Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Ramazan Kılınç, Professor of Political Science, Kennesaw State University

On his visit to Turkey and Lebanon between Nov. 27 and Dec. 2, 2025, Pope Leo XIV met with political and religious leaders, celebrated Mass and visited historical sites.

The trip marked the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, which resolved core doctrinal differences, with the aim of advancing Christian unity at the time.

The Vatican framed the visit to the two Muslim-majority countries as a gesture of interreligious dialogue, as well as support for local minority Christian communities.

Through interfaith dialogue and symbolic acts, religious leaders often act as diplomats to strengthen relationships with other faith groups as part of religious diplomacy.

Traditional diplomacy often prioritizes political and economic interests, whereas religious diplomacy builds on identities and values. But as a scholar of religion and politics, I have often seen how religious diplomacy complements conventional diplomatic tools – the pope’s visit being the most recent example.

Turkey and religious freedom

Lebanon and Turkey have a long history of Christianity, dating back to the early centuries of the religion. The Bible mentions Jesus visiting Tyre and Sidon, coastal cities in Lebanon. Many early Christian communities thrived in lands of modern-day Turkey, such as Ephesus, Antioch and Cappadocia.

Despite Turkey’s significance in the history of Christianity, today Christians constitute less than 0.5% of its population. These include diverse Christian communities, from Armenian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox to Roman Catholic and Protestant.

Turkey’s constitution guarantees religious freedom, but Christians face legal and administrative hurdles in matters such as building places of worship.

The pope’s visit did not directly confront these structural issues, but the trip itself drew international attention to the plight of Christians.

The pope met with Muslim leaders to foster dialogue. He visited Istanbul’s Blue Mosque, an architectural icon for Turkish Muslims. In a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the pope emphasized Turkey’s role as “a bridge between East and West, Asia and Europe.”

Even the pro-government media, which does not usually support rights for religious minorities, highlighted Turkey’s responsibility to provide religious freedoms for its Christian minorities in its coverage of the trip.

Challenges of Lebanese Christians

Christians make up about a third of the Lebanese population – the largest proportion of any country in the Middle East.

Maronite Catholics, an Eastern Catholic community that traces its roots to the fourth century, constitute the largest group among Lebanese Christians. They are followed by Greek Orthodox communities, concentrated in Beirut and Mount Lebanon. Other groups include Melkite Greek Catholics, Armenian Apostolic, Armenian Catholics, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholics, Assyrians, Chaldean Catholics, Copts and various Protestant communities.

Christians in Lebanon enjoy constitutional protections and better political representation than Christians in other Middle Eastern countries. Lebanon’s confessional system allocates power among religious communities. The president must be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister must be a Sunni Muslim, the speaker of the parliament must be a Shia Muslim; parliament and cabinet seats are split equally between Christians and Muslims.

However, Christians are concerned with their decreasing population in Lebanon. They constituted over 50% of the population when Lebanon gained its independence from France in 1943. Over the years, many Christians left Lebanon because of economic pressures, the dominance of the Shia group Hezbollah and insecurity stemming from Israeli strikes.

The pope advised political leaders to prioritize cooperation over sectarian interests within its confessional political system. As a gesture, he joined Muslim leaders in Martyrs’ Square in Beirut and shared readings from both the Gospels and the Quran.

Moral boost

The pope’s visit provided a morale boost for Lebanese Christians. Many saw the pope’s presence as encouragement to stay in Lebanon despite all the concerns.

Yet, some expressed disappointment that the pope did not travel to southern Lebanon, where Christian villages have suffered from Israeli strikes.

However, the pope reiterated the Vatican’s support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the only way to resolve “the conflict they continually live.”

Religious diplomacy

Through his visits to Turkey and Lebanon, Pope Leo XIV intertwined religious teachings with cultural gestures to promote a message of peaceful coexistence.

By meeting Christian groups in Turkey and Lebanon, he offered moral support and visibility to minorities facing insecurity and emigration pressures. By meeting with Muslim leaders, he showcased the Vatican’s commitment to coexistence and dialogue with Islam.

It remains to be seen whether the pope’s religious diplomacy will lead to tangible policy outcomes. Yet, one thing is clear: Religious diplomacy serves as a valuable tool for encouraging dialogue and understanding as it did with the pope’s visit.

Ramazan Kılınç 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. Pope Leo XIV’s visits to Turkey and Lebanon were about religious diplomacy – https://theconversation.com/pope-leo-xivs-visits-to-turkey-and-lebanon-were-about-religious-diplomacy-271208

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By William McCorkle, Associate Professor of Education, College of Charleston

The Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policies have heightened stress among the country’s approximately 14 million immigrants who are living in the U.S. without legal authorization.

The sharp rise in dramatic arrests and deportations of immigrants over the past year has received widespread media attention.

A less publicized issue is that many young, undocumented immigrants are also finding it harder to apply to and stay in college.

As someone who researches teacher training and was a high school teacher in South Carolina, I have researched how restrictive education policies make it harder for immigrant students, particularly undocumented students, to receive a college degree.

Bumpy path to higher education for undocumented students

In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that students could not be discriminated against based on their immigration status.

This ruling ensured that immigrant students could not be denied entrance to public K-12 schools.

The caveat is that the ruling did not extend to higher education.

In 1996, Congress approved the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act, which made it harder for undocumented immigrants who are deported to reenter the U.S., among other changes to increase border security.

This law also said that states could not provide in-state tuition to undocumented students at public universities, unless they gave the same benefits to out-of-state American citizens.

Then, in the early 2000s, a bipartisan group of Texas representatives helped pass a bill that opened up in-state tuition to undocumented students. The bill based tuition and scholarships on specific residency requirements, such as graduating from high school in the state, allowing the bill to circumvent the 1996 federal law.

Also in the early 2000s, California, Illinois, Washington and New York also passed similar legislation that allows undocumented immigrants to receive in-state tuition – and in some cases, state scholarships – at state universities.

Even some conservative states, such as Utah, Oklahoma and Kansas, passed such legislation during the early 2000s that let undocumented immigrants pay in-state tuition at public universities and colleges.

The tide turns

But just a few years later, things began to shift.

In 2008, South Carolina became the first state to ban undocumented students from studying at public colleges and universities altogether.

Georgia and Alabama quickly followed suit with similar bans.

In 2012, after Congress created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to allow immigrants who came to the U.S. as children to temporarily work, study and stay in the U.S., some schools in South Carolina briefly banned DACA students from attending public universities – despite the new federal law.

The schools reversed course the next year following a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, but still required DACA students to pay out-of-state tuition.

Until 2015, South Carolina even denied in-state tuition for some American citizens with undocumented parents. The state reversed the policy following a lawsuit.

The trend toward more restrictive policies toward undocumented students has continued during the Trump administration.

In February 2025, Florida passed a law that revoked in-state tuition for undocumented students. Florida still allows undocumented immigrants to enroll at public colleges and universities, as long as they pay full tuition.

And over the summer, the Department of Justice challenged Oklahoma’s and Texas’ in-state tuition policies, which had allowed all undocumented students to pay in-state tuition.

Both states quickly ended their policies.

Texas and Oklahoma still allow DACA recipients to attend public universities and pay in-state tuition rates.

As of 2025, 22 states and Washington D.C. allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition. The remaining states, meanwhile, either do not have a state policy, require undocumented immigrants to pay out-of-state tuition, or bar them entirely from attending public universities.

A challenging environment

Overall, these shifts make it harder for many undocumented students to go to and stay in college.

The price of in-state tuition at public universities varies, but it typically offers in-state residents a much lower tuition rate than students coming from out of state. While the average in-state tuition at public colleges costs about US$11,610 for the 2024-25 school year, out-of-state students paid $30,780, on average, during this same time frame.

Undocumented students do not qualify for federal financial aid, so paying out-of-state tuition at a public university usually prevents immigrants from pursuing a college degree.

Some research shows that in-state tuition policies help reduce undocumented college students’ dropout rates by about 8%.

In-state tuition policies also increase college enrollment of noncitizen Latino students by 54%.

A blockade for students

I began teaching social studies at a high school in South Carolina in 2012, soon after many of these restrictions on immigrant students were enacted. I found that many educators and students were not aware of these restrictions until students applied to colleges or sought state licenses.

My students included DACA recipients who completed a two-year program in areas like cosmetology, only then to be told they would not be allowed to practice in the state.

My later research focused on DACA students who aspired to become educators but had to either stop pursuing that goal or go out of state to teach. Other immigrant students I surveyed in my research said they lost motivation in the high school classroom due to the restrictions to pursue higher education.

Carryover effects

Policies that make it easier for undocumented immigrants to attend college don’t just affect individual students and their families – they also have a positive effect on local economies.

Research from 2025 shows that when undocumented students can pay in-state tuition, they become more likely to have a job after graduation.

Another study from Clemson University and the nonprofit group Hispanic Alliance found that South Carolina could be losing up to $68 million a year in revenue due to the license policy for DACA recipients.

I have known undocumented people who are aspiring doctors and teachers and moved to other states since they could not study or receive professional licenses in South Carolina.

Restrictive education policies could mean that some of the most talented immigrant students will leave their respective states. However, the average undocumented immigrant student will not usually pursue or delay higher education if the tuition is not affordable.

I believe these policies will ultimately mean a less educated and productive society.

William McCorkle 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. Young, undocumented immigrants are finding it increasingly hard to attend college as South Carolina and other states restrict in-state tuition or ban them altogether – https://theconversation.com/young-undocumented-immigrants-are-finding-it-increasingly-hard-to-attend-college-as-south-carolina-and-other-states-restrict-in-state-tuition-or-ban-them-altogether-267597

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Derek Lemoine, Professor of Economics, University of Arizona

When pregnant women drink water that comes from wells downstream of sites contaminated with PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” the risks to their babies’ health substantially increase, a new study found. These risks include the chance of low birth weight, preterm birth and infant mortality.

Even more troubling, our team of economic researchers and hydrologists found that PFAS exposure increases the likelihood of extremely low-weight and extremely preterm births, which are strongly associated with lifelong health challenges.

What wells showed us about PFAS risks

PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have captured the attention of the public and regulators in recent years for good reason. These man-made compounds persist in the environment, accumulate in human bodies and may cause harm even at extremely low concentrations.

Most current knowledge about the reproductive effects of PFAS comes from laboratory studies on animals such as rats, or from correlations between PFAS levels in human blood and health outcomes.

Both approaches have important limitations. Rats and humans have different bodies, exposures and living conditions. And independent factors, such as kidney functioning, may in some cases be the true drivers of health problems.

We wanted to learn about the effects of PFAS on real-world human lives in a way that comes as close as possible to a randomized experiment. Intentionally exposing people to PFAS would be unethical, but the environment gave us a natural experiment of its own.

We looked at the locations of wells that supply New Hampshire residents with drinking water and how those locations related to birth outcomes.

We collected data on all births in the state from 2010 to 2019 and zoomed in on the 11,539 births that occurred within 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) of a site known to be contaminated with PFAS and where the mothers were served by public water systems. Some contamination came from industries, other from landfills or firefighting activities.

PFAS from contaminated sites slowly migrate down through soil into groundwater, where they move downstream with the groundwater’s flow. This created a simple but powerful contrast: pregnant women whose homes received water from wells that were downstream, in groundwater terms, from the PFAS source were likely to have been exposed to PFAS from the contaminated site, but those who received water from wells that were upstream of those sites should not have been exposed.

Using outside data on PFAS testing, we confirmed that PFAS levels were indeed greater in “downstream” wells than in “upstream” wells.

The locations of utilities’ drinking water wells are sensitive data that are not publicly available, so the women likely would not have known whether they were exposed. Prior to the state beginning to test for PFAS in 2016, they may not have even known the nearby site had PFAS.

PFAS connections to the riskiest births

We found what we believe is clear evidence of harm from PFAS exposure.

Women who received water from wells downstream of PFAS-contaminated sites had on average a 43% greater chance of having a low-weight baby, defined as under 5.5 pounds (2,500 grams) at birth, than those receiving water from upstream wells with no other PFAS sources nearby. Those downstream had a 20% greater chance of a preterm birth, defined as before 37 weeks, and a 191% greater chance of the infant not surviving its first year.

Per 100,000 births, this works out to 2,639 additional low-weight births, 1,475 additional preterm births and 611 additional deaths in the first year of life.

Looking at the cases with the lowest birth weights and earliest preterm births, we found that the women receiving water from wells downstream from PFAS sources had a 180% greater chance of a birth under 2.2 pounds (1,000 grams) and a 168% greater chance of a birth before 28 weeks than those with upstream wells. Per 100,000 births, that’s about 607 additional extremely low-weight births and 466 additional extremely preterm births.

PFAS contamination is costly

When considering regulations to control PFAS, it helps to express the benefits of PFAS cleanup in monetary terms to compare them to the costs of cleanup.

Researchers use various methods to put a dollar value on the cost of low-weight and preterm births based on their higher medical bills, lower subsequent health and decreased lifetime earnings.

We used the New Hampshire data and locations of PFAS-contaminated sites in 11 other states with detailed PFAS testing to estimate costs from PFAS exposure nationwide related to low birth weight, preterm births and infant mortality.

The results are eye-opening. We estimate that the effects of PFAS on each year’s low-weight births cost society about US$7.8 billion over the lifetimes of those babies, with more babies born every year.

We found the effects of PFAS on preterm births and infant mortality cost the U.S. about $5.6 billion over the lifetimes of those babies born each year, with some of these costs overlapping with the costs associated with low-weight births.

An analysis produced for the American Water Works Association estimated that removing PFAS from drinking water to meet the EPA’s PFAS limits would cost utilities alone $3.8 billion on an annual basis. These costs could ultimately fall on water customers, but the broader public also bears much of the cost of harm to fetuses.

We believe that just the reproductive health benefits of protecting water systems from PFAS contamination could justify the EPA’s rule.

Treating PFAS

There is still much to learn about the risks from PFAS and how to avoid harm.

We studied the health effects of PFOA and PFOS, two “long-chain” species of PFAS that were the most widely used types in the U.S. They are no longer produced in the U.S., but they are still present in soil and groundwater. Future work could focus on newer, “short-chain” PFAS, which may have different health impacts.

PFAS are in many types of products, and there are many routes for exposure, including through food. Effective treatment to remove PFAS from water is an area of ongoing research, but the long-chain PFAS we studied can be removed from water with activated carbon filters, either at the utility level or inside one’s home.

Our results indicate that pregnant women have special reason to be concerned about exposure to long-chain PFAS through drinking water. If pregnant women suspect their drinking water may contain PFAS, we believe they should strongly consider installing water filters that can remove PFAS and then replacing those filters on a regular schedule.

Ashley Langer receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

Bo Guo and Derek Lemoine 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. PFAS in pregnant women’s drinking water puts their babies at higher risk, study finds – https://theconversation.com/pfas-in-pregnant-womens-drinking-water-puts-their-babies-at-higher-risk-study-finds-270051

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Vivian Ho, Professor and Chair of Health Economics, Rice University

Health insurance premiums in the U.S. significantly increased between 1999 and 2024, outpacing the rate of worker earnings by three times, according to our newly published research in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Premiums can rise if the costs of the medical services they cover increase. Using consumer price indices for the main components of medical care – such as services provided in clinics and hospitals as well as administrative expenses – based on federal data and data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, we found that the cost of hospital services increased the most, while the cost of physician services and prescription drugs rose more slowly.

Some of the premium increases can be attributed to an increase in hospital outpatient visits and coverage of GLP-1 drugs. But research, including our own, suggests that premiums have rapidly escalated mostly because health system consolidation – when hospitals and other health care entities merge – has led hospitals to raise prices well above their costs.

Hospital CEOs prioritize profit

Hospitals are aggressively raising their prices because hospital CEOs have incentives to do so.

One study found that for nonprofit health systems, the greatest pay increases between 2012 and 2019 went to hospital CEOs who grew the profits and size of their organizations the most. However, the financial reward of delivering above-average quality of care declined. Increased charity care – free or discounted health services nonprofit hospitals must provide some of their patients who cannot afford medical care – was not significantly tied to CEO compensation.

Board members set performance criteria that determine the base salary and bonus payments for CEOs. Over half of board members at top U.S. hospitals have professional backgrounds in finance or business. As a result, researchers and advocates have raised concerns that financial success is the dominant priority at these institutions.

One way to help ensure that nonprofit hospitals make the health of their local communities a top priority is to require their boards to disclose their executive compensation guidelines for salary and bonuses, similar to the information that for-profit health care companies disclose to their stockholders. The general public could pressure companies to put greater weight on affordability and quality of care when setting performance targets for nonprofit hospital executives.

Some economists suggest that hospital prices be regulated. This approach involves capping prices for health care services at the most expensive hospitals and restricting price growth for all hospitals. Regulators would also focus on flexible but service-specific oversight to quickly respond to unintended market disruptions.

What employers can do

Costs for health insurance coverage provided by employers are expected to surge by 9.5% in 2026.

Employers, who bear the bulk of premium increases when purchasing insurance for their workers, could include more price sensitivity when designing benefits for their employees to help keep insurance affordable for workers.

One study found that a health insurance plan that introduced three copayment levels corresponding to three hospital tiers of low, medium and high prices achieved savings of 8% per hospital stay after three years, with no evidence of a reduction in quality.

Roughly one-third of large employers are offering nontraditional health plans in 2026. For example, a variable copay plan has no or low deductibles and sets higher copayments for services at providers charging higher fees.

Holding hospitals to account

The mission statements of the largest nonprofit health care systems in the U.S. often express a desire to improve the health of the communities they serve, especially the most vulnerable.

Restraining price growth among nonprofit hospitals would introduce greater price competition to the health care market, likely forcing for-profit providers to lower their prices as well.

Vivian Ho has received grant funding from HCSC Affordability Cures Initiative and ArnoldVentures. She is a Fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy

Salpy Kanimian 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. Health insurance premiums rose nearly 3x the rate of worker earnings over the past 25 years – https://theconversation.com/health-insurance-premiums-rose-nearly-3x-the-rate-of-worker-earnings-over-the-past-25-years-271450

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Steven Lautzenheiser, Assistant Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Tennessee

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

---

Why can’t I wiggle my toes individually, like I can with my fingers? – Vincent, age 15, Arlington, Virginia

---

One of my favorite activities is going to the zoo where I live in Knoxville when it first opens and the animals are most active. On one recent weekend, I headed to the chimpanzees first.

Their breakfast was still scattered around their enclosure for them to find. Ripley, one of the male chimpanzees, quickly gathered up some fruits and vegetables, sometimes using his feet almost like hands. After he ate, he used his feet to grab the fire hoses hanging around the enclosure and even held pieces of straw and other toys in his toes.

I found myself feeling a bit envious. Why can’t people use our feet like this, quickly and easily grasping things with our toes just as easily as we do with our fingers?

I’m a biological anthropologist who studies the biomechanics of the modern human foot and ankle, using mechanical principles of movement to understand how forces affect the shape of our bodies and how humans have changed over time. Your muscles, brain and how human feet evolved all play a part in why you can’t wiggle individual toes one by one.

Comparing humans to a close relative

Humans are primates, which means we belong to the same group of animals that includes apes like Riley the chimp. In fact, chimpanzees are our closest genetic relatives, sharing almost 98.8% of our DNA.

Evolution is part of the answer to why chimpanzees have such dexterous toes while ours seem much more clumsy.

Our very ancient ancestors probably moved around the way chimpanzees do, using both their arms and legs. But over time our lineage started walking on two legs. Human feet needed to change to help us stay balanced and to support our bodies as we walk upright. It became less important for our toes to move individually than to keep us from toppling over as we moved through the world in this new way.

Human hands became more important for things such as using tools, one of the hallmark skills of human beings. Over time, our fingers became better at moving on their own. People use their hands to do lots of things, such as drawing, texting or playing a musical instrument. Even typing this article is possible only because my fingers can make small, careful and controlled movements.

People’s feet and hands evolved for different purposes.

Muscles that move your fingers or toes

Evolution brought these differences about by physically adapting our muscles, bones and tendons to better support walking and balance. Hands and feet have similar anatomy; both have five fingers or toes that are moved by muscles and tendons. The human foot contains 29 muscles that all work to help you walk and stay balanced when you stand. In comparison, a hand has 34 muscles.

Most of the muscles of your foot let you point your toes down, like when you stand on tiptoes, or lift them up, like when you walk on your heels. These muscles also help feet roll slightly inward or outward, which lets you keep your balance on uneven ground. All these movements work together to help you walk and run safely.

The big toe on each foot is special because it helps push your body forward when you walk and has extra muscles just for its movement. The other four toes don’t have their own separate muscles. A few main muscles in the bottom of your foot and in your calf move all four toes at once. Because they share muscles, those toes can wiggle, but not very independently like your fingers can. The calf muscles also have long tendons that reach into the foot; they’re better at keeping you steady and helping you walk than at making tiny, precise movements.

In contrast, six main muscle groups help move each finger. The fingers share these muscles, which sit mostly in the forearm and connect to the fingers by tendons. The thumb and pinky have extra muscles that let you grip and hold objects more easily. All of these muscles are specialized to allow careful, controlled movements, such as writing.

So, yes, I have more muscles dedicated to moving my fingers, but that is not the only reason I can’t wiggle my toes one by one.

Divvying up brain power

You also need to look inside your brain to understand why toes and fingers work differently. Part of your brain called the motor cortex tells your body how to move. It’s made of cells called neurons that act like tiny messengers, sending signals to the rest of your body.

Your motor cortex devotes many more neurons to controlling your fingers than your toes, so it can send much more detailed instructions to your fingers. Because of the way your motor cortex is organized, it takes more “brain power,” meaning more signals and more activity, to move your fingers than your toes.

Even though you can’t grab things with your feet like Ripley the chimp can, you can understand why.

---

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Steven Lautzenheiser 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. Why can’t I wiggle my toes one at a time, like my fingers? – https://theconversation.com/why-cant-i-wiggle-my-toes-one-at-a-time-like-my-fingers-256281

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Shelly M. Wagers, Associate Professor of Criminology, University of South Florida

Most Americans imagine human trafficking as a violent kidnapping or a “stranger danger” crime – someone abducted from a parking lot or trapped in a shipping container brought in from another country.

In fact, trafficking rarely takes this form.

In most cases, traffickers spend months or even years building trust and creating emotional and economic bonds with their victims. They use a variety of coercion and control techniques such as emotional abuse, forced criminality, financial abuse, and physical and sexual abuse to entrap their victims.

Meanwhile, the perpetrators are making money off their victims’ unpaid labor, including unwanted sex work. Human trafficking is estimated to be a US$172 billion industry.

The story of Jeffrey Epstein is just one example of how traffickers use a combination of manipulation, economic dependency and coercion – rather than physical captivity – to entrap vulnerable people and slowly erode their autonomy. Many victims don’t even realize they’re being exploited due to the manipulations of their traffickers.

Epstein’s crimes have attracted the national spotlight due to the fame and power of his clientele. His case demonstrates the harsh reality that human trafficking is far more common and complex than most people imagine.

We are criminologists who research human trafficking. In 2020, we founded the University of South Florida’s Trafficking in Persons Risk to Resilience Lab, known as the TIP lab, to study human trafficking in the state of Florida.

We know that labor and sex trafficking hide in plain sight, embedded in ordinary settings such as hotels, restaurants, farms, massage businesses and private homes.

Most victims are trafficked by someone they know or trust – a family member, intimate partner or employer. Many continue to go to school or work while being exploited.

Misconceptions about what trafficking looks like have made it harder to see and harder to measure. The available data on this crime and its victims has long been fragmented, incomplete and inconsistent. Law enforcement, government organizations such as health departments, and nonprofits that provide advocacy and victim services collect information differently. The same case could be counted multiple times by different agencies, while other victims go entirely uncounted, making it nearly impossible to understand the true scope of trafficking and effectively fight it.

Florida steps up

To address this problem, Florida in 2023 passed Senate Bill 7064, a law requiring all state and local government agencies and nongovernmental organizations that receive federal or state funding to send their human trafficking data to the USF TIP lab.

We developed TIPSTR, Florida’s statewide repository for anonymous human trafficking data. This single, consistent database is the most comprehensive data resource on human trafficking in any state in the U.S.

Our team compiled anonymous data from more than 30 state agencies and nonprofit organizations, including the Florida Department of Children and Families, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay.

We also conducted a self-report survey in 2024 to learn more about trafficking victims living in Florida. The survey was administered by YouGov using a representative sample of 2,500 Florida residents. And we established BRIGHT – Bridging Resources and Information Gaps in Human Trafficking – which connects survivors directly with services such as housing, mental health counseling, transportation and more, helping them move from crisis to stability. Besides serving as a resource for trafficking victims, BRIGHT allows us to measure and track the availability of victim services relative to the need for them.

Since starting TIPSTR in 2023, we’ve been putting all of the data together to create a picture of the complexities, depth and breadth of trafficking, as well as the resources that address the problem, both statewide and in each of Florida’s 67 counties.

Why Florida faces higher risk

Florida’s economy and geography create a mix of risk factors for trafficking that are distinct from most other states.

With its large tourism, agriculture, construction and entertainment industries, the state depends heavily on temporary and mobile workforces. Its international airports and seaports connect it to global markets. Large sporting events and other entertainment bring in visitors looking for “fun in the sun” from all over the U.S. and the world.

All of these features make Florida economically vibrant – but they also create vulnerabilities. Transient labor markets, seasonal employment and high migration make it easier for traffickers to exploit workers and harder for authorities to detect exploitation. Often, buyers travel into Florida as tourists with the idea that “what happens in Florida stays in Florida,” creating a market for sex trafficking.

What we’ve found so far

2024 was the first full year for which we collected data, and we published our findings in July 2025 in the 2024 TIPSTR Report. The report demonstrates both the scale of the problem and the importance of reliable data.

The report also analyzes Florida counties with populations above 500,000, evaluating each county’s risk, resilience and response capacity on a scale from low to high.

Our self-report survey found that an estimated 500,000 current Florida residents were exploited or trafficked at work, and an estimated 200,000 were trafficked for sex. Minors made up half of those trafficked for sex and a quarter of those exploited at work. Although many of these survivors were exploited outside of Florida, these people need services locally to help get their lives on track.

Of those reporting human trafficking, only 9% to 12% reported this crime to law enforcement, confirming our concerns that it remains largely hidden from view. This is why it’s critical that TIPSTR doesn’t solely rely on law enforcement data.

Our analysis of the available data revealed wide variation across Florida counties in both the level of risk and the robustness of response systems. Some regions show strong resilience due to coordinated task forces and survivor services, while others struggle with underreporting and limited resources.

Translating data into action

At the same time, there are encouraging signs. The TIPSTR data shows prosecutions are increasing, and coordination among law enforcement, service providers and community organizations has strengthened.

Going forward, we hope our analysis of the data collected by TIPSTR will help the reporting agencies find new ways to respond. And tracking trends can allow policymakers to measure the effectiveness of programs run by different groups.

In fact, this is already happening. One sheriff’s office shared with us that when it saw how many illicit massage businesses were in its county, it started investigating them. In another instance, a nonprofit told us it had used the report to show why it needs more funding to expand its programs.

Seeing where trafficking is most concentrated and where services are missing is already helping the Florida Legislative Working Group on Human Trafficking identify potential policy changes.

Law enforcement can now use TIPSTR’s cross-agency data to connect cases. Service providers can coordinate care across counties, reducing duplication and ensuring continuity for survivors.

We hope that the report will also be used to develop broader awareness campaigns and better victim identification practices.

The importance of a long-term database

The system we’ve created will allow us to track the data for years to come. From a research perspective, this is critical, because it means our team can assess whether new policies and prevention strategies are making a measurable impact over time.

As criminologists, we believe that what Florida has built through TIPSTR can serve as a model for other states. Data alone cannot end human trafficking, but without it, we are fighting a hidden problem we cannot fully see.

Read more stories from The Conversation about Florida.

Shelly M. Wagers receives funding from National Institute of Justice and Mel Greene Foundation.

Joan A. Reid receives funding from National Institute of Justice and Mel Greene Foundation.

– ref. Florida’s new reporting system is shining a light on human trafficking in the Sunshine State – https://theconversation.com/floridas-new-reporting-system-is-shining-a-light-on-human-trafficking-in-the-sunshine-state-265935

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Seth T. Kannarr, Ph.D. Candidate in Geography, University of Tennessee

Ocmulgee Mounds, a site in central Georgia with 12,000 years of Indigenous history, may be on the verge of becoming the newest U.S. national park. This is the flagship designation of the National Park Service system, which includes many types of properties in addition to formally designated national parks.

Although this redesignation may not include much change for the site itself, it could mean quite a lot to visitors, supporters and locals alike.

The 3,000-acre park protects land and features important to the Mississippian culture, which built the mounds there starting roughly 3,000 years ago, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, for which the site is an ancestral homeland.

The site includes seven enormous ceremonial and burial mounds made of earth, the largest of which is 55 feet (15 meters) tall and covers about 2 acres, as well as a museum containing millions of cultural artifacts, including pottery, stone tools, jewelry and bells.

The National Park Service has managed the site since the 1930s, first as a national monument and since 2019, as a national historical park. There are no legal or practical differences in protection between these redesignations, though the branding and marketing of the site may change.

As a geographer who studies parks and the naming of places, I have seen that when a National Park Service unit is redesignated as a national park, as a pending bill in Congress currently proposes for Ocmulgee Mounds, it does not typically change the funding available to run the site. That’s especially true at a time when National Park Service funding and personnel are being cut. However, a park redesignation does serve political purposes and affects how visitors perceive that park.

How parks are designated

The National Park Service manages 433 units with 19 different designations, such as “national battlefields,” “national lakeshores” and “national scenic trails.” Only 63 of these units carry the formal title or designation of “national park.”

All but one of these categories can be bestowed only by Congress. National monuments, however, can be created by the president directly, under the provisions of the Antiquities Act of 1906.

For example, the Antiquities Act allowed President Barack Obama to designate 1.3 million acres in Utah as Bears Ears National Monument in a December 2016 proclamation. That same act allowed President Donald Trump to shrink the protected area to 200,000 acres in 2017 – and President Joe Biden to re-expand it to 1.3 million acres in 2021.

Other examples of redesignation

In rare cases, a community, group or other organization proposes adding an area that is not currently managed by the National Park Service to the system, but this takes a lot of time and is different from the more common process of changing the formal designation of a property already within the system.

For instance, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore became Indiana Dunes National Park in 2019. That same year, White Sands National Monument in New Mexico became White Sands National Park. And in 2020, New River Gorge National River in West Virginia became New River Gorge National Park and Preserve.

Why redesignations make a difference

My analysis of the contentious redesignation of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis to Gateway Arch National Park in 2018 found that it was not done to offer additional protection to this site of national importance. Rather, the move was meant to take advantage of the public significance of the “national park” label and thereby attract more tourists and tourism revenue to the local economy.

The effort to make it a national park was part of a local campaign to renovate the underground visitor center, revitalize the park grounds and increase tourism. But the law that formalized the change included no additional funding, resources or protections for the Gateway Arch.

Changing the designation contradicted the park service’s own declaration that the term “national park” should be used for an area that “contains a variety of resources and encompasses large land or water areas to help provide adequate protection of the resources.”

During congressional hearings, the deputy director of the National Park Service, Robert Vogel, recommended the site not be labeled a national park but rather a national monument, because the site “is too small and limited in the range of resources the site protects and interprets to be called a national park.”

Gateway Arch National Park is now the smallest-area park in the U.S., at less than 200 acres, and is home to a large steel arch, an open lawn area, a museum and a single historic building – a courthouse where one of the Dred Scott trials was heard, along with other civil rights cases. It does not have the wildlife viewing, spectacular geologic features, outdoor recreation opportunities and sense of wilderness that the public has come to expect from national parks.

The park’s website admits “it is unusual for a national park to have no natural plant life” and describes the park as adjacent to the “concrete jungle of downtown St. Louis.”

What actually would change for Ocmulgee Mounds?

The redesignation effort for Ocmulgee Mounds has two primary aspects. First, it would declare the area a national park.

Second, it would add additional land to this protected area, designating that portion as a national preserve. The distinction matters: Public hunting, including traditional Indigenous hunting, is not allowed in national parks, but it is allowed in national preserves. And while national parks are managed by the National Park Service under the Department of Interior, national preserves can be managed in collaborative partnership with other groups, including local Indigenous people with cultural ties to the land.

The changes for Ocmulgee Mounds are supported by members of both political parties in both houses of Congress. And the redesignation does not appear to have triggered opposition from local communities, who in other places have objected for several reasons, including fear of increased tourism and desire to preserve any long-standing uses of the land that would be banned if it were to become a national park.

There are redesignation efforts underway seeking to make national parks in other locations as well, including the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Chiricahua National Monument in Arizona, Buffalo National River in Arkansas, and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin.

The only real changes in these places, though, would be in marketing – the signs, brochures and merchandise sold in gift shops. But these changes would have an important effect: The tagline of “new national park” markets well and is believed to help attract more visitors to the site. But it won’t actually protect these landscapes any better than they already are under the stewardship of the National Park Service.

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

– ref. What does it mean to be a new national park? Ocmulgee Mounds in Georgia may soon find out – https://theconversation.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-new-national-park-ocmulgee-mounds-in-georgia-may-soon-find-out-268474

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Arabinda Basistha, Associate Professor of Economics, West Virginia University

What’s the point of monetary policy?

For most of us, the main impact tends to be how much we have to pay to borrow to buy a house or car. But for the Federal Reserve, the purpose of its monetary policy is mandated by Congress.

This is widely known as the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate: promoting maximum employment and stable prices. The Fed itself refers to these two objectives regularly in its Federal Open Market Committee statements announcing its monetary policy decisions.

A third objective of monetary policy, however, is less well-known: moderate long-term interest rates.

This “third mandate” was a big news story in September 2025, when the Trump administration’s newly appointed Fed governor, Stephen Miran, referred to it in his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. Financial markets paid close attention to this aspect of the testimony because the comments suggested that Miran and other presidential appointees may focus on this third mandate – and on driving down long-term borrowing costs – more than the Fed has in the recent past.

I’ve been closely following how the Fed conducts monetary policy for many years. Miran is correct that Congress has tasked the U.S. central bank with all three of these objectives – but that’s not the whole story. In fact, none of these goals were originally spelled out in the act that set up the Fed over a century ago.

Since then, the Fed’s goals have been revised several times – typically in response to a crisis.

The Fed’s shifting goals

The original purpose of the Fed, as explained in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, was to provide flexibility in the nation’s currency supply and to supervise the U.S. banking system. The current dual mandate was not part of the original goals of the Fed.

Instead, its core goal was to reduce the frequent banking panics that were costly to the economy and sharply increased interest rates.

The first big change in the goals, in response to the Great Depression, was the Employment Act of 1946 that stated the goal of federal government policy – and, therefore that of the Fed – is to “promote maximum employment, production and purchasing power.”

This is where the two goals of the dual mandate first began to emerge, with purchasing power implying the Fed needed to keep inflation low.

Following the macroeconomic instability of the 1970s with high unemployment and high inflation, Congress enacted the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977 that formalized the Fed mandate: “maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”

In other words, Congress gave the Fed three mandates to follow in monetary policy.

What happened to the third mandate?

So why doesn’t the Fed still talk about that third mandate?

Part of the answer is that moderate long-term interest rates are a natural by-product of successfully managing the other two.

In pursuit of low inflation and maximum employment, the Fed primarily uses a short-term interest rate, known as the Federal Funds rate. When journalists report that the Fed raised or lowered interest rates, this refers to the so-called target rate that the central bank uses to control the Fed Funds rate. For example, the current target rate is a range of 3.75% to 4%, while the effective Fed Funds rate is 3.89%. Banks use the funds rate as the cost other banks must pay to borrow reserve funds for one day.

However, most of the interest rates that matter to people, businesses and the economy at large have much longer terms – such as five, 10 or 30 years. Examples include mortgages, car loans and corporate bonds. The Fed does not directly control these longer-term interest rates, which are set by financial markets.

But studies have found that the Fed’s policy decisions can influence long-term rates, primarily due to “expectations theory.” That theory argues that long-term rates reflect financial markets’ expectations of future short-term rates.

So if markets believe the Fed has inflation under control, they tend to keep long-term rates on mortgages and everything else low because they don’t expect the Fed will increase its target rate. If inflation is running high, long-term rates tend to rise because markets expect the Fed to have to lift its short-term rate to deal with it. But if unemployment is running high, long-term rates tend to fall because markets expect the Fed to reduce its short-term rate to deal with that.

Longer-term rates are, therefore, not independent of the dual mandate of the Fed. They are often an outcome of how successfully the Fed is meeting the dual mandate of full employment and stable prices currently and in the future.

As a result, the Fed doesn’t typically talk about this third mandate.

Promoting economic stability

That said, the Fed has, at times, although very rarely, influenced long-term rates directly.

For example, in late 2010, following the Great Recession of 2007-2009, the Fed purchased billions of dollars’ worth of long-term Treasury bonds and other securities – a program known as “QE2” for quantitative easing – in an effort to lower the cost of borrowing for consumers and businesses. The Fed did something similar in 1961 with Operation Twist, similarly with an aim to support the U.S. economy by reducing long-term borrowing costs.

But even this phase of quantitative easing was primarily about meeting the Fed’s dual mandate. More specifically, since inflation was already low, the Fed was trying to boost hiring in the wake of the Great Recession.

The Fed is keenly aware that longer-term interest rates that are not aligned with its dual mandate can be an important source of instability in the economy. A modern central bank’s primary goal is to promote stability in the economy, so longer-term interest rates should be at levels that are appropriate to ensure current and future economic stability.

Arabinda Basistha 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. How keeping down borrowing costs for mortgages and other loans is built into the Fed’s ‘dual mandate’ – https://theconversation.com/how-keeping-down-borrowing-costs-for-mortgages-and-other-loans-is-built-into-the-feds-dual-mandate-268052

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By David R. King, Higdon Professor of Management, Florida State University

When it comes to major U.S. industries, three tends to be the magic number.

Historically, auto manufacturing was long dominated by Chrysler, Ford and General Motors – the so-called “Big Three,” which at one point controlled over 60% of the U.S. auto market. A dominant trio shows up elsewhere, too, in everything from the U.S. defense market – think Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrup Grumman – to cellphone service providers (AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon). The same goes for the U.S. airline industry in which American, Delta and United fly higher than the rest.

The rule of three also applies to what Americans watch; the glory days of television was dominated by three giants: ABC, CBS and NBC.

Now, in the digital age, we are rapidly moving to a “Big Three” dominating streaming services: Netflix, Amazon and Disney.

The latest step in that process is Netflix’s plan to acquire Warner Bros. for US$72 billion. If approved, the move would solidify Netflix as the dominant streaming platform.

When streams converge

Starting life as a mail DVD subscription service, Netflix moved into streaming movies and TV shows in 2007, becoming a first-mover into the sphere.

Being an early adopter as viewing went from cable and legacy to online and streaming gave Netflix an advantages in also developing support technology and using subscriber data to create new content.

The subsequent impact was Netflix became a market leader, with quarterly profits now far exceeding its competitors, which often report losses.

Today, even without the Warner Bros. acquisition, Netflix has a dominant global base of over 300 million subscribers. Amazon Prime comes second with roughly 220 million subscribers, and Disney – which includes both Disney+ and Hulu – is third, with roughly 196 million subscribers. This means that between them, these three companies already control over 60% of the streaming market.

Netflix’s lead would only be reinforced by the proposed deal with Warner Bros., as it would add ownership of Warner subsidiary HBO Max, which is currently the fourth-biggest streamer in the U.S. with a combined 128 million subscribers. While some of them will overlap, Netflix is likely to still gain subscribers and better retain them with a broader selection of content.

Netflix’s move to acquire Warner Bros. also follows prior entertainment industry consolidation, driven by a desire to control content to retain streaming service subscribers.

In 2019, Disney acquired 21st Century Fox for $71.3 billion. Three years later, Amazon acquired Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer for $8.5 billion.

Should the Netflix deal go through, it would continue this trend of streaming consolidation. It would also leave a clear gap at the top between the emerging Big Three and other services, such as Paramount+ with 79 million subscribers and Apple TV+, which has around 45 million. Paramount+ was also a rival bidder for Warner Bros., and while it is protesting Netflix’s deal for Warner Bros., it likely will need to pursue other options to remain relevant in streaming.

Why industries come in threes

But why do industries converge to a handful of companies?

As an expert on mergers, I know the answer comes down to market forces relating to competition, which tends to drive consolidation of an industry into three to five firms.

From a customer perspective, there is a need for multiple options. Having more than one option avoids monopolistic practices that can see prices fixed at a higher rate. Competition between more than one big player is also a strong incentive for additional innovation to improve a product or service.

For these reasons, governments – in the U.S. and over 100 other countries – have antitrust laws and practices to avoid any industry displaying limited competition.

However, as industries become more stable, growth tends to slow and remaining businesses are forced to compete over a largely fixed market. This can separate companies into industry leaders and laggards. While leaders enjoy greater stability and predictable profits, laggards struggle to remain profitable.

Lagging companies often combine to increase their market share and reduce costs.

The result is that consolidating industries quite often land on three main players as a source of stability – one or two risks falling into the pitfalls of monopolies and duopolies, while many more than three to five can struggle to be profitable in mature industries.

What’s ahead for the laggards

The long-term viability of companies outside the “Big Three” streamers is in doubt, as the main players get bigger and smaller companies are unable to offer as much content.

A temporary solution for smaller streamers to gain subscribers is to offer teaser rates that later increase for people that forget to cancel until companies take more permanent steps. But lagging services will also face increased pressure to exit streaming by licensing content to the leading streaming services, cease operations or sell their services and content.

Additionally, companies outside the Big Three could be tempted to acquire smaller services in an attempt to maintain market share.

There are already rumors that Paramount, which was a competing bidder for Warner Bros., may seek to acquire Starz or create a joint venture with Universal, which owns Peacock.

Apple shows no immediate plan of discontinuing Apple TV+, but that may be due to the company’s high profitability and an overall cash flow that limits pressures to end its streaming service.

Still, if the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal completes, it will likely increase the valuation of other lagging streaming services due to increased scarcity of valuable content and subscribers. This is due to competitive limits that restrict the Big Three from getting bigger, making the combination of smaller streaming services more valuable.

This is reinforced by shareholders expecting similar or greater premiums from prior deals, driving the need to pay higher prices for the fewer remaining available assets.

The cost to consumers

So what does this all mean for consumers?

I believe that in general, consumers will largely not be impacted when it comes to the overall cost of entertainment, as inflationary pressures for food and housing limit available income for streaming services.

But where they access content will continue to shift away from cable television and movie theaters.

Greater stability in the streaming industry through consolidation into a Big Three model only confirms the decline in traditional cable.

Netflix’s rationale in acquiring Warner Bros. is likely to enable it to offer streaming at a lower price than the combined price of separate subscriptions, but more than Netflix alone.

This could be achieved through additional subscription tiers for Netflix subscribers wanting to add HBO Max content. Beyond competition with other members of the “Big Three,” another reason why Netflix is unlikely to raise prices significantly is that it will likely commit to not doing so in order to get the merger approved.

Netflix’s goal is to ensure it remains consumer’s first choice for streaming TV and films. So while streaming is fast becoming a Big Three industry, Netflix’s plan is to remain at the top of the triangle.

David R. King 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. Netflix-Warner deal would drive streaming market further down the road of ‘Big 3’ domination – https://theconversation.com/netflix-warner-deal-would-drive-streaming-market-further-down-the-road-of-big-3-domination-271466

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By B.B. Blaber, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Grinnell College

The film “Nuremberg” depicts events surrounding the post-World War II International Military Tribunal – the first and best-known of the Nuremberg trials – which was created to carry out the “just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis.”

Nazi party leaders Hermann Göring, Alfred Rosenberg and Wilhelm Keitel were among the 24 people who ended up being indicted. Six organizations were also indicted, including the Gestapo and the SS. The tribunal, which took place in Nuremberg, Germany, and resulted in 19 convictions, attracted worldwide media attention.

Eighty years later, you’ll hear terms like “war crimes” and “genocide” be deployed and debated – whether they’re applied to U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of military force in the Caribbean or Israel’s destruction of the Gaza Strip.

The public’s understanding of these terms is due, in large part, to the success of the Nuremberg trials and the remarkable degree of international cooperation they required. But the shakiness of international justice today, along with the ongoing complexity of legal and moral conceptions of guilt, shows the limits of the law when it comes to holding the worst of the worst accountable.

Not the first attempt at international justice

These trials were not the first effort to prosecute war crimes in an international court.

The 1921 Leipzig war crimes trials took place to take legal action against Germans accused of war crimes in World War I. These trials, however, were stymied by practical and procedural issues, including difficulty bringing the accused to court and locating evidence. They ultimately led to only six convictions – accompanied by light sentences – and even some of those were later overturned.

Several years before the end of World War II, officials in the U.K., U.S. and USSR had already begun to discuss what mechanisms would be best for handling a defeated Germany. Some officials, such as U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, argued in favor of trials that adhered closely to American legal principles. Others, like British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, objected, specifically citing the failure of the Leipzig trials.

But several aspects were different this time around.

When the four chief prosecutors of the International Military Tribunal, representing the U.K., U.S., USSR and France, filed the indictment for the Nuremberg trials, most of the accused were already in custody. The prosecuting attorneys also had access to a trove of Nazi documents to build their cases.

Moreover, beyond a remarkable degree of cooperation among those four nations, there was considerable public interest in and support for the trials. Even swaths of the German public championed them.

New categories for crimes

There still needed to be a solid legal basis for the trials. Some defendants argued that their actions, at the time, had been legal under German law.

For these reasons, the charter that established the International Military Tribunal represented a significant development by outlining and defining the specific crimes that would fall under its jurisdiction: war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.

While the category of war crimes was based on existing international conventions, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity had not been previously codified.

The International Military Tribunal proceedings began on Nov. 20, 1945, and the hearings lasted until Sept. 1, 1946. Four judges – one from each of the countries convening the tribunal – presided over the case. Each of the four convening countries also appointed a chief prosecutor to lead the prosecution. Defendants were allowed to select their own legal counsel, subject to the court’s approval.

On Oct. 1, 1946, after a month of deliberation, the judges issued the final rulings. Of the 22 individual defendants, 19 were found guilty, 12 of whom were sentenced to death.

Blind spots

One notable detail of the agreement that established the International Military Tribunal was the stipulation that it would be used to punish “the major war criminals of the European Axis.”

Atrocities committed by Allied forces, however, were not subject to the court’s scrutiny as possible war crimes, nor were actions taken by Allied governments domestically, including the incarceration of Japanese Americans by the U.S. government.

Even U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone expressed misgivings about the legal precedent he saw the trials setting. In a letter discussing International Military Tribunal chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson – who, at the time, was Stone’s colleague on the Supreme Court – Stone lamented, “I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law.”

Questions about the complicity of everyday German citizens and those in Nazi-occupied territories were also left unresolved. To philosopher Hannah Arendt, the verdicts felt rather hollow.

“The Nazi crimes, it seems to me, explode the limits of law,” she wrote to her friend and fellow philosopher Karl Jaspers. “This guilt, in contrast to all criminal guilt, oversteps and shatters any and all legal systems. … We are simply not equipped to deal, on a human, political level, with a guilt that is beyond crime.”

In “Nuremberg,” psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, played by Rami Malek, attempts to understand Hermann Göring’s personality and motivations in order to prevent future atrocities. Kelley assumes Göring will come off as an exemplar of evil. But he finds Göring to be largely ordinary, even likable, and not so different from many Americans.

Scholars of the Holocaust and other atrocities continue to grapple with questions around Kelley’s uncomfortable conclusion, and how to make sense of the willingness of seemingly ordinary people to do horrible things.

Nuremberg laid the groundwork

While the Nuremberg trials left plenty of further work to do in developing a fair and functional framework for international justice, they represented a landmark development in international law, most directly in the adoption of the Nuremberg Principles, a set of guidelines regarding what constitutes a war crime.

Furthermore, the Nuremberg Charter specifically disallowed “just following orders” as a defense, stating, “The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility.”

Importantly, the International Military Tribunal repeatedly referenced the term “genocide,” which had been coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin less than two years earlier to describe “the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.” The word appeared in the original indictment and was also used by prosecutors throughout the trial. The Genocide Convention of 1948 would go on to codify genocide as an international crime.

The Nuremberg trials also helped to establish precedents used in later international criminal tribunals, including those in the wake of the Bosnian war and Rwandan genocide, and influenced the formation of the International Criminal Court, which began operating in 2002 in The Hague.

A fragile consensus today

After the International Military Tribunal issued its verdicts, Stimson remained a stalwart proponent of the trials he’d championed.

“It was not a trick of the law which brought them to the bar,” he wrote in 1947. It was the “massed angered forces of common humanity.”

In the 80 years since, the world has witnessed countless conflicts and atrocities unfold across the globe, yet only a relatively small number of the alleged perpetrators have been tried before international courts.

Beyond staunch disagreement over how to stop them, you’ll see debates over whether they even constitute crimes in the first place. The legitimacy of international courts is also disputed: In August 2025, the U.S. – which does not belong to the International Criminal Court – imposed sanctions on ICC officials after the court issued arrest warrants against top Israeli officials over alleged crimes in Gaza.

Watching “Nuremberg” in light of Stimson’s claim, you might wonder how to view this current moment vis-à-vis this earlier era.

Have political and social conditions shifted to such an extent that appealing to the “forces of common humanity” is no longer a viable political strategy? Or is the takeaway that there is always value in endeavoring to cultivate some form of consensus – no matter how small – over whether certain lines can never be crossed?

Even if consensus remains elusive, one thing is clear: The world’s knowledge of terms like “genocide” and “crimes against humanity” provides a universally understood way to push back against unfolding atrocities.

B.B. Blaber 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. The law meets its limits – what ‘Nuremberg’ reveals about guilt, evil and the quest for global justice – https://theconversation.com/the-law-meets-its-limits-what-nuremberg-reveals-about-guilt-evil-and-the-quest-for-global-justice-269263