Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Nicole M. Bennett, Ph.D. Candidate in Geography and Assistant Director at the Center for Refugee Studies, Indiana University

When most people think about immigration enforcement, they picture border crossings and airport checkpoints. But the new front line may be your social media feed.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has published a request for information for private-sector contractors to launch a round-the-clock social media monitoring program. The request states that private contractors will be paid to comb through “Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Tumblr, Instagram, VK, Flickr, Myspace, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Reddit, WhatsApp, YouTube, etc.,” turning public posts into enforcement leads that feed directly into ICE’s databases.

The request for information reads like something out of a cyber thriller: dozens of analysts working in shifts, strict deadlines measured in minutes, a tiered system of prioritizing high-risk individuals, and the latest software keeping constant watch.

I am a researcher who studies the intersection of data governance, digital technologies and the U.S. federal government. I believe that the ICE request for information also signals a concerning if logical next step in a longer trend, one that moves the U.S. border from the physical world into the digital.

A new structure of surveillance

ICE already searches social media using a service called SocialNet that monitors most major online platforms. The agency has also contracted with Zignal Labs for its AI-powered social media monitoring system.

The Customs and Border Protection agency also searches social media posts on the devices of some travelers at ports of entry, and the U.S. State Department reviews social media posts when foreigners seek visas to enter the United States.

What would change isn’t only the scale of monitoring but its structure. Instead of government agents gathering evidence case by case, ICE is building a public-private surveillance loop that transforms everyday online activity into potential evidence.

Private contractors would be tasked with scraping publicly available data to collecting messages, including posts and other media and data. The contractors would be able to correlate those findings with data in commercial datasets from brokers such as LexisNexis Accurint and Thomson Reuters CLEAR along with government-owned databases. Analysts would be required to produce dossiers for ICE field offices within tight deadlines – sometimes just 30 minutes for a high-priority case.

Those files don’t exist in isolation. They feed directly into Palantir Technologies’ Investigative Case Management system, the digital backbone of modern immigration enforcement. There, this social media data would join a growing web of license plate scans, utility records, property data and biometrics, creating what is effectively a searchable portrait of a person’s life.

Who gets caught in the net?

Officially, ICE says its data collection would focus on people who are already linked to ongoing cases or potential threats. In practice, the net is far wider.

The danger here is that when one person is flagged, their friends, relatives, fellow organizers or any of their acquaintances can also become subjects of scrutiny. Previous contracts for facial recognition tools and location tracking have shown how easily these systems expand beyond their original scope. What starts as enforcement can turn into surveillance of entire communities.

What ICE says and what history shows

ICE frames the project as modernization: a way to identify a target’s location by identifying aliases and detecting patterns that traditional methods might miss. Planning documents say contractors cannot create fake profiles and must store all analysis on ICE servers.

But history suggests these kinds of guardrails often fail. Investigations have revealed how informal data-sharing between local police and federal agents allowed ICE to access systems it wasn’t authorized to use. The agency has repeatedly purchased massive datasets from brokers to sidestep warrant requirements. And despite a White House freeze on spyware procurement, ICE quietly revived a contract with Paragon’s Graphite tool, software reportedly capable of infiltrating encrypted apps such as WhatsApp and Signal.

Meanwhile, ICE’s vendor ecosystem keeps expanding: Clearview AI for face matching, ShadowDragon’s SocialNet for mapping networks, Babel Street’s location history service Locate X, and LexisNexis for looking up people. ICE is also purchasing tools from surveillance firm PenLink that combine location data with social media data. Together, these platforms make continuous, automated monitoring not only possible but routine.

Lessons from abroad

The United States isn’t alone in government monitoring of social media. In the United Kingdom, a new police unit tasked with scanning online discussions about immigration and civil unrest has drawn criticism for blurring the line between public safety and political policing.

Across the globe, spyware scandals have shown how lawful access tools that were initially justified for counterterrorism were later used against journalists and activists. Once these systems exist, mission creep, also known as function creep, becomes the rule rather than the exception.

The social cost of being watched

Around-the-clock surveillance doesn’t just gather information – it also changes behavior.

Research found that visits to Wikipedia articles on terrorism dropped sharply immediately after revelations about the National Security Agency’s global surveillance in June 2013.

For immigrants and activists, the stakes are higher. A post about a protest or a joke can be reinterpreted as “intelligence.” Knowing that federal contractors may be watching in real time encourages self-censorship and discourages civic participation. In this environment, the digital self, an identity composed of biometric markers, algorithmic classifications, risk scores and digital traces, becomes a risk that follows you across platforms and databases.

What’s new and why it matters now

What is genuinely new is the privatization of interpretation. ICE isn’t just collecting more data, it is outsourcing judgment to private contractors. Private analysts, aided by artificial intelligence, are likely to decide what online behavior signals danger and what doesn’t. That decision-making happens rapidly and across large numbers of people, for the most part beyond public oversight.

At the same time, the consolidation of data means social media content can now sit beside location and biometric information inside Palantir’s hub. Enforcement increasingly happens through data correlations, raising questions about due process.

ICE’s request for information is likely to evolve into a full procurement contract within months, and recent litigation from the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center against the Department of Homeland Security suggests that the oversight is likely to lag far behind the technology. ICE’s plan to maintain permanent watch floors, open indoor spaces equipped with video and computer monitors, that are staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year signals that this likely isn’t a temporary experiment and instead is a new operational norm.

What accountability looks like

Transparency starts with public disclosure of the algorithms and scoring systems ICE uses. Advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union argue that law enforcement agencies should meet the same warrant standards online that they do in physical spaces. The Brennan Center for Justice and the ACLU argue that there should be independent oversight of surveillance systems for accuracy and bias. And several U.S. senators have introduced legislation to limit bulk purchases from data brokers.

Without checks like these, I believe that the boundary between border control and everyday life is likely to keep dissolving. As the digital border expands, it risks ensnaring anyone whose online presence becomes legible to the system.

Nicole M. Bennett is affiliated with the Center for Refugee Studies at Indiana University.

– ref. Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation – https://theconversation.com/always-watching-how-ices-plan-to-monitor-social-media-24-7-threatens-privacy-and-civic-participation-268175

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Halie Kampman, Postdoctoral Scholar in the Department of Geography, Penn State

In communities across Pennsylvania, local officials are deciding how to spend over US$2 billion dollars from the state’s opioid settlement agreements.

For many, the task is proving promising yet challenging – and raises questions about how to best navigate complex local needs.

Pennsylvania will receive the money over 18 years from lawsuits filed by state attorneys general against opioid manufacturers and distributors. About 70% of these funds will be distributed to county governments, with the remaining funds going to the state legislature and the groups that leveraged the lawsuits.

The amount provided to each county is proportional to the opioid-related harms experienced by the county. Each county government is responsible for developing its own funding strategy for substance use programs, which can focus on things such as prevention, treatment, recovery or harm reduction.

Our research team at Penn State interviewed 72 county officials, health professionals and service providers across six counties in Pennsylvania to understand their early experiences with these funds.

We summarized our findings in a recent article for the peer-reviewed Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy journal. We found that stakeholders view the settlement funds not simply as extra money but as an opportunity to heal – and to test how well local communities can make their own choices about spending.

‘Bags of money’ but limited guidance

Pennsylvania’s distribution strategy was designed to give local governments flexibility. A document called Exhibit E lists the ways that counties can spend the settlement money.

This collaborative document was written as part of the settlement to outline shared guidelines that apply to all the states receiving funds. It lists everything from the types of approved substance use treatments to what qualifies as prevention. In practice, Exhibit E provides diverse opportunities for spending but has also created widespread uncertainty among recipients about which strategies to prioritize.

Some interviewees felt overwhelmed by the logistics of their funding decisions. They understood that the general purpose of the money is to support communities harmed by opioid overprescription. But they lacked clarity on how much time they had to spend it, what the reporting requirements are, and what counts as an eligible activity. For example, some wanted to use the funds to pay administrators for new prevention programs, but administration isn’t included in Exhibit E.

As one local elected official in southeastern Pennsylvania put it, “There’s been a whole lot of stuff that we don’t know – more than we do know. And now we’re running with bags of money through the community and (we’re) not sure how we can spend it, or if we can spend it.”

Many county officials worried about spending the funds too slowly, or on activities that could end up being ineligible or ineffective. Service providers sometimes didn’t know who in their county had the authority to decide where the money went. While they may have wanted to provide recommendations or input, they were unsure how.

A chance to experiment and innovate

Even amid confusion, most of the people we interviewed saw the settlement funding as a unique opportunity.

Exhibit E’s broad guidelines allow for experimentation, and many expressed interest in supporting local needs and implementing projects that they had wanted for a long time. This included things like expanding peer recovery support programs or establishing family support services.

“The guidelines are so varied that it gives those local communities opportunities to look at the menu and find out from community members, ‘How can we help resolve this problem together?’” one local drug and alcohol department employee told us. “It’s a collaborative that really helps the community as a whole get well as a whole. I am a real believer in ‘It takes a village.’”

Several participants emphasized that the flexibility in Exhibit E creates room to revise plans as needs evolve or change. Counties can change their funding priorities each year to adapt.

Several counties have already started issuing small grants to grassroots organizations, recognizing that those closest to people harmed by the opioid crisis often know best what kinds of interventions might work.

One county employee involved in distributing funds in her county shared that her team was “willing to try anything, really, within the bounds.”

“And if it doesn’t work, we can back off,” she added. “But I feel like you don’t know until you try it.”

A moral responsibility to get it right

Although our study focused on policy implementation, participants often framed their responsibilities in moral terms.

Many said they felt a strong obligation to use the funds wisely, given the scale of loss their communities have endured. The Pennsylvania Department of Health reported 4,719 overdose deaths in the state in 2023, and 83% were opioid-related. That number dropped to 3,336 in 2024, mirroring national trends.

One elected official described the funds as “the only hope we can provide families that have lost loved ones to this crisis,” emphasizing that he felt a “real obligation” to make the funds count.

Others echoed that careful, transparent decision-making is part of a broader recovery effort. Beyond abiding by funding guidelines, they felt it was also important to be honest and transparent to community members.

“We don’t want to come out with ‘Pennsylvania wasted its money, or (this) county wasted its money,’” said an addictions researcher.

Still others cautioned that the settlement funds alone cannot repair the full scope of harms caused by the opioid crisis, warning against viewing the settlements as a cure-all.

“There’s not really a monetary value that you can put on these things,” a person who works in the substance use sector told us. “I’m glad that this money’s available, but ultimately for me … it’s a little too late. You know? All my friends are already dead.”

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.

Glenn Sterner receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust, Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Independence Blue Cross Foundation, Montgomery County Government in Pennsylvania, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute of Justice, and National Science Foundation.

Brian King, Halie Kampman, Kristina P. Brant, and Maya Weinberg 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. Pennsylvania counties face tough choices on spending $2B opioid settlement funds – https://theconversation.com/pennsylvania-counties-face-tough-choices-on-spending-2b-opioid-settlement-funds-267725

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer Selin, Associate Professor of Law, Arizona State University

Adelita Grijalva won a special election in Arizona on Sept. 23, 2025, becoming the newest member of Congress and the state’s first Latina representative.

Yet, despite the Arizona secretary of state’s formal certification of Grijalva, a Democrat, as the winner of that election, Rep.-elect Grijalva has not been sworn into office.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who by law is responsible for making that happen, claims the government shutdown means Grijalva must wait until the federal government resumes normal operations.

In response, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed a lawsuit on Oct. 21 alleging that Johnson has denied the state its representation in Congress.

No one disputes that Grijalva is the next member of the House of Representatives for the 7th District of Arizona. And the House hasn’t conducted business since Sept. 19, when Johnson gaveled it out of session.

So why does it matter whether Grijalva is sworn in now or later?

The lawsuit filed by Mayes claims Johnson is using his power to “strengthen his hand” in the ongoing budget battle that has shut down the federal government. Additionally, Grijalva has pledged to provide the last necessary signature to force a vote on a bipartisan measure demanding that the Trump administration release government files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

But as a law scholar who analyzes government institutions, I recognize that the speaker historically has had power to determine when the oath is administered. And courts have been reluctant to weigh in the speaker’s use of that power.

The speaker’s historical power

The framers of the Constitution were divided on whether to require members of Congress to take an oath of office. Representing a political compromise on the issue, the Constitution requires all Senate and House members to take an oath to support the Constitution before assuming office. But the framers left the substance and administration of the oath up to Congress.

Congress put the speaker of the House in charge of administering the oath to incoming House members and first specified its text in 1789. The Oath Act required members of Congress to “solemnly swear or affirm” support of the Constitution.

Historically, the speaker administered the oath to new House members state by state. This meant that each state’s newly elected representatives stood alone in front of Congress. However, in 1929, House Speaker Nicolas Longworth changed tradition so that all new members were sworn in at the same time.

Longworth did so after Oscar DePriest – the first African American to serve in Congress in the 20th century – won an election in Illinois to replace Rep. Martin B. Madden, who had died of a heart attack. Longworth acted in response to speculation that Southern Democrats would attempt to prevent a Black lawmaker from joining the House. Rather than swearing in members state by state, Longworth swore in all members at once so DePriest was not stopped from taking the oath of office.

Since that time, the speaker has administered the oath of office to all newly elected members of the House as a collective unit.

How things work now

Under current law, the speaker must administer the oath of office to all House members prior to them taking their seats.

Here’s how this has worked over the past few decades:

After the House elects a speaker, the member with the longest continuous service in the House – called the dean of the House – administers the oath to the speaker. Then the speaker administers the oath to the rest of the members all together as a mark of a new Congress.

The idea is that despite partisan differences, every legislator commits in front of the others to uphold the Constitution.

But occasionally, either because of illness, a special election or other circumstances, a newly elected member of Congress can’t take the oath with everyone else. When that happens, that person is sworn in at a later date.

On Sept. 9, 2025, for example, Democrat James Walkinshaw won a special election to succeed the late Gerry Connolly, who died in office while representing Virginia’s 11th congressional district. Johnson swore Walkinshaw in the next day.

While the speaker has the responsibility for administering the oath, the House may adopt a resolution to designate a judge or House member selected by the speaker to do the job for him.

In 1999, for example, Speaker Dennis Hastert designated retired California Judge Ellen Sickles James to administer the oath to Rep.-elect George Miller.

Regardless of who swears into office a member of Congress who could not attend the collective ceremony, the administration of the oath has traditionally occurred on days in which the House is session. But it does not have to be that way.

The law is ambiguous on when the oath is administered.

And House speakers have not always acted swiftly. In spring 2021, for instance, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi waited 25 days before administering the oath to Republican Rep.-elect Julia Letlow. That’s because the House did not have a session scheduled immediately following Letlow’s election.

Johnson has referred to this particular delay as the “Pelosi precedent,” setting a standard practice of the speaker waiting to administer the oath until Congress is in session.

Why does it matter?

The delay in administering Grijalva the oath is the longest in modern history.

While Grijalva waits, she does not have access to the resources typically provided to members of the House to help them perform their jobs, including an operating budget for her offices or even the ability to log in to key databases.

This means Grijalva is limited in her ability to represent her over 800,000 constituents.

She describes her current situation as “having the title but none of the job.”

Grijalva, Arizona Attorney General Mayes and congressional Democrats accuse the speaker of playing politics. But history and the law suggest that may be Johnson’s prerogative until the government reopens.

Jennifer Selin 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. House speaker’s refusal to seat Arizona representative is supported by history and law – https://theconversation.com/house-speakers-refusal-to-seat-arizona-representative-is-supported-by-history-and-law-268455

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Angie Chuang, Associate Professor of Journalism, University of Colorado Boulder

The headlines documenting President Donald Trump’s plan to send federal troops to San Francisco followed a familiar arc. “Trump claims ‘unquestioned power’ in vow to send troops to San Francisco,” The Guardian reported on Oct. 20, 2025. The next day, the San Francisco Chronicle blared: “S.F. threatens to sue if Trump brings in National Guard.” Then, on Oct. 23, “Trump reverses his decision to send troops to San Francisco,” as ABC News put it, after Trump posted that conversations with the city’s mayor and tech moguls had swayed him.

It was another example of how Trump’s shifting policy positions, racially inflammatory statements and threats frequently fuel a flurry of headlines, reflecting what some psychologists are calling “media saturation overload” or “Trump stress disorder.”

This barrage of information may seem like overcommunication from a hyperactive administration. But it is much more than that.

Scholars have found that the constant, often conflicting and at times false information coming out of the White House and shared via social media posts and the conventional news media causes members of the public to see truth and fact as relative and makes them more likely to dismiss those who disagree with them as untruthful. This leaves doubt about what’s real and what isn’t.

This citizen paralysis creates what philosopher Hannah Arendt described in “The Origins of Totalitarianism” as a general public “for whom the distinction between fact and fiction … no longer exist.” When lies are truth and truth is derided as lies, Arendt wrote, ordinary people lose their bearings and can be manipulated for totalitarian objectives.

Meanwhile, many journalists have openly acknowledged fatigue with the pace and nature of the Trump administrations’ news cycles, amid frequent newsroom layoffs, mergers and closures.

I am a longtime journalist and now scholar of journalism and race, trained to see the methods and aims behind political leaders’ press operations. And as I show in my forthcoming book, the Trump administration’s rhetorical strategies echo the playbooks of authoritarian and white supremacist organizations such as the Third Reich and some factions of the modern alt-right movement. They are intended to narrow the scope of who belongs as an American.

Headlines at ‘muzzle velocity’

The Trump administration’s rhetorical strategies include claiming victim status while often laying blame on immigrants or other scapegoats in ways that I believe betray racist intent. At the same time it has overwhelmed journalists and the public with breaking news.

This strategy was laid out by Steve Bannon, an influential Trump supporter and strategist in his first administration, during a 2019 PBS “Frontline” interview, when he described the media as “the opposition party.”

“They’re dumb and they’re lazy, they can only focus on one thing at a time,” he said. “All we have to do is flood the zone. … Bang, bang, bang. These guys will never – will never be able to recover. But we’ve got to start with muzzle velocity.”

Bannon has long been associated with the alt-right, a movement known for rhetorical tactics that minimize and obfuscate its true aims.

A strategy forged in Trump’s first term

As I detail in my book, “American Otherness in Journalism: News Media Representations of Identity and Belonging,” Trump and his key advisers have been developing, refining and ramping up their news media manipulation for a long time.

An early example of this is the way the administration used these tactics through Trump’s public responses to the fatal violence at the August 2017 Unite the Right protest in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The two-day rally was organized by a white nationalist blogger and attended by members of neo-Nazi, white supremacist and far-right militias protesting the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a Charlottesville park. They marched with tiki torches, flew Confederate and Nazi flags and chanted antisemitic and racist slogans.

Amid violent clashes with counterprotesters on the second day, a neo-Nazi sympathizer drove into a crowd, killing a 32-year-old woman and injuring many others.

My study of television news coverage of Unite the Right found that the majority of news reports focused on the contradictory and inflammatory statements that Trump made about the antisemitic and racist protesters. Trump’s Aug. 15, 2017, press conference remark about blame on both sides after what happened garnered the most news media attention: “I think there is blame on both sides,” he said. “You had some very bad people in that group. You also had some very fine people on both sides.”

Exploiting chaos

The uncertainty surrounding what he meant created a cycle of news stories implying and denying that he sympathizes with white supremacists.

This is-he-or-isn’t-he intrigue spurred a surge of what fits the description of Bannon’s “muzzle-velocity” news headlines: “Trump declares ‘racism is evil’ amid pressure over Charlottesville” followed closely by “Trump defends White-nationalist protesters” and “Why Trump can’t get his story straight on Charlottesville.”

With the focus on Trump’s comments and what he might have really meant, the news media ultimately missed covering at the time the long-term threat posed by these white supremacist and other extremist groups.

Echoing a playbook from the past

Scholars have identified the fascist roots of these “post-truth” strategies: strongmen leaders uninterested in establishing leadership through honesty and transparency.

A recent scholarly analysis of Trump’s leadership concludes that the second-term president is overwhelming the public into “organized despair” by pitting races against each other while targeting minority groups as scapegoats, a tactic that hearkens back to 1930s Germany.

A 2019 analysis of Trump’s narrative style describes how he presents himself as a “strongman” fighting invisible forces of censorship and suppression. It also points out that this was part of the appeal of fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler.

Researchers of Nazi propaganda identified key tactics in the German press such as name-calling and lumping together groups seen as opposition – communists, liberals and Jews – until public understanding of those groups blur into phrases like “enemies of Germany.” The messaging was constant and immersive, carried in local and national newspapers, radio, film and posters.

A key part of Trump’s rhetorical strategy is using race without directly referring to it. For example, Trump has described cities with large nonwhite populations such as Washington, D.C., and Chicago as “out of control” or “dirty,” contrary to actual crime statistics. He’s also questioned Kamala Harris’ racial identity, suggesting she “happened to turn Black.” And referring to Black football players who had been protesting systemic racism by kneeling during the national anthem, Trump said, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now,” which many observers interpreted as racist because he was insulting people of color for the act of protesting racism.

This racial coding has been used by white supremacist groups to mask their true intent. They also use less overt labels such as “alt-right” or “pro-white” as a “rhetorical bridge” to the mainstream public.

In the case of the NFL protesters, the plausible deniability became an actual denial. Trump perfected this move when, during a 2020 debate with Joe Biden, he said, “Proud Boys – stand back and stand by,” referencing another group accused of thinly veiled racism.

Drowning in headlines

I believe that the endgame for this strategy is authoritarian power that greatly narrows the scope of who truly belongs and has rights in this country as an American.

This media saturation – drowning the public with a thousand Trump-generated headlines – allows his administration to keep dominating and controlling national attention.

But the media-consuming public can use the tools they have to encourage news outlets to better inform the public by identifying the media saturation strategy and reporting on why leaders are using it.

Otherwise, if news consumers let the headline overload do what it’s intended to do, and become overwhelmed and paralyzed, they become pawns in what I consider a ploy to make America less egalitarian and less democratic.

Angie Chuang is affiliated with the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication and the Boulder Faculty Assembly.

– ref. Overwhelm the public with muzzle-velocity headlines: A strategy rooted in racism and authoritarianism – https://theconversation.com/overwhelm-the-public-with-muzzle-velocity-headlines-a-strategy-rooted-in-racism-and-authoritarianism-267491

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Michal Kowalewski, Thompson Chair of Invertebrate Paleontology, University of Florida

During a day at the beach, it’s common to see people walking up and down the shore collecting seashells.

As a paleontologist and marine ecologist, we look at shells a bit differently than the average beachcomber. Most people dig up shells in the sand and see beautiful color patterns or unusual shapes. But we tend to focus on how old these shells are and what they tell us about the habitat they come from.

You may be surprised to learn that the translucent spiral shell you plucked from the sand belonged to a snail that lived long before Columbus sailed to the New World. And that unassuming clamshell you might nonchalantly toss away belonged to a mollusk that filtered seawater when pharaohs ruled Egypt.

In recent decades, scientists have used methods such as radiocarbon dating to assess the age of shells, along with bones and other skeletal remains, scattered around Earth’s surface.

Increasingly, paleontologists and conservation biologists like us are turning to these remains as potential treasure troves of information about what various habitats were like before humans entered the picture. The insights we glean from this approach, known as conservation paleobiology, can result in more effective conservation, restoration and management strategies aimed at the protection or recovery of many essential habitats.

This approach has proved, among other things, that cows reshaped shellfish communities on the California shelf, caribou used the same calving grounds for millennia, and Caribbean sharks were much more diverse in the past.

Over the past decade, we have applied conservation paleobiology to Florida’s Nature Coast, home to an extensive and intricate patchwork of seagrass meadows and sand. Prior to our studies, scientists’ understanding of those meadows was largely uninformed by historical data.

Why seagrass matters

It may not be obvious at first glance why we should be interested in the past history of seagrass meadows.

But these meadows are among the most important structural habitats on our planet. Myriad species, including sea turtles and manatees, forage, shelter or reproduce in those habitats, making seagrasses major hot spots of biodiversity.

Beyond these benefits, seagrasses offer extremely valuable services. They oxygenate ocean waters, draw down carbon dioxide and stabilize bottom sediments. And critically for Florida’s coastline, seagrass can dampen wave energy, which helps to protect shorelines and coastal communities from the punishing effects of tropical storms and hurricanes.

By providing all these services, seagrasses fuel a tremendous economic engine that generates global revenue in excess of US$6 trillion annually, according to an analysis published in the journal Nature Reviews Biodiversity in February 2025.

Unfortunately, seagrass meadows are in decline globally, vanishing rapidly due to broad-scale environmental changes and an onslaught of local human impacts. Efforts are underway all over the world to protect seagrasses that still exist and restore those that have been lost.

Shells in Florida’s seagrass meadows

The challenge inherent to our research is that seagrasses don’t have a hard skeleton, so they are very rarely found in the fossil record.

Fortunately, we found that the shells of mollusks that prefer to dwell in seagrass are a reliable proxy for the grass itself. In general, the quality of ecological data provided by fossil shellfish is outstanding.

When living and dead organisms are alike, we can infer that local ecosystems have not changed notably despite human activities. Conversely, when live and dead mollusk species differ, it usually is a sign that a habitat has been heavily altered by humans.

Location, location, location

In our initial study, our team examined about a 40-mile (65-kilometer) swath of nearshore habitats in an area just north of the Suwannee River.

We found that seagrass meadows often span only a few acres, forming a regional patchwork of vegetated and open-sand habitats. We also observed that distinct sets of mollusk species inhabit meadows and open sands today. This was not surprising, as many previous studies have shown that different mollusks live in seagrass and open-sand habitats.

Next, we looked at the shells of dead mollusks found in surface sediments in the area. Using radiocarbon dating, we showed that about half of these shells belonged to mollusks that lived prior to the Industrial Revolution. Many shells dated back to previous millennia.

If these small patches of seagrass meadows were waxing, waning or shifting location over the recent centuries, then we would expect each spot on the seafloor to harbor a mix of dead shells representing species from both habitats. However, we found that the species of dead mollusks in seagrass patches were remarkably similar to those that live there now. The same was the case for the mollusks from open sands.

This suggests that this mosaic of seagrass patches and open-sand bottoms has been remarkably stable for hundreds of years. We do not know why the seagrass consistently thrived for centuries in specific spots within a seemingly uniform environment. But whatever the reason, this habitat is not a mosaic of meadows in constant flux, but rather, a seascape that has remained the same for a long time.

This is an important find for conservation efforts. It means that it may be unwise to assume that we can compensate for seagrass losses by simply planting new meadows in open-sand habitats.

Broadening the scope

In our newest study, we broadened our scope to compare living mollusks and dead mollusks across multiple estuaries along the Nature Coast, a 93-mile (150-kilometer) stretch of Florida’s Gulf Coast.

As with our first study, this broader study revealed many remarkable similarities between the mollusks that live there now and the mollusks from previous centuries and millennia, documented by shells.

We found that the mollusks that are common today and those that were common in the past represent virtually the same suite of species, and their relative abundance stayed steady, too.

Even more remarkably, both the live mollusks and shells from previous centuries document the same changes in dominant mollusk species between the southern and northern regions of the study area.

Today, mollusks are not the same everywhere along the Nature Coast. This reflects the fact that coastal waters are increasingly nutritious in the north. Consequently, seagrass is taller and denser moving north, and the suites of mollusk species that live in them change as well.

The shells of dead mollusks tell the same story. This indicates that not much has changed along this stretch of the Gulf Coast since preindustrial times.

Highlighting what’s working

Knowing that seagrass meadows in this area have maintained their ecological character and integrity for centuries or longer is a powerful argument for their continued protection.

Understandably, most conservation paleobiology studies have focused on threatened species, degraded habitats or imperiled systems, such as reef sharks, oyster beds or freshwater mussels. As a result, these studies generally document population collapse, biodiversity loss, habitat shrinking and overall ecosystem decline.

But we believe it is equally important for investigators in our field to study systems that are believed to be stable and resilient. In this case, the unspoiled status of the Nature Coast seagrass meadows makes them a much-needed benchmark to assess the state of other seagrass systems that have been altered by human activities. This can offer insights into which conservation efforts are working and how best to restore and maintain similar habitats elsewhere.

Michal Kowalewski receives funding from the US National Science Foundation, University of Florida Foundation and the Felburn Foundation, Florida.

Thomas K. Frazer receives funding from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Department of Transportation, and South Florida Water Management District and The Ocean Conservancy.

– ref. Seashells from centuries ago show that seagrass meadows on Florida’s Nature Coast are thriving – https://theconversation.com/seashells-from-centuries-ago-show-that-seagrass-meadows-on-floridas-nature-coast-are-thriving-264170

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Katie Davis, Professor Information School and Adjunct Associate Professor, College of Education, University of Washington

Today’s teachers find themselves thrust into a difficult position with generative AI. New tools are coming online at a blistering pace and being adopted just as quickly, whether they’re personalized tutors and study buddies for students or lesson plan generators and assignment graders for teachers. Schools are traditionally slow to adapt to change, which makes such rapid-fire developments especially destabilizing.

The uncertainties accompanying the artificial intelligence onslaught come amid existing challenges the teaching profession has faced for years. Teachers have been working with increasingly scarce resources – and even scarcer time – while facing mounting expectations not only for their students’ academic performance, but also their social-emotional development. Many teachers are burned out, and they’re leaving the profession in record numbers.

All of this matters because teacher quality is the single most important factor in school influencing student achievement. And the impact of teachers is greatest for students who are most disadvantaged. How teachers end up using, or not using, AI to support their teaching – and their students’ learning – may be the most crucial determinant of whether AI’s use in schools narrows or widens existing equity gaps.

We have been conducting research on how public school teachers feel about generative AI technologies.

The initial results, which are currently under review, reveal deep ambivalence about AI’s growing role in K-12 education. Our work also shows how inadequate training and unclear communications could worsen existing inequalities among schools.

A ‘thought partner’ for busy teachers

As part of a larger project examining AI integration in education, we interviewed 22 teachers in a large public school district in the United States that has been an early and enthusiastic adopter of AI. The district serves a multilingual and socioeconomically diverse student population, with over 160 languages spoken and approximately three-quarters of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The teachers who participated in our study spanned elementary, middle school and high school grade levels, and represented a variety of subject areas, including science, technology, engineering and mathematics, social studies, special education, and culturally and linguistically diverse education. We asked these teachers to describe how they first encountered generative AI tools, how they currently use them, and the broader shifts they have observed in their schools. Teachers also reflected on both the opportunities and challenges of using AI tools in their classrooms.

Mirroring a recent survey finding that AI has helped teachers save up to six hours per week of work, the teachers in our study pointed to AI’s ability to create more space in the day for themselves and their students. Turning to AI for help writing lesson plans and assessments not only saves time, but it also gives teachers a tool for brainstorming ideas, helping them feel less isolated in their work. One high school teacher with over 11 years’ experience reflected:

“The most significant benefit that AI has brought to my life as a teacher is having work-life balance. It has decreased my stress 80-fold because I am able to have a thought partner. Teachers are really isolated, even though we work with people constantly … When I’m exhausted, it gives me support and help with ideas.”

Why lack of training matters

However, not all teachers felt well-equipped to benefit from AI. Much of what they told us boiled down to a lack of resources and other professional support. An elementary school classroom teacher explained:

“It’s just a lack of time. We don’t really get much planning time, and it would be a new tool to learn, so we would have to take the time personally to learn how to use it and where to find everything.”

Many teachers underscored the need for – and current lack of – professional development offerings to help them understand and integrate AI into their teaching.

Research on previous waves of technological innovations shows that under-resourced schools serving disadvantaged students are typically the least well-equipped to provide teachers with the professional support they need to make the most of new technologies.

Because well-resourced schools are far more likely to offer such support, the introduction of new technologies in schools tends to reinforce existing inequities in the education system.

When it comes to AI, well-resourced schools are best positioned to give teachers time, support and encouragement to “tinker” with AI and discover how and whether it can support their teaching and learning goals.

‘You need a relationship’ to learn

Our research also uncovered the importance of preserving the relational nature of teaching and learning, even – or perhaps especially – in the age of AI. As one middle school social studies teacher observed:

“A machine can give you information, but most students we know are not able to get information from something that’s just printed out for them and put it into their heads. You need a relationship. Some kids can do online school or read a book and teach themselves, but that’s like 2%. Most kids need a social environment to do it.”

Here again, prior research shows us that teachers in well-resourced schools are better equipped to introduce new technologies in ways that augment rather than undermine the relational dimensions of teaching and learning. And again, teachers are crucial in determining how and whether AI, like all new technologies, is used to support their teaching and student learning.

That’s why we believe the practices established during this current period of rapid AI development and adoption will profoundly influence whether educational inequities are dismantled or deepened.

Grounded in the classroom

Going forward, we see the need for research to examine how generative AI is changing teachers’ practice and relationship to their work. Their input can inform practices that empower teachers as professionals and advance student learning.

This approach requires adequate institutional support at the school and district levels. It also means listening to the real experiences of teachers and students instead of responding to the promised benefits touted by education technologies companies.

Katie Davis has received funding from the Spencer Foundation.

Aayushi Dangol 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. AI could worsen inequalities in schools – teachers are key to whether it will – https://theconversation.com/ai-could-worsen-inequalities-in-schools-teachers-are-key-to-whether-it-will-266140

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Bailey A. Brown, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Spelman College

Deciding where to send your child to kindergarten has become one of the most high-stakes moments in many American families’ lives.

A few factors have made selecting an elementary school particularly challenging in recent years. For one, there are simply more schools for parents to pick from over the past few decades, ranging from traditional public and private to a growing number of magnet and charter programs. There are also new policies in some places, such as New York City, that allow parents to select not just their closest neighborhood public school but schools across and outside of the districts where they live.

As a scholar of sociology and education, I have seen how the expanding range of school options – sometimes called school choice – has spread nationwide and is particularly a prominent factor in New York City.

I spoke with a diverse range of more than 100 New York City parents across income levels and racial and ethnic backgrounds from 2014 to 2019 as part of research for my 2025 book, “Kindergarten Panic: Parental Anxiety and School Choice Inequality.”

All of these parents felt pressure trying to select a school for their elementary school-age children, and school choice options post-COVID-19 have only increased.

Some parents experience this pressure a bit more acutely than others.

Women often see their choice of school as a reflection of whether they are good moms, my interviews show. Parents of color feel pressure to find a racially inclusive school. Other parents worry about finding niche schools that offer dual-language programs, for example, or other specialties.

Navigating schools in New York City

Every year, about 65,000 New York City kindergartners are matched to more than 700 public schools.

New York City kindergartners typically attend their nearest public school in the neighborhood and get a priority place at this school. This school is often called someone’s zoned school.

Even so, a spot at your local school isn’t guaranteed – students get priority if they apply on time.

While most kindergartners still attend their zoned schools, their attendance rate is decreasing. While 72% of kindergartners in the city attended their zoned school in the 2007-08 school year, 60% did so in the 2016-17 school year.

One reason is that since 2003, New York City parents have been able to apply to out-of-zone schools when seats were available. And in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began, all public school applications moved entirely online. This shift allowed parents to easily rank 12 different school options they liked, in and outside of their zones.

Still, New York City public schools remain one of the most segregated in the country, divided by race and class.

Pressure to be a good mom

Many of the mothers I interviewed from 2015 through 2019 said that getting their child into what they considered a “good” school reflected good mothering.

Mothers took the primary responsibility for their school search, whether they had partners or not, and regardless of their social class, as well as racial and ethnic background.

In 2017, I spoke with Janet, a white, married mother who at the time was 41 years old and had an infant and a 3-year-old. Janet worked as a web designer and lived in Queens. She explained that she started a group in 2016 to connect with other mothers, in part to discuss schools.

Though Janet’s children were a few years away from kindergarten, she believed that she had started her research for public schools too late. She spent multiple hours each week looking up information during her limited spare time. She learned that other moms were talking to other parents, researching test results, analyzing school reviews and visiting schools in person.

Janet said she wished she had started looking for schools when her son was was 1 or 2 years old, like other mothers she knew. She expressed fear that she was failing as a mother. Eventually, Janet enrolled her son in a nonzoned public school in another Queens neighborhood.

Pressure to find an inclusive school

Regardless of their incomes, Black, Latino and immigrant families I interviewed also felt pressure to evaluate whether the public schools they considered were racially and ethnically inclusive.

Parents worried that racially insensitive policies related to bullying, curriculum and discipline would negatively affect their children.

In 2015, I spoke with Fumi, a Black, immigrant mother of two young children. At the time, Fumi was 37 years old and living in Washington Heights in north Manhattan. She described her uncertain search for a public school.

Fumi thought that New York City’s gifted and talented programs at public schools might be a better option academically than other public schools that don’t offer an advanced track for some students. But the gifted and talented programs often lacked racial diversity, and Fumi did not want her son to be the only Black student in his class.

Still, Fumi had her son tested for the 2015 gifted and talented exam and enrolled him in one of these programs for kindergarten.

Once Fumi’s son began attending the gifted and talented school, Fumi worried that the constant bullying he experienced was racially motivated.

Though Fumi remained uneasy about the bullying and lack of diversity, she decided to keep him at the school because of the school’s strong academic quality.

Pressure to find a niche school

Many of the parents I interviewed who earned more than US$50,000 a year wanted to find specialty schools that offered advanced courses, dual-language programs and progressive-oriented curriculum.

Parents like Renata, a 44-year-old Asian mother of four, and Stella, a 39-year-old Black mother of one, sent their kids to out-of-neighborhood public schools.

In 2016, Renata described visiting multiple schools and researching options so she could potentially enroll her four children in different schools that met each of their particular needs.

Stella, meanwhile, searched for schools that would de-emphasize testing, nurture her son’s creativity and provide flexible learning options.

In contrast, the working-class parents I interviewed who made less than $50,000 annually often sought schools that mirrored their own school experiences.

Few working-class parents I spoke with selected out-of-neighborhood and high academically performing schools.

New York City data points to similar results – low-income families are less likely than people earning more than them to attend schools outside of their neighborhoods.

For instance, Black working-class parents like 47-year-old Risha, a mother of four, and 53-year-old Jeffery, a father of three, who attended New York City neighborhood public schools themselves as children told me in 2016 that they decided to send their children to local public schools.

Based on state performance indicators, students at these particular schools performed lower on standard assessments than schools on average.

Cracks in the system

The parents I spoke with all live in New York City, which has a uniquely complicated education system. Yet the pressures they face are reflective of the evolving public school choice landscape for parents across the country.

Parents nationwide are searching for schools with vastly different resources and concerns about their children’s future well-being and success.

When parents panic about kindergarten, they reveal cracks in the foundation of American schooling. In my view, parental anxiety about kindergarten is a response to an unequal, high-stakes education system.

Bailey A. Brown 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. Anxiety over school admissions isn’t limited to college – parents of young children are also feeling pressure, some more acutely than others – https://theconversation.com/anxiety-over-school-admissions-isnt-limited-to-college-parents-of-young-children-are-also-feeling-pressure-some-more-acutely-than-others-265537

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By C. Michael White, Distinguished Professor of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut

A generic blood pressure drug called prazosin, made by Teva Pharmaceuticals, is being recalled by the Food and Drug Administration because it contains elevated levels of cancer-causing chemicals called nitrosamines.

The recall, which Teva announced on Oct. 7, 2025, affects more than 580,000 prazosin capsules. Prazosin is prescribed to around 510,000 patients yearly and is used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder as well as high blood pressure.

I am a pharmacologist and pharmacist who has studied nitrosamine contamination of popular blood pressure, diabetes and heartburn drugs, as well as other issues in generic drug manufacturing.

Prazosin has been available as a generic medication for more than 25 years and, like many generics that have been around that long, is now produced by multiple manufacturers. This ratchets up competition on price, which may explain why older generics are more prone to manufacturing issues that may harm patient health.

What are nitrosamines and where do they come from?

Nitrosamines are by-products of many common chemical reactions. They form when a type of chemical building block called a nitrite group interacts with another type called an amine group.

Industrial processes like rocket fuel, rubber and sealant manufacturing can produce high concentrations of nitrosamines during chemical reactions. Bacon, pepperoni and salami are high in nitrite preservatives that interact with the amine groups in the meats to form small amounts of nitrosamines. The chemical reaction that happens when chlorinated water interacts with naturally occurring chemicals that contain nitrogen and oxygen can also form small amounts of nitrosamines.

Occasional and small exposures to nitrosamines are not thought to be dangerous. But some studies have found that certain nitrosamines are carcinogenic when ingested in high amounts for long periods of time

European regulators first discovered in 2018 that prescription drugs could also be contaminated when testing revealed that an active ingredient in a blood pressure drug called valsartan contained a nitrosamine chemical. Since the Chinese company that made the drug’s active ingredient sold it to multiple manufacturers of valsartan tablets, many companies, including Teva Pharmaceuticals, recalled the drug at the time.

The FDA then launched a major effort to identify nitrosamines in prescription and over-the-counter drugs and to define unsafe levels for tablets and capsules. It published an initial industry guidance in 2021 and an updated version in 2024.

Based on the agency’s new testing requirements, drugmakers have identified nitrosamine contamination in widely used blood pressure, diabetes, heartburn, antibiotic and smoking cessation drugs. Most of the recalled drugs were contaminated during the chemical processing at a manufacturing plant.

What should people who take prazosin do?

Teva Pharmaceuticals’ prazosin is just one of many generic versions – but it’s the only one that is contaminated. You can determine whether your medication came from Teva by looking at your prescription label. Search for the abbreviations MFG or MFR, which stand for “manufacturing” or “manufacturer.” If it says “MFG Teva” or “MFR Teva,” that means Teva Pharmaceuticals supplied the medication.

The first four numbers of a National Drug Code, abbreviated as NDC on the prescription label, also reveal the manufacturer or distributor. Teva products have the number 0093.

If Teva Pharmaceuticals is the distributor, a pharmacist can cross-reference your prescription number to obtain the lot number and compare it with the posted lot numbers on the FDA website for recalled prazosin. If your product has been recalled, your pharmacy may have other generic versions of prazosin in stock that are not part of this recall.

Based on its risk assessment for these tablets, the FDA gave the recall a Class II status, which means that the medication could cause “temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences.” If no other prazosin version exists at your pharmacy, do not stop taking your drug without talking with your physician first. The risk of temporarily taking tablets with an elevated amount of nitrosamines may be less than the risk of suddenly stopping this medication.

Your physician may also be able to prescribe an alternative treatment such as clonidine or trazodone.

Do older generics made overseas pose higher risks?

Until recently, it wasn’t possible to compare whether the safety records of generic drugs manufactured overseas differed from the same generics made in the U.S., because the FDA does not disclose which manufacturing plants companies use to create their tablets and capsules. But in a 2025 study, researchers managed to triangulate that information from an FDA dataset.

They found that the risk of serious adverse events was 54.3% higher with generics made in India as compared with those made in the United States. And the longer a drug has been available in generic form, the greater the difference in safety risk between its U.S.- and India-made forms. As my colleague and I wrote in a commentary accompanying the study, the findings suggest that when the market for generic drugs is crowded by multiple manufacturers, lower-priced options naturally sell better. As a result, manufacturers in developing countries are more apt to produce poorer quality products that are less expensive to produce.

Teva Pharmaceuticals has manufacturing plants around the world, including in India. The company has not disclosed where its recalled prazosin capsules and their active and inactive ingredients were manufactured.

The FDA publishes ratings on generic drug quality and claims that generics with an “A” rating meet the same manufacturing quality standards and achieve the same blood concentrations as brand-name drugs. But pharmacies can’t tell from those ratings if a drug comes from manufacturing plants that are at higher risk for quality issues.

Patients are at the mercy of choices pharmacies make in the generic versions of drugs they procure for their stores. In my view, if pharmacies could access reliable information about quality, they might be able to make choices that are safer for American consumers.

C. Michael White 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. FDA recall of blood pressure pills due to cancer-causing contaminant may point to higher safety risks in older generic drugs – https://theconversation.com/fda-recall-of-blood-pressure-pills-due-to-cancer-causing-contaminant-may-point-to-higher-safety-risks-in-older-generic-drugs-268968