Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

Delivering a university commencement address used to simply be a unique kind of honor. Speakers stand before a podium, wearing a traditional graduation cap and robe, and offer graduates life lessons and inspirational words as they enter the next phase of life.

But today, speaking at a university commencement ceremony carries considerable risk, as Morton Schapiro, former president of Northwestern University, recently found out. Schapiro was scheduled to speak at Georgetown University Law Center’s graduation on May 17, 2026, but announced on May 6 that he would no longer appear at the event.

Some Georgetown law students had protested and petitioned to have Schapiro’s invitation rescinded, citing what they said were Schapiro’s “controversial, Zionist, and harmful opinions.” The students pointed to an op-ed that Schapiro wrote expressing support for Israel and Jewish people a few days after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people.

Schapiro is in good company. There’s a reason why the free speech advocacy group FIRE calls the lead-up to college commencements disinvitation season.

Over the past two decades, colleges and universities across the country have withdrawn invitations to various commencement speakers after students protested their scheduled appearance. Or, in some cases, invited speakers have said they will no longer participate after students spoke out against their upcoming speeches.

As a political scientist who has written about the First Amendment and free speech on college campuses, I think Schapiro’s ill-fated Georgetown commencement invitation – and other instances like this one – show that intolerance for dissenting viewpoints lasts until the last diploma is handed out at graduation.

Some students only want people who hold similar views to address them at their graduation. They exercise what free speech law experts call a “heckler’s veto,” meaning when an audience’s reaction, or anticipated response, stops someone from speaking. Free speech then takes a back seat, and a graduation becomes just a performative moment of political correctness.

It wasn’t always this way

The first university commencement in the U.S. took place in 1642, when Harvard College held a ceremony to honor its nine graduates. The students were joined by some of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s most distinguished citizens, including Governor John Winthrop and his deputy, John Endicott, who observed the proceedings.

No one delivered a commencement address.

Instead, each graduate delivered an address and displayed the fruits of their classical education by speaking in Latin and English.

By the middle of the 19th century, university commencements drew well-known outsiders to college campuses to speak.

In 1837, for example, the poet and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson addressed Harvard’s Phi Beta Kappa graduates and issued a stirring call for American students and scholars to end what he called “our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands.”

In 1881, James Garfield became the first sitting American president to deliver a commencement address, when he spoke at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

Twenty-four years later, President Theodore Roosevelt spoke at the first graduation ceremony at Clark University, in Worcester, Massachusetts. He told his audience there, “I have always felt most strongly that it is true of a nation as of the individual that the greatest doer must also be a great dreamer.”

Since then, other presidents have used commencement speeches to announce major policy initiatives and agreements, including on foreign policy.

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy told the graduating seniors at American University that the U.S., the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union would start negotiations to ban the testing of nuclear weapons.

Two years later, President Lyndon Johnson announced at Howard University’s commencement that he would launch a major initiative to address socioeconomic disparities that disadvantaged Black people.

There was no controversy or protest about Kennedy, Johnson or other prominent speakers who delivered commencement addresses before a few decades ago.

The commencement speaker as a lightning rod

But that was then. Times have changed.

FIRE estimates that between 2000 and 2024, there were 345 attempts to disinvite commencement speakers. Many of the scheduled speakers who faced pressure to not appear at the ceremonies backed out.

Examples of commencement speaker disinvitations have happened at small, private liberal arts colleges, as well as big public universities. Being uninvited from speaking at a graduation is often precipitated by petitions and protests, from both conservative and progressive activists.

For example, in 2019, former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, withdrew as the scheduled commencement speaker at Creighton University. This followed the Nebraska Republican Party objecting to Kerry’s pro-abortion rights voting record.

In 2024, Dickinson College rescinded a commencement invitation for Michael Smerconish, an author and television commentator who focuses on politics. This decision came after a student wrote an opinion piece that showed that 20 years earlier, Smerconish said, “in order to keep America safe, the TSA should deliberately target Arabs and Muslims for searches because they look like the perpetrators of past terrorist attacks.”

“Does someone like Mike Smerconish in any way represent the achievements and ambitions of its students? If Dickinson truly loves and values its students, shouldn’t it honor them with someone who reflects that love?” the student asked in the opinion piece.

Protests ensued, and the college president gave in.

In 2025, the noted author Salman Rushdie withdrew as commencement speaker at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, after members of its Muslim Student Association urged the school to revoke his invitation. They accused Rushdie, a self-described “hardline atheist,” of “disparaging a global religious community” in his writing and public appearances. In a 2015 commencement address at Emory University, he said: “I sometimes think we live in a very credulous age. People seem ready to believe almost anything. God, for example.”

Over the past few years, the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip has led to various commencement controversies and rescinded invitations, based on scheduled speakers’ politics around the conflict.

There have also been various commencement speakers who have delivered controversial addresses that some graduates – and outside observers – found offensive. Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, for example, spoke at Benedictine College’s commencement in 2024 and encouraged women to become homemakers.

Commencement and free speech

That brings us back to Schapiro.

“I have presided over 28 commencements as a president and dean,” Schapiro wrote in a note to Georgetown’s law students, “and those ceremonies are about celebrating the graduates and their supporters. I was looking forward to giving a talk about humility and gratitude, but I don’t want my presence to distract from the day’s festivities.”

Humility and gratitude are often missing in disinvitation season.

In 2017, Drew Gilpin Faust, then the president of Harvard University, seemed to understand this absence when she issued a free speech message to graduates in her commencement address. “Silencing ideas or basking in intellectual orthodoxy independent of facts and evidence impedes our access to new and better ideas, and it inhibits a full and considered rejection of bad ones,” Faust warned.

Commencement season puts Faust’s admonitions to the test. “Universities,” she said, “must model a commitment to the notion that truth cannot simply be claimed, but must be established – established through reasoned argument, assessment and even sometimes uncomfortable challenges that provide the foundation for truth.”

Austin Sarat 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. More universities are disinviting commencement speakers who might challenge students’ ideas, unraveling an apolitical tradition – https://theconversation.com/more-universities-are-disinviting-commencement-speakers-who-might-challenge-students-ideas-unraveling-an-apolitical-tradition-283131

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

Thomas Hobbes took a very dim view of rebels and insurrectionists. He believed that insurrectionists relinquish their status as citizens the moment they seek to overthrow the government and should never be rewarded for doing so.

Hobbes, one of the finest political theorists of his time, said this in his great political treatise, “Leviathan,” published in 1651 during a civil war in England and Scotland.

Hobbes would likely also take a dim view of a major development announced by the Trump administration on May 20, 2026.

The U.S. Department of Justice has established a US$1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” to be used, the AP reports, to “allow people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes, including by the Biden administration Justice Department, to apply for payouts.”

The fund, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said, offers “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Critics immediately charged that it might be used to compensate people involved in – some even convicted for – the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Blanche has not ruled out that possibility.

The establishment of the fund is part of a settlement agreement, in response to which President Donald Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for damages stemming from the leak of his tax returns. Those leaks, the lawsuit alleged, “caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump.”

A DOJ press release indicates the fund will provide “formal apologies and monetary relief” to those who file claims and will cease processing claims “no later than” Dec. 1, 2028. It will be run by a five-person board appointed by the attorney general, and the president will also have the power to remove board members.

Whether or not Jan. 6 participants benefit, some believe that this situation creates an unavoidable appearance of self-dealing and favoritism. As a student of American law and political morality, I think there are important moral and constitutional issues implicated by the president’s suit against the IRS and the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

Some of them are straightforward; others are less so.

A judge in their own cause

An obvious question is: Should taxpayer funds be given to Trump allies, in a settlement reached by the Trump-controlled DOJ as compensation for a Trump family lawsuit?

As far back as ancient Greece, philosophers like Aristotle have worried about what happens when people are called on to make judgments in cases where they are involved. Aristotle thought that the natural instinct for self-preservation meant that they would always favor themselves.

From that concern emerged what was then, and remains, an uncontroversial, bedrock moral principle.

In the Roman world, the Latin phrase “Nemo iudex in causa sua” meant “no one should be a judge in their own cause.” It recognized that anyone having a personal interest should not get to decide matters in which they are involved.

In the Englsh-speaking world, Hobbes himself reiterated that phrase as he explained some of the advantages of living in an organized society, which could supply impartial judges to resolve disputes. And in 1787, James Madison wrote, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”

Commentators reacting to the Justice Department’s decision to establish an Anti-Weaponization Fund to settle the president’s claims against the IRS have drawn on these longstanding principles to criticize it, including how the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch controlled by Trump, negotiated with him to reach this settlement.

The conservative lawyer and activist Ed Whelan said, “There is a glaring conflict of interest with Trump being on both sides of the claim.” Whelan added, “It is outrageous that he and those answering to him would be deciding how the government responds to these extravagant claims.”

In testimony on May 19, 2026, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Blanche offered a different view. He said the settlement fund was not unprecedented and likened it to a different fund, established by the Obama administration, to settle discrimination claims brought by Native American and Black farmers.

“It’s not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to Democrats,” Blanche added. “It’s not limited to January 6th defendants. It’s limited only by the term weaponization.” Blanche promised that payments from the fund will be publicly disclosed.

Negotiating with himself

In April, Kathleen Williams, the Florida federal judge who was presiding over Trump’s lawsuit, reframed the moral issue of self-dealing as a legal one. She questioned whether the case could go on, noting “President Trump’s own remarks about this matter acknowledge the unique dynamic of this litigation.”

The remarks she referenced occurred when the president talked about the lawsuit and the prospect of negotiating with himself. “And they do say that, you know, it’s never been a case like this. Donald Trump sues the United States of America. Donald Trump becomes president, and now Donald Trump has to settle the suit.”

Williams, the judge, wrote that “it is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement.” That requirement means that a court can only rule when there is a real dispute before it.

That rule is designed to prevent so-called collusive lawsuits, in which “the parties are not actually in disagreement but are cooperating” to achieve a result. Judge Williams was scheduled to hear arguments on that question on May 20, 2026. But the settlement announcement was made two days before, and, in light of it, she dismissed the case.

Back to Hobbes

Beyond the case and controversy question, the Justice Department’s actions may implicate constitutional issues.

One is whether, under the constitutional separation of powers, the executive branch has the authority to create a victim compensation fund, or whether that authority rests with Congress.

Another is whether the fund violates the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument from the United States” other than his salary.

While the new fund may not make direct payments to Trump, he may benefit from payments to family members, business associates and others who will claim to have been victimized by the Biden administration, including people prosecuted and convicted of crimes committed on Jan. 6.

Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, a former professor of constitutional law, also contends that what the Justice Department has done violates Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, part of which states: “neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

Referring to the president, Raskin argues hypothetically, “So, to the extent that he wants to give a million dollars to each of 1,600 pardoned rioters and insurrectionists, we think that that’s an unconstitutional use of money.”

That section of the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that Confederate rebels would not receive compensation for the value of their emancipated slaves. However, in Perry v. United States, a 1935 case, the Supreme Court stated that Section 4’s “language indicates a broader connotation” beyond its Civil War context.

It seems clear that courts will soon be asked to decide whether Raskin and other legal critics are right in their assertions of a host of legal problems with the Anti-Weaponization Fund. How they will do so remains to be seen.

But, in a democracy, deciding whether the creation of the fund violates the moral maxim that no one can be a judge in his or her own cause ultimately will be up to the people.

Austin Sarat 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. When a president settles his own lawsuit to create a fund for allies, fundamental questions about justice arise – https://theconversation.com/when-a-president-settles-his-own-lawsuit-to-create-a-fund-for-allies-fundamental-questions-about-justice-arise-283345

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jamie Rowen, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

Memorial Day is an apt time to reflect on the long-term consequences of war. Among them are substance use, mental health problems, homelessness and jail time for those who served in the military.

About 8% of all Americans in prisons or jails are veterans, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. Veterans end up incarcerated largely because of substance use and mental health disorders, both of which also contribute to homelessness.

For more than 15 years, one tool for helping veterans break out of addiction has been Veterans Treatment Courts. These programs help veterans accused or convicted of crimes address the challenges driving their involvement in the criminal legal system.

Veterans Treatment Courts require a dedicated clinician and need to provide access to counseling, housing support and other social services to meet veterans’ needs. For this, they must have funding from the government. As a legal scholar studying the use of criminal law to aid veterans, my research shows that these programs, which exist in every state except Connecticut and Vermont, can be very effective. But they only work when they have the staffing and the resources to support veterans’ complex needs.

However, since 2025, massive staffing losses at the Department of Veteran Affairs as well as cuts to publicly funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, which are widely used by veterans, are making it harder for veterans to access healthcare.

What are Veterans Treatment Courts?

Veterans Treatment Courts are a subset of the drug treatment courts that were created by judges and criminal legal reformers beginning in 1988. These courts are an alternative to jail for people arrested or convicted for crimes that may be related to substance use disorders.

The idea was to allow courts to address the root causes of criminal behavior rather than simply punish people who committed crimes. Specialized treatment courts were soon developed to provide support for specific issues, such as mental health, or to groups accused of specific crimes, such as sex work.

In 2008, a judge in Buffalo recognized that veterans in his drug treatment court would benefit from support from other veterans and the comprehensive services from the VA. So he launched a distinct program just for veterans that soon received national media attention. Veterans Treatment Courts now operate in over 745 courthouses.

Eligibility varies across courts, but typically requires that the person have served in the military and that the crime they committed is not considered so serious that it deserves incarceration. While these programs are funded through a variety of sources, such as local and state governments, the federal government offers tens of millions of dollars every year for local courthouses to set up Veterans Treatment Courts.

Veterans Treatment Courts have a variety of requirements for participants. Once admitted to the program, participants must attend a hearing where they talk to the judge about how they are doing. They must also take drug tests and attend therapy appointments. They may also have to show that they have stable housing and employment and that they have performed community service or engaged in other activities that indicate they are connected to their communities and therefore at lower risk for substance use or criminal behavior.

If participants meet program requirements, they graduate. Graduation usually means some sort of legal benefit, such as dropped charges and fines or the termination of probation.

Resources are key to success

Advocates suggest that Veterans Treatment Courts are more effective than jail or prison in preventing people from committing new crimes, and that treatment courts in general cost less than incarceration. But studies on whether they help veterans more than alternatives such as drug treatment courts or a regular criminal court have been inconclusive.

My research shows that treatment courts, in general, are most effective if they have dedicated staff and access to services to address substance use as well as housing insecurity. That level of support is exactly what the VA provides.

Veterans with VA benefits not only receive outpatient and inpatient substance use treatment, but they are able to access federally funded education and housing support unavailable to most U.S. citizens. Even Veterans Treatment Court participants who are ineligible for VA healthcare benefit from the unique levels of public support and state-funded programs for veterans in the U.S.

All this gives Veterans Treatment Courts the resources to help their participants more than other treatment courts or regular criminal courts can.

A program under threat

Recognizing the connection between veteran homelessness and incarceration, the federal government has put millions of dollars into the VA to help veterans in the criminal legal system. Congress annually authorizes tens of millions of dollars to support VA clinicians working in Veterans Treatment Courts. In January 2026, Congress even created a new center dedicated to this goal.

However, despite this support, cuts to healthcare that is delivered by VA providers, as well as to publicly funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, present numerous challenges for Veterans Treatment Courts. Tens of thousands of VA employees have left the agency since President Donald Trump took office. This has lead to staffing shortages that undermine care for all veterans.

Staff stability is especially important for these programs’ viability and success. My research shows that funding cuts lead to high turnover and low morale. When the Department of Health and Human Services sent a notice canceling US$2 billion worth of funding in January 2026, treatment courts were scrambling to figure out how they could staff their programs. Though this money was restored, the cancellation showed treatment court staff that their work could end without warning.

Given that the country’s criminal legal system is already overburdened, enabling Veterans Treatment Courts to do their vital work does more than help veterans. In my view, this program also models how comprehensive social services can help people struggling with substance use disorders, mental health problems, housing insecurity and other challenges.

As people recover from past wars and return from ongoing conflicts, they will need the country’s continued investment to reintegrate and thrive.

A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to funding cuts at the VA. It has been updated to specify the cuts were related to staffing and delivery of healthcare services.

Jamie Rowen receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Special courts helps veterans stay out of jail – but staffing losses at VA and cuts to government programs are threatening their work – https://theconversation.com/special-courts-helps-veterans-stay-out-of-jail-but-staffing-losses-at-va-and-cuts-to-government-programs-are-threatening-their-work-275742

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Liza Barnes, Assistant Professor of Management, Drexel University

Car crash. Cancer diagnosis. Mental health crisis. Autoimmune disease flareup.

A serious medical condition can turn your life upside down in an instant, making everyday tasks feel overwhelming. And if you’re employed, you may find that work emails keep coming and your manager keeps calling – when the only job you should focus on is healing.

In these moments, a medical leave of absence from work can serve as a vital lifeline.

We are organizational behavior professors who research how people balance their personal and work lives. In a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology in March 2026, we found that employers can design and enact medical leave policies in ways that support healing rather than adding more stress during what is already one of the hardest periods of an employee’s life.

We conducted interviews with 30 employees who had taken medical leave from a wide range of professions, such as teaching, management consulting, nursing and landscaping. We also interviewed 18 human resources professionals who manage the medical leave process. By systematically analyzing what people said during the interviews and looking for patterns, we determined what many employers are doing to help their workers heal.

2 in 3 Americans can take paid medical leave

Employees take medical leave when sick leave is not enough – when recovery will require weeks or months off.

But many workers make their jobs a higher priority than their health. Some fear being seen as less committed or losing their job if they take leave. Others simply cannot afford to lose income. As a result, many people work while getting chemotherapy, postpone surgeries doctors have told them they need, or forego other necessary treatments altogether, even when laws and workplace benefits may exist to protect them.

About 2 in 3 employed Americans had access to paid leave for their own serious health condition as of 2022, and about 9% of the people who had paid leave didn’t use it when they needed it.

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, eligible U.S. workers who have worked for a company with more than 50 employees for at least one year can take up to 12 weeks off to heal from their own serious health condition, or to care for a loved one such as a new baby or seriously ill family member.

But that policy protects your job, not your paycheck. It’s up to your employer, or your state, to determine whether medical leave is paid or unpaid.

Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts and several other states mandate paid medical leave for their employed residents. Some big employers also provide paid medical leave, including Microsoft and Adobe.

What to do when you need it

If your symptoms or treatments are making it hard to your job, don’t wait to get started. Chances are that you need to take time off from work to heal. And you should not delay treatment to accommodate what’s going on at work.

Experiencing stress from your job when you’re ill or injured can be like gasoline on a fire – it can exacerbate health problems and make it much harder to bounce back. We were surprised by how many people we interviewed waited until their circumstances were dire before stepping away from work.

It’s also important to check what benefits are available to you.

You may qualify for protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which can keep your job safe while you recover. But it doesn’t apply in all cases, such as when employers have fewer than 50 workers.

To protect your paycheck, you may have access to a short-term disability policy through your employer benefits package that you can use in conjunction with the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Alternatively, you may already be paying into your state’s paid leave program through payroll deductions. These programs work like insurance, helping replace part of your income while you are on leave.

Your human resources department can serve as your first point of contact and can get you in touch with a leave coordinator, if your employer has one.

However, you do not have to share detailed information about your medical condition with your supervisor, or even HR, if you prefer to keep that information private. Your doctor only needs to provide documentation confirming that you have a serious condition and detailing how much time you need off.

Some employers also offer extra support through employee assistance programs, which can provide free counseling sessions, or financial and legal assistance.

Some best practices

We found that access to paid leave is important, but not sufficient, for helping workers heal.

Many large employers that effectively support workers in need of medical leave have trained specialists in their human resources departments who help employees understand their options. That makes it easier for workers to take enough time off to recover.

Employers that handle medical leave well also train managers on the basics.

They make sure managers know how to clearly communicate the available benefits to their subordinates, understand who is eligible for them, and know who from human resources can support workers throughout the process.

But a manager’s role ends there. Managers do not have discretion over when or whether an employee may take leave. Good managers know that, and understand that their role is to support their employees during what is likely one of the most difficult moments of their life.

Employers can proactively prepare for workers to take extended absences by cross-training employees ahead of time. Doing this signals that taking leave is acceptable, expected and supported. If the need for leave arises, workers are less likely to feel guilty about stepping away to focus on their health because they know someone else can temporarily cover their work.

We believe that the best employers ensure medical leave benefits are available from day one on the job.

Under federal law, workers must be employed for at least 12 months before they qualify for the Family and Medical Leave Act’s protections. But illness and injury do not happen on convenient schedules.

A car accident after 11 months on the job is just as devastating as one after 11 years. Someone who starts having unexpected seizures eight months into the job still needs the time away from work to seek treatment and a diagnosis. Employers that really want to support their employees and their well-being recognize this and do not make employees wait.

Even if you’re not a manager, you can play a role. If any of your coworkers are getting ready to take medical leave or are already on leave, you can support them by learning more about their daily tasks and helping fill the gaps.

Liza Barnes receives funding from the Society for Human Resource Management and the Academy of Management.

Ashley Hardin and Christina Lacerenza 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. How employers can support workers when they take medical leave – https://theconversation.com/how-employers-can-support-workers-when-they-take-medical-leave-282817

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Krasnok, Assistant Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Florida International University

Quantum computers get a lot of attention, even though they are not ready for prime time, but quantum sensors are already doing useful work. These sensors measure fields, forces and motion so small that ordinary background noise can drown them out. Some sensors are already in daily use, while others are moving from research labs into flight tests, hospitals and field instruments.

For example, a human brain produces magnetic signals in the femtotesla-to-picotesla range – billions of times weaker than a refrigerator magnet – far weaker than the magnetic noise in an ordinary room. That is why brain scanners that measure these signals need ultrasensitive detectors and strong magnetic shielding. In some hospitals, these detectors use quantum technology to help map brain activity before epilepsy surgery, without touching the brain.

Quantum sensors are showing up in other fields as well, including in navigation when GPS signals are jammed or spoofed, mapping gravity to reveal what’s underground, and boosting astronomers’ ability to measure gravitational waves. I am a photonics and quantum technologies researcher. My lab applies physics to develop a range of devices, including quantum sensors.

What is a quantum sensor?

A sensor turns a physical effect – temperature, pressure, light, acceleration or magnetic field – into a number. Most sensors do this with engineered parts: springs, coils or computer chips. But these can drift, or become less accurate, as they age or warm up.

A quantum sensor uses a tiny quantum system as the “active ingredient” that interacts with the world to measure a physical quantity. The most common choices for quantum systems are atoms, electron spins, and superconducting circuits.

An atom has a fixed set of energy levels, like rungs on a ladder. Light or microwaves can move it between those levels only at exact frequencies. A magnetic field, motion or gravity can shift those frequencies or change the phase of the atom’s wave, and the sensor turns that shift into a measurement.

A spin is a built-in property of electrons that makes them act like an infinitesimal cross between a spinning top and a bar magnet. Using spins as a sensor means measuring how a magnetic field causes the spin to “wobble.” The spin is like a spinning top and the magnetic field is like your finger gently touching the top. How much the top wobbles in response indicates how forcefully you touched the top, an analogy to measuring the strength of the magnetic field.

Another type of quantum sensor is a superconducting circuit, an electrical circuit cooled to extremely low temperatures so current flows with no resistance. A superconducting quantum interference device, or SQUID, is a superconducting loop. This electrical loop is sensitive to tiny changes in magnetic fields, which register as measurable changes in an electrical signal from the device.

Most quantum sensors follow a three-step loop: They prepare a known quantum state, let the world nudge it, then read out the change. Many devices form a wave-like interference pattern between two quantum systems, similar to the way in which two overlapping ripples create patterns on a pond. The devices measure how this pattern changes in response to changes in the environments around the devices shift.

Quantum sensor advantage

Quantum sensors are not automatically better at everything, and they still rely on classical engineering. But here are three advantages they offer:

• They are naturally uniform. Atoms of the same kind are identical, so the sensing element is consistent from one device to the next and less prone to drift than many manufactured parts.

• They respond to tiny nudges. A small field can shift a quantum state in a measurable way – if the device is shielded enough from interference, or noise.

• Engineers can reshape the noise. Techniques like “squeezed” light do not remove noise, but they can move uncertainty away from the part of the measurement that matters most.

Magnetism: From brain scans to chip debugging

One mature example of a quantum sensor is the clinical brain-imaging method, called magnetoencephalography, or MEG. MEG measures the magnetic fields produced by brain activity and is used in research and clinics, including for mapping seizure activity and important brain areas before surgery. It typically uses sensors coupled to SQUIDs inside shielded rooms.

Newer magnetometers may not need the same extreme cooling as SQUIDs do. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, has developed chip‑scale atomic magnetometers that operate at room temperature. NIST and other research teams are exploring them for biomedical work because they can measure weak fields from the brain and heart without cryogenic cooling eqipment needed by SQUIDs. In one example, researchers reported fetal heart measurements using an array of optically pumped magnetometers, and they discuss these room-temperature sensors as a route toward more flexible systems than fixed cryogenic setups.

Nitrogen‑vacancy centers are another type of quantum system that can be used as a sensor. It relies on a specific “flaw” in diamond: a nitrogen atom sitting next to a gap from a missing carbon atom. That defect acts like a quantum spin that can be prepared with light, perturbed by magnetic fields, and read out by counting emitted photons.

Nitrogen‑vacancy center sensors are not designed to do whole-head brain scans. Their strength is fine spatial resolution: They can map magnetic fields over tens of nanometers, or billionths of a meter. That can help image tiny magnetic structures, study materials, and even map currents in microwave and electronic devices such as computer chips.

Motion: Navigation when satellite signals are untrusted

When satellite navigation signals are blocked or untrusted, navigation falls back on accelerometers and gyroscopes like those in your smartphone. The challenge is drift: Tiny errors build up over time. Cold‑atom sensors offer a different route. In a normal accelerometer, a small object inside the sensor lags behind when you accelerate. In an atom interferometer, a cloud of laser-cooled atoms plays that role and their matter waves interfere in a way that depends on acceleration and rotation.

These quantum navigation systems are not yet standard equipment. But agencies and companies are testing them because they could provide a backup when satellite signals are weak, blocked or spoofed. The European Space Agency has described “hyper-sensitive” quantum sensors as possible supplementary navigation tools, while noting that the challenge is making them reliable and robust outside the lab. The U.K. government has also publicly described flight trials of quantum navigation technology as an added layer of resilience.

Gravity: Maps that reveal water, minerals and voids

Gravity sensing uses related physics. If you can measure tiny changes in gravity from place to place, you can infer hidden structure underground. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory is developing the Quantum Gravity Gradiometer Pathfinder, a space-based quantum sensor aimed at mapping subtle gravity changes linked to underground features such as aquifers and mineral deposits.

This gravity sensor is still under development. The system would use two clouds of ultra-cold rubidium atoms as test masses. Cooled near absolute zero, the atoms behave like waves. The instrument would compare the acceleration of the two atom waves. A small difference sensed at the two clouds’ locations points to a gravity anomaly caused by hidden mass.

Seeing the universe: ‘Squeezing’ light to beat quantum noise

Some of the most famous sensors in science measure incredibly small changes in distance. Gravitational-wave observatories such as the Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO, do this by splitting a laser beam to travel along a pair of 2.5-mile-long (4-kilometer-long) tracks at right angles and bounce back off mirrors at the ends. When a gravitational wave caused by a distant cosmic event like two black holes merging passes through the device, the travel times of the two beams is slightly different.

This is quantum-enhanced sensing. The observatory measures a distance change, but quantum physics sets one of its noise limits. Quantum noise can limit how well those instruments work. LIGO reports that it uses “frequency-dependent squeezing,” a method to reduce quantum noise, to help the detectors probe a larger volume of the universe and find about 60% more mergers than before LIGO.

The catch

Quantum states are delicate. Vibrations, stray fields and temperature swings can wash out an interference pattern or scramble a spin state. That is why many of the most sensitive devices still use vacuum chambers, lasers and shielding.

Quantum sensors are already working where tiny signals matter: in clocks, hospitals and observatories. The next step is to make these sensors smaller, cheaper and tough enough to work outside specialized labs.

Alex Krasnok 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. Quantum sensors use atoms, electrons and light as ultra-steady rulers – detecting faint motion, magnetism and gravity for navigation, medicine and science – https://theconversation.com/quantum-sensors-use-atoms-electrons-and-light-as-ultra-steady-rulers-detecting-faint-motion-magnetism-and-gravity-for-navigation-medicine-and-science-273756

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yeimy J. Rivera, Researcher in Astrophysics, Smithsonian Institution

When you look up at the sky on a sunny day, the Sun might seem like a bright spot, unchanging in the sky. But the Sun is a complex, dynamic celestial body, wrapped in electrical currents and magnetic fields that constantly move and tangle as it rotates. At times the Sun’s surface is very active, casting out powerful bursts of plasma called coronal mass ejections, while at other times it is calmer.

I’m a solar physicist who has spent over a decade researching the Sun. Its movement and activity is directly linked to conditions on Earth: Solar flares and ejections can cause space weather that produces beautiful Northern lights but threatens satellites. This activity follows a roughly 11-year-long cycle, and learning about this cycle helps researchers predict future space weather.

Inside the Sun

The Sun is a star composed of plasma: a hot, ionized gas. The plasma acts as an electrically conductive fluid, and generates large-scale magnetic fields that encircle the Sun.

The Sun is composed of several layers, all made up of a plasma that’s about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium by mass.

The Sun has a solid core at its center and a dense layer outside the core, where particles of light bounce around, transferring energy outwards. Beyond that layer is a thin line called the tachocline that separates those inner layers from the outer layer. This outer zone is cooler and less dense, allowing plasma to move around.

Inside the core, particles collide and release incredible amounts of energy, which radiate out from the Sun in the form of light – a process called nuclear fusion. The light travels outward towards the radiative zone outside the core, before reaching the tachocline.

At the outer layer of the Sun above the tachocline, called the convective zone, the hot plasma travels from deep in the Sun to its surface. As it moves, the plasma cools and contracts, causing it to sink back down. This cyclic process is called convection.

The Sun is constantly generating magnetic fields that grow and twist below its surface. Two processes control these magnetic fields by moving the electric charges around in the plasma. One is convection, and the other is the Sun’s rotation.

Scientists think that together, these two processes are ultimately responsible for the Sun’s magnetic activity cycle, during which the Sun shifts from an organized to a less organized magnetic field arrangement. The entire cycle, called the Schwabe Cycle, takes roughly 11 years. Over the course of two Schwabe cycles, the Sun’s magnetic poles flip, and then return to their original orientation.

The Schwabe cycle

When the Sun is in an organized state, the center of the Sun resembles a giant vertical bar magnet with positive and negative ends at the top and bottom, or vice versa – called a magnetic dipole. In the 11-year solar cycle, this phase is known as solar minimum.

Although you cannot see the invisible magnetic field directly, the glowing plasma sticks to these field lines. The magnetic field’s shape during the solar minimum is similar to Earth’s magnetic field, with open-ended magnetic field lines at the north and south poles and closed, looped fields near the equator. After the solar minimum state, the Sun’s magnetic field grows tangled over time. Eventually, it reaches its solar maximum state, where the solar atmosphere resembles tangled up spaghetti.

Two main forces tangle the magnetic field as the Sun rotates and plasma churns away in the convection zone: the Omega and Alpha effects.

Alpha and Omega effects

The Sun doesn’t rotate as a solid body everywhere. The interior of the Sun – the core and radiative layers – spins as a solid sphere, like a basketball. Outside these layers, the convection zone and the surface of the Sun do not spin all together.

By observing the Sun’s visible surface, scientists found out that the solar equator in the center rotates faster than the poles, near the top and bottom of the Sun. It takes the solar equator about 25 days to make a full rotation, while the poles take longer – about 35 days. Because the equator moves faster, it overtakes the poles in a phenomenon called differential rotation.

Differential rotation stretches the vertical magnetic field lines around the Sun, causing them to wrap around the Sun horizontally like a belt. The field lines pull on the Sun more tightly as differential rotation continues throughout the solar cycle, in a process known as the Omega Effect.

The second effect, called the Alpha Effect, is thought to arise from convection taking place below the Sun’s surface coupled with its rotation. Like bubbles rising to the surface in boiling water, the tangled magnetic field becomes buoyant and kinked, popping through the surface to create sunspots.

Sunspots look like clusters of dark spots on the Sun’s surface. Scientists can also identify active regions of intensely strong and complex magnetic field bundles by taking images of the Sun in ultraviolet light, where the bundles appear as bright structures.

Solar eruptions called solar flares and coronal mass ejections occur most frequently in these active regions. The appearance of more sunspots, active regions and solar eruptions all signal to scientists that the Sun is entering its solar maximum phase.

Moving magnetic poles

Over the course of the solar cycle, the Sun’s magnetic poles move. At solar minimum, the magnetic poles are oriented vertically through the Sun’s center. But over the course of the solar cycle, the poles begin to tilt, until the pole previously at the top of the Sun is pointed roughly at its equator.

But at the same time, all the tangled magnetic fields make the poles less defined. This chaotic magnetic state partially leads to sunspots and solar eruptions. After solar maximum, as the Sun’s magnetic state grows more organized again, the poles reappear and continue migrating back towards the top and bottom of the Sun.

However, the magnetic pole previously pointed at the top now points to the bottom, and vice versa. The configuration appears upside down from what it was 11 years ago. A full magnetic cycle takes two Schwabe Cycles – during this time, the Sun’s poles flip twice and return back to the original orientation.

Scientists have observed that several other stars, not just our Sun, have a magnetic activity cycle, though their duration can vary. And, like our Sun, other stars also produce eruptions like stellar flares and coronal mass ejections, likely due to their activity cycles.

Studying magnetic cycles in other stars can help astronomers determine whether distant planets could support life. A star’s magnetic activity directly dictates the amount of space weather the planets around that star experience. These effects can strip away the protective atmospheres around planets, prohibiting them from supporting life.

Yeimy J. Rivera 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. Solar activity follows an 11-year cycle – here’s how it controls eruptions and solar flares – https://theconversation.com/solar-activity-follows-an-11-year-cycle-heres-how-it-controls-eruptions-and-solar-flares-278030

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By H. Christopher Frey, Professor of Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University

For decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has relied on an independent scientific program to answer two basic questions when chemicals come up for review: Does the chemical pose a threat to human health? If so, how much exposure is necessary before it becomes a problem?

The scientists involved in that program, known as the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, served as neutral scientific referees.

Now, the Trump administration is dismantling the program and moving the scientific assessment role to policy offices, opening the door for political pressure. The administration is also making it easier for past IRIS assessments to be revisited or overturned.

This change is not merely bureaucratic: It reshapes whether future assessments of chemical dangers will be ignored, delayed by time-consuming legal fights, or understated by the federal government, potentially with real consequences for public health.

Numerous chemicals are hazardous to human health. For example, ethylene oxide is used to sterilize medical equipment. However, studies show ethylene oxide poses elevated cancer risks to people who live near facilities that release it. Chromium‑VI, used as a corrosion inhibitor and for metal finishing, can contaminate drinking water. Made famous by the Erin Brockovich case, it has been linked to cancer and other adverse health effects. Formaldehyde, found in building materials and household products, has long raised concerns about cancer and respiratory disease.

EPA scientists assessed each of these chemicals through the IRIS program. Now, the IRIS program itself, as well as many of its formal assessments of over 550 chemicals developed over four decades, is being challenged under the Trump administration.

What IRIS did – and what it didn’t do

In any high‑stakes game, the referee enforces the rules so the outcome rests on the facts, not on who shouts the loudest or has the most at stake.

IRIS played that role for chemical safety. It was part of the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, which was recently dismantled by the Trump administration. Its scientists assessed whether chemicals cause harm and weighed how health risks changed with a person’s increasing exposure to the chemical. These scientists did not estimate real‑world exposures, decide acceptable risk or make regulatory choices. Those functions were handled in policy offices.

I have worked with IRIS assessments from multiple perspectives — as a professor of environmental engineering, as a reviewer for the National Academies and EPA science advisory processes, and as assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development from 2022 to 2024, where I oversaw the IRIS program.

IRIS assessments were written by EPA scientists and rigorously reviewed by independent external peer reviewers with experience in each specific chemical. The assessments have been used across EPA programs and by states, local governments and tribes, and internationally. Industry representatives, environmental groups, other federal agencies and members of the public all had opportunities to comment on the drafts of assessments before they were finalized.

When disagreements arose over IRIS assessments, independent scientific experts were asked to weigh the evidence and advise the EPA on how to move forward. That process, relying on scientists, not stakeholders, was meant to ensure that scientific judgments were grounded in evidence, not in policy preferences or financial interests.

The actual policy decisions to regulate chemicals were made elsewhere, by EPA officials and, in some cases, by states or other jurisdictions. IRIS provided the scientific foundation so those decisions could be informed by an evidence‑based understanding of chemical hazards.

IRIS assessments effectively set the standard for assessing chemical hazards internationally. Other agencies and countries rely on IRIS assessments precisely because they are comprehensive, transparent and independently reviewed.

Why critics wanted IRIS dismantled

That track record matters.

Some industry‑aligned organizations have argued that IRIS assessments are flawed or biased and have called for eliminating the program.

However, independent scientific reviews have repeatedly examined these concerns and found that IRIS methods reflect the current state of the science and have strengthened in rigor, transparency and consistency over time.

It’s true that IRIS assessments often took years to complete, but that was because extensive interagency review and limited staffing slowed the pace at which assessments could inform regulatory decisions. Delay is not the same as poor science.

What changes when the referee disappears?

With IRIS eliminated as an independent program, chemical hazard assessments will be overseen by regulatory offices that also weigh economic impacts, legal risk and policy priorities.

When scientific assessments are developed within offices responsible for policy decisions, it becomes harder to maintain a clear separation between evaluating evidence and weighing its regulatory consequences. That separation has historically helped ensure that scientific conclusions are grounded in evidence alone.

Courts generally give weight to agency expertise when decisions are supported by a clear and well‑documented scientific record. However, when agencies fail to clearly explain how the evidence supports their decisions, including when agencies depart from their own scientific assessments, courts can block those decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act or other laws, such as the Clean Air Act.

The result can be prolonged litigation and delays in developing or implementing regulations, with consequences for public health.

How communities are affected

Industries have long challenged scientific findings that show their products can cause harm – from tobacco smoke to particulate air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

When public health is at stake, I believe independent referees are essential to ensure that facts are determined by evidence, not by the industries that would benefit. Shifting away from independent scientific review risks undermining that foundation.

I served as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science Policy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2021 to 2022, and as Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at the U.S. EPA from 2022 to 2024.

– ref. EPA is sidelining its independent chemical referee – and that endangers public health – https://theconversation.com/epa-is-sidelining-its-independent-chemical-referee-and-that-endangers-public-health-283120

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Scott Shackelford, Professor of Business Law and Ethics, Indiana University

With the 2026 midterms less than six months away, the Election Security Group would normally be busy helping prepare the nation’s election infrastructure. The federal task force typically briefs Congress on upcoming threats and engages with state and local leaders to game out scenarios ranging from ransomware to critical infrastructure attacks on Election Day.

But Gen. Joshua Rudd, director of the National Security Agency and commander of the U.S. Cyber Command – the two agencies that jointly run the Election Security Group – told the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 28, 2026, that he didn’t know whether the group had been set up yet. The Election Security Group has worked every federal election cycle since 2018, but, as of mid-May, there is no public indication it has been activated.

This pending Election Security Group activation follows the Trump administration’s 2025 decision to defund the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, the threat-sharing hub that helped make 2024 the most cyber-secure election in U.S. history, according to the Center for Internet Security, a nonprofit focused on protecting against digital threats. A White House spokesperson said of the cuts at the time that EI-ISAC’s work no longer effectuated the priorities of the Department of Homeland Security.

These losses – and the disbanding of other federal offices that counter foreign influence operations – make it harder for local officials to learn of threats to election infrastructure, like AI-enabled targeting of voting tabulation systems or deepfakes of candidates. Little is known about whether the proactive cyber deterrence that has defined U.S. elections for much of the past decade remains in place in any other form.

I’m a scholar of global efforts to secure democracy, and I co-edited a book called “Securing Democracies” about cyberattacks and disinformation worldwide. I can attest to the importance of guarding against foreign efforts to undermine trust in U.S. elections and believe that, without groups like the EI-ISAC and the Election Security Group in place, the 2026 midterms could mark a milestone: For the first time in perhaps a decade, the next election may be less secure than the last.

A decade of election defense

The Russian-backed Internet Research Agency began targeting the U.S. political system to sow divisions in 2014. Thanks to Internet Research Agency troll farms – organized groups paid to flood social media platforms with fake or divisive content – disinformation proliferated through the 2016 election. At the same time, Russia’s GRU – its military intelligence agency – homed in on the Democratic National Committee and probed all 50 state election systems. It breached Hillary Clinton’s campaign and compromised election systems in Illinois.

Though there is no evidence that votes were altered as a result, Russian influence exposed the country’s election vulnerabilities and set the stage for extensive investigations and hearings questioning how the U.S. government should respond. It left lasting damage in its wake, like lower trust in electoral processes and widened political divides.

In the final weeks of the Obama administration, the Department of Homeland Security designated election infrastructure as critical, akin to water and electricity. The first Trump administration built on that designation and created the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, in 2018. That same year, the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command – the military nerve center for cybersecurity – partnered to launch what was initially called the Russia Small Group, a task force to guard U.S. election infrastructure against Russian interference.

Since at least the Obama administration, the U.S. had been largely focused on defensive measures to protect elections, like multifactor authentication and encryption, which make it harder to compromise systems in the first place. The Trump administration wanted to be more proactive, to put adversaries on notice and deter future attacks. This approach is known as defending forward, or persistent engagement.

The test for this new, more activist policy came during the 2018 midterms, as the Internet Research Agency again tried to widen divisions in U.S. society through hundreds of thousands of manufactured tweets and posts that made divisive views appear more widely shared than they were on both sides of hot-button issues. This time, however, the Russia Small Group took the Internet Research Agency offline during and immediately after the election. Although the details are classified, public reporting indicates that Cyber Command temporarily disrupted the Internet Research Agency’s internet access and sent direct messages to operatives warning them against such activities and instructing them to not interfere in U.S. elections.

The Election Security Group

By the 2020 presidential election, the Russia Small Group had been renamed the Election Security Group, and its scope expanded beyond Russia to include China, Iran, North Korea and nonstate actors. It worked to “disrupt, deter and degrade foreign adversaries’ ability to interfere with and influence how U.S. citizens vote and how those votes are counted.”

The Election Security Group does this through detailed information-sharing across agencies and with local officials and the private sector. If, for instance, a foreign influence campaign falsely claims that polling places have closed early in a swing state, the Election Security Group can alert election officials, platforms and distributed cybersecurity teams before the claim goes viral. In true “defend forward” spirit, it can also help cut off foreign trolls and state-backed hackers from what’s needed to run an influence operation, like internet access, servers and accounts.

Typically, it is active during election years, serving as a vital coordination hub and turning intelligence about foreign election threats into warnings, defensive measures and offensive operations.

The Election Security Group’s absence comes at a time when both threats and technological vulnerabilities are multiplying.

The 2026 midterms

The current election cycle, in many ways, is more prone to targeting than previous ones because of the Iran war, AI-powered cyberattacks, nation state–sponsored attacks against U.S. election infrastructure, and the firing of key Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency personnel who worked with tech companies to spot election-related deepfakes and inaccurate or misleading content.

These challenges – combined with losing the EI-ISAC and, possibly, the Election Security Group – could leave the U.S. less prepared this November. Local and state election officials have fewer places to turn for the latest intelligence, and Congress is less informed about pressing threats – all while global U.S. standing is slipping and foreign adversaries could feel emboldened.

The Election Security Group, which was created by the first Trump administration – alongside both the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency – has been an important weapon in the U.S. arsenal to defend vulnerable election systems. What fills these gaps remains unclear. One outlet has reported that plans to revive the Election Security Group are beginning to move through senior intelligence and defense channels, weeks after Rudd’s testimony. Even if the group is activated immediately, it will have less than six months to do what it has historically done across a full election year. With early voting beginning in some states even sooner, the clock is ticking.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

– ref. For the first time in a decade, the next election could be less secure than the one preceding it – https://theconversation.com/for-the-first-time-in-a-decade-the-next-election-could-be-less-secure-than-the-one-preceding-it-282107

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Matthew Jordan, Professor of Media Studies, Penn State

When CBS Radio News goes silent on May 22, 2026, Americans will lose access to news programming they’ve tuned into from their living rooms, kitchens and cars for nearly a century.

The once-bipartisan idea that the nation’s media should exist to serve democracy continues to fade with it, too.

As a media historian, I think the story of CBS Radio News’ rise and fall cannot be told without telling another parallel story: the story of how the U.S. stopped demanding that media serve the public interest.

When CBS was born in 1927, radio was ascendant, and this new form of mass communication was spurring vibrant discussions about how media could better serve democracy.

Americans had already seen how concentrated wealth during the Gilded Age had tilted the news ecosystem by overemphasizing the concerns of the rich while glossing over inequality, graft and corruption. World War I further demonstrated the power of mass media to shape public opinion through propaganda, reinforcing calls for democratic oversight of broadcasting.

Just how to regulate radio was up for debate. But there was broad consensus across party lines that government could play a role in protecting the public from concentrated media power and, with it, foreign misinformation, bad-faith special interest messaging or fraudulent advertising.

The formative years

CBS radio traces its origins to the United Independent Broadcasters, a network of 16 local stations founded by music manager Arthur L. Judson. When Columbia Records bought a stake, it was renamed the Columbia Phonographic Broadcasting System.

Early broadcasts simply involved announcers reading short breaking-news dispatches distributed by the United Press wire service. Within months, Columbia sold its share to investors including William S. Paley, who streamlined the name to CBS.

Paley was no public media crusader. He was a businessman who wanted radio to turn a profit. But his management reflected a belief that radio could serve two masters: the public interest and advertisers.

He hired journalist Paul J. White to run the news division and created a regular news segment called “Something for Everyone.”

Though they differed on how best to achieve it, Democrats and Republicans agreed that radio ought to serve the public interest. In other words, because the airwaves belonged to all Americans, broadcasters had obligations beyond profit. They needed to provide reliable information, platform diverse viewpoints and cover matters of public concern.

In the 1920s, then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover was charged with formulating federal radio policy. Though he was a staunch, pro-business conservative, Hoover was also an engineer who thought that the radio system should be “free of monopoly” and, like any machine, could be gradually improved so it would better serve democracy.

“The ether is a public medium, and its use must be for the public benefit,” he said in November 1925.

Republican President Calvin Coolidge signed the Radio Act of 1927 into law. Passed with overwhelming support, it required radio stations to demonstrate a commitment to “public interest, convenience and necessity” in order to receive a license.

Forging the public’s trust

By the time the 1934 Communications Act created the Federal Communications Commission, a regulatory agency tasked with licensing broadcasters and enforcing ownership rules, the idea that radio should serve the public had been normalized.

In 1935, Paley made Edward R. Murrow – the man most associated with CBS Radio’s public service mission – head of news programming.

With fascism threatening democracy across Europe, Murrow launched “World News Roundup” in 1938. The longest-running news program in American media, it featured live reports transmitted by shortwave from locations around the world. American audiences huddled around their radios nightly to hear CBS’ reports, which showed how live news could unite a nation and cultivate a richer information ecosystem than the uniform propaganda of Europe’s fascist strongmen.

CBS’ gripping coverage of World War II solidified its importance as an American institution. Murrow’s signature tag lines – “this is London” and, later, “good night and good luck” – helped forge the public’s trust in CBS’ reliable and informative programming.

The dangers of delusion and amusement

After the war, television challenged radio’s dominance. Paley understood that Murrow had built a deep trust among listeners, and he put him in charge of CBS News as the network expanded its programming to TV.

Yet Murrow grew uneasy with shifts in the network’s coverage, which, in his view, increasingly served the economic interests of its owners.

Speaking to the Radio Television News Directors Association in 1958, Murrow lamented how radio and television had forgotten “to operate in the public interest.” He worried that “we have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information” and saw mass media increasingly “being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us.”

Without serious reporting and civic responsibility as their animating principles, radio and television were losing their democratic utility, becoming mere “wires and lights in a box.”

Corporations gain the upper hand

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, many of the rules dating from when CBS Radio News was born, like ownership restrictions and requirements for educational programming, remained on the books.

But during this period, media companies started spending enormous sums of money on donations to legislators who could do their bidding – and capturing the regulatory bodies that were supposed to be holding them accountable. The spirited debates about how radio could better serve democracy largely disappeared. Instead, the conversation shifted to whether government should have any role at all in regulating the media.

Principles that once had broad public support – producing public interest news as a quid pro quo for licensing, limits on foreign ownership and fairness rules that required stations to give equal time to both sides of an issue – faded away.

Any societal obligation outside of earning profit started being described as a threat to the American way of life. Those arguing that media should be regulated like a public utility in a pluralistic democracy were effectively ignored.

After President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Telecommunication Act, critics argued that industry lobbying had helped dismantle much of the public interest framework that had long governed American broadcasting. The legislation relaxed ownership caps and cross-ownership rules, allowing a small number of large corporations to acquire far more stations and weakening the older public interest obligations tied to broadcast licensing.

Before the act, corporations were limited to owning 40 radio stations. Now, conglomerates like iHeartMedia and Audacy can own thousands.

‘The tube is flickering’

Through it all, CBS Radio News’ top-of-the-hour bulletins remained on the air, a reminder of its original public mission.

Yet increasingly, the deregulated radio ecosystem failed to perform that function.

Back in the 1920s, you could hear editorials arguing that the radio should not be given over to “propagandists, religious zealots and unprincipled persons to grind their own axes.” By the early 2000s, divisive shock jocks and hosts feeding on partisan anger dominated the radio dial.

In a 1938 radio address on CBS’ ethical commitments, Paley argued that “broadcasting as an instrument of American democracy must forever be wholly, honestly and militantly non-partisan.” By 2016, CEO Les Moonves defended CBS’ decision to increase its coverage of President Donald Trump’s spectacularly divisive politics to juice ratings: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” Four years later, Trump awarded one of radio’s most polarizing partisan propagandists, Rush Limbaugh, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

In his second term, Trump has abused his power over the media ecosystem. In 2025, the Trump administration’s FCC approved the merger of Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, with Skydance Media. But it only did so after Paramount Global settled a lawsuit Trump had filed against CBS for $16 million.

Though many talented journalists and producers remain, CBS News’ recently hired editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, has worked to make the network more friendly to the Trump administration. She temporarily shelved a “60 Minutes” segment critical of Trump’s use of El Salvador’s CECOT prison and promoted a friendly town hall with conservative commentator Erika Kirk, the widow of assassinated political activist Charlie Kirk. Ratings at the network have collapsed.

Though Paramount Skydance is using its enormous debt load to justify taking CBS Radio News off the air, the conglomerate is trying to purchase CNN’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, in a move that would only further the monopolization of the news media.

Americans can’t say Murrow didn’t warn them.

“The tube is flickering,” he said in 1958. And unless Americans reclaim their right to information not colored by profit motive and special interests, “we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.”

Matthew Jordan 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. As goes CBS Radio News, so goes the idea that news media should serve the public interest – https://theconversation.com/as-goes-cbs-radio-news-so-goes-the-idea-that-news-media-should-serve-the-public-interest-281718

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Susan Radzilowski, Lecturer in Social Work, University of Michigan

Imagine this scenario: In late 2025, a social worker sits down with a transgender teenager and his parents. The family is trying to decide whether, and when, to begin gender-affirming hormone treatment.

No one in the family was questioning this young person’s gender identity. The teen had been living as a boy for years. By all accounts, he was thriving: emotionally, academically and socially.

He felt ready for this next step, and so did his parents – at first.

What gave them pause was not a wavering in the parents’ support of their child’s identity, or a change in the teen’s needs. Instead, they felt unsure whether starting hormone therapy was still legal – or even safe.

As a clinical social worker who works extensively with children and families navigating gender‑affirming care – and as someone whose trans child is now an adult – I have encountered several families facing similar questions about their options. These concerns have grown in recent years, especially as more states have moved to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.

In states like Michigan, gender-affirming care for minors remains legal as of May 2026. Yet news coverage and political rhetoric have left many families uncertain about what care doctors are still permitted to offer.

In response to evolving federal legal and regulatory pressures, several Michigan health systems have limited or discontinued certain forms of gender-affirming medical care for minors. This includes puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormone therapy. These limitations have increased confusion among families about what care remains available.

Families are flooded with disinformation and misinformation suggesting the science on gender-affirming care has changed. It has not. But a growing gap exists between what the law permits and what families believe possible, shaping how parents make medical decisions for their children.

What the law says – and what families hear

As of May 2026, gender-affirming care for minors remains legal in 23 states, with shield laws that protect against prosecution in other states. Around 27 states have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth.

Regardless of legality, gender-affirming care is endorsed by every major medical association, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society.

In states where gender‑affirming care is banned, the effects on youth and families are often immediate and far‑reaching. Patients may be forced to stop care, and these unplanned treatment disruptions can negatively affect mental health. Research shows that transgender youth experience increased anxiety, depression and suicidality when they’re exposed to restrictive policies, and a majority have reported that these policies have negatively affected their well‑being.

When care is banned, families shoulder added burdens. They must take time away from work and school and travel long distances – sometimes crossing state lines – to access care. One national study found that more than 1 in 4 transgender youth were living over four hours from the nearest clinic after state legislators enacted restrictions. Many faced even longer travel times. For young people, having to retell their story to a new care team can feel exhausting and traumatizing.

Even in states where care is legal, there are longer wait times and reduced access as providers and families pivot to navigate evolving legal risks. These pressures compound the emotional, logistical and financial toll on families trying to maintain stable care. Parents and young people are also concerned that their care may be abruptly withdrawn once started.

Additionally, parents worry that supporting their child’s gender transition could bring unwanted government scrutiny. In July 2025, the Department of Justice issued subpoenas to doctors and clinics to obtain the private medical records of transgender minors as part of an effort to end pediatric gender-affirming care.

This heightened scrutiny has had a chilling effect on patients and providers, undermining patient privacy and trust in care.

What gender-affirming care actually involves

Much of the pushback concerning gender‑affirming care arises from misunderstandings about what it actually involves.

Gender-affirming care is an individualized approach to supporting young people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth. It includes social support, mental health assessment and, for some patients, medical treatment.

Care begins with a comprehensive, thorough assessment of the patient, including their mental and physical health and social relationships. Clinicians interview patients about significant aspects of their life, including their gender identity, trauma history, educational status and overall well-being. The parents’ perspectives are incorporated into the assessment as well, along with religious or cultural barriers to care.

To initiate any medical care, consent from the parent and assent from the patient is required. Each patient’s plan is grounded in a full understanding of the child’s needs, and this may or may not involve medical transition.

Access to gender‑affirming care has been consistently associated with improved mental health outcomes, including reductions in depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts among transgender youth. While some research has reported regret after transitioning, many of these studies tend to discount positive outcomes, minimize the harms of restricting care or apply standards of evidence unevenly for transgender and cisgender children.

For example, the National Health Service England’s 2020 Cass Review has influenced public discourse about gender-affirming care in the U.S. and the U.K. It concluded that there is limited and uncertain evidence supporting medical interventions for transgender youth and recommended a more cautious approach to care. However, scholars across medicine, mental health and law have criticized the Cass Review’s methodology and conclusions, noting that the authors misused or misrepresented parts of the available data and applied inconsistent standards when evaluating research.

Critics caution against applying the review’s findings to patient care. Doing so risks harming young patients by treating transgender identities as a disease and making blanket recommendations against care.

Even where care is legal, accessing it is harder

Together, misinformation, legal threats and evolving policies have made accessing evidence‑based care more difficult. This has resulted in the weakening of the safeguards supporting comprehensive care and ongoing monitoring of young patients’ physical and mental health. Some families have been forced to navigate fragmented access to care, rely on less experienced providers or attempt to piece together care on their own.

Some politicians frame restrictive policies as protecting young people. But these restrictions in fact have the opposite effect by limiting access to care and destabilizing established treatment plans.

When care is delayed or interrupted, the resulting distress that a young patient experiences stems not from a change in their gender identity, but from uncertainty about what comes next.

Research has shown that this instability can increase a young person’s risk of anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation.

How parents can support their trans child

When medical care is inaccessible, there are still tangible ways parents can support their children.

For one, parents can affirm their child’s gender by using their chosen name and pronouns, and asking other family members to do the same. They can also support their child by allowing them to explore their gender expression, welcoming their child’s trans friends into family activities and creating spaces where their identity is respected.

Parents can monitor changes in their child’s mood or behavior and use those moments as opportunities to check in. When concerns arise, they can consider connecting their child with a gender‑affirming therapist.

Parents can also advocate for their child at home and at school. They can work with schools to develop a gender support plan that proactively addresses potential challenges, including name and pronouns, access to restrooms and activities, and identifying adult allies.

Parental support remains one of the strongest protective factors for the mental health and overall well-being of their child. For some parents, this parallel process involves letting go of expectations or assumptions about who their child would be, and fully loving and seeing the child in front of them. That shift can provide a sense of direction and open the door to deeper, more genuine intimacy.

My experience has shown me, time and again, that when a child transitions, the whole family transitions alongside them. Consistent parental support helps young people tolerate uncertainty in an unpredictable legal and political climate. More importantly, steady, affirming support from adults helps transgender youth maintain connection, safety and hope for the future, even when access to care becomes unstable.

Susan Radzilowski 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. Transgender youth and their families struggle to find gender-affirming care – even in states where it’s still legal – https://theconversation.com/transgender-youth-and-their-families-struggle-to-find-gender-affirming-care-even-in-states-where-its-still-legal-281492