice Initiativ. Through this measure, the province tried to limit ancillary fees but the court ruled it didn’t have the legal authority to do so at the time. Bill 33 responds to that ruling by changing the law itself, giving the province clear authority to regulate student fees.

The Canadian Federation of Students in Ontario has warned that focusing on fee oversight may distract from deeper problems in higher education, including chronic underfunding and high tuition costs.

Could weaken student-led supports, harm equity

Under Bill 33, the government can decide which fees can be charged and under what rules. Most universities clearly list how ancillary fees are used. For example, at McMaster University, these fees help fund transit passes, wellness services, career supports and refugee student programs.

How fees are managed is closely linked to the government’s broader oversight of universities, linking financial decisions to questions of accountability, governance and whose voices are heard in decision-making.

Student groups have long played a key role in raising equity concerns and ensuring local needs are addressed. If more decisions are made at the provincial level, student voices could carry less weight unless students are clearly included in new rules and decision-making processes.

Looking ahead: Equity is not automatic

As universities begin to apply Bill 33, students and faculty may notice changes in how admissions decisions are explained, how student fees are handled and how transparency rules are used.

These changes will not look the same at every campus. Their impact will depend on how the rules are interpreted and whether universities make equity a clear priority in their policies.

While the law may seem neutral, its real impact will depend on how it is put into practice and whose experiences are considered.

Ensuring equitable access to higher education requires careful planning, enough funding and meaningful input from students, faculty and communities most affected by these changes.

Equity will not happen by chance. It will depend on the choices universities and policymakers make now, and on whose voices are heard in those decisions.

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

– ref. Ontario’s Bill 33 raises serious concern about campus equity and student rights – https://theconversation.com/ontarios-bill-33-raises-serious-concern-about-campus-equity-and-student-rights-272548

January 26, 2026

Tout comprendre à l’ICE, l’agence migratoire américaine au cœur des polémiques

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Frédérique Sandretto, Adjunct assistant professor, Sciences Po

Explosion budgétaire sous la seconde présidence Trump

L’ICE et la crise de Minneapolis

L’ICE et au-delà : illustration d’une société plus polarisée que jamais

Cette polarisation des discours a alimenté une crise de confiance envers les institutions fédérales, déjà fragilisées par des années de controverses autour des pratiques de l’ICE.

– ref. Tout comprendre à l’ICE, l’agence migratoire américaine au cœur des polémiques – https://theconversation.com/tout-comprendre-a-lice-lagence-migratoire-americaine-au-coeur-des-polemiques-274229