Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Qingqing Yang, Research Scientist of Education, University at Albany, State University of New York

About 1 in 4 elementary students in the United States reports being bullied at least once during a given school year.

Children who are frequently bullied are more likely to struggle in school, experience poorer physical health and face higher risks of depression, anxiety and substance use as they age. These effects can persist into adulthood, contributing to unemployment and financial instability.

Most bullying research focuses on children’s individual traits, such as whether they display signs of aggressiveness or whether their parents physically punish them at home. Children who experience non-physical but harsh or punitive discipline at home may also be more likely to engage in bullying.

Overall, bullying rates vary widely across classrooms.

New research I conducted with colleagues at the University at Albany and other schools finds that classroom environments play an important role in bullying. Children have a slightly higher risk of being bullied when they are in classrooms that are frequently disrupted by student misbehavior, or are chaotic – even after considering individual factors, like a child’s personality and family experiences.

Our findings show that bullying is not only influenced by who children are, but by the environments they are exposed to at school.

Evaluating classroom environments

We analyzed teacher and student surveys collected by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics from 2014 through 2016. This nationwide data looked at teachers and children who were in the third, fourth and fifth grades.

Teachers evaluated whether their classroom environment was disruptive by reporting how many students struggled to pay attention, behave appropriately or follow instructions. They also gave an overall rating of classroom misbehavior. Students reported how frequently they were bullied, including being teased, called names, intentionally excluded from play or subjected to physical aggression like pushing and hitting.

To make sure the findings reflected a real pattern and not a coincidence, we used a statistical method that tests whether the same students reported more or less bullying when they were in more or less disruptive or chaotic classrooms across different grades.

In other words, we looked at how changes in a child’s classroom environment were linked to changes in their own experiences of bullying. This approach helps separate the effects of a classroom environment from differences between children’s personal characteristics and experiences at home.

Reducing classroom chaos

Traditionally, anti-bullying efforts target individual students’ behaviors or family dynamics. Interventions might include teaching social skills or giving parents more support and training in responding to their kids’ behavior.

However, programs that target only bullies or victims are not always effective at preventing bullying.

Our findings suggest that reducing classroom chaos is a viable path toward decreasing bullying. The effects we observed are small but consistent, meaning the pattern held even under strict tests. We think awareness of this connection could help make a meaningful difference across a classroom.

Teachers reporting that classrooms are disruptive reflects both students’ behavior and the challenges teachers face in overseeing a classroom full of students. These challenges include keeping students focused, encouraging appropriate behavior and ensuring that students follow instruction.

In more chaotic classrooms, students may be talking over one another, leaving their seats or struggling to stay on task. This creates an environment where it is harder to maintain order and can lead to a “spillover effect,” in which negative behaviors spread. As a result, aggression can become more common and even be reinforced within the peer group, increasing the likelihood of bullying.

Managing a chaotic classroom can also be demanding and emotionally exhausting for teachers. They must spend more time handling disruptions and keeping students on task. This can limit not only the time and energy they have to prevent or respond to bullying but also their ability to notice it in the first place.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that chaotic or disruptive classrooms often reflect broader challenges, such as large class sizes, limited school funding and students dealing with difficulties outside of school, such as poverty, housing instability or trauma.

Supporting educators with professional development options, like offering training on how to support students emotionally and connecting rules to positive or negative consequences, can help to reduce the likelihood that children will misbehave in class.

The impact of classroom chaos also intersects with broader social inequalities.

Previous studies show that students from low-income families, racial and ethnic minority backgrounds and those with disabilities face higher risks of being bullied. Our study helps explain why: These students are more likely to be in chaotic classrooms.

This is not because they are deliberately placed in such environments, but because they are more likely to attend schools with low budgets that might have large class sizes, fewer experienced staff and less specialized kinds of support for students.

Next steps

Bullying is a serious issue that often occurs in elementary schools, making prevention an urgent priority. Our findings shift the focus from students’ individual characteristics and backgrounds to the broader classroom environment.

Our findings suggest that reducing classroom chaos may be one promising approach to addressing bullying. Further research is needed to identify additional classroom factors that capture the complexity of classroom dynamics and how they contribute to bullying.

Qingqing Yang receives funding from Spencer Foundation.

– ref. Bullying is common in elementary school – and it’s more likely to happen in classrooms that are chaotic – https://theconversation.com/bullying-is-common-in-elementary-school-and-its-more-likely-to-happen-in-classrooms-that-are-chaotic-280872

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Marie Helweg-Larsen, Professor of Psychology, Dickinson College

Much has been written about Denmark’s consistently high scores in global happiness rankings, so it might not come as a surprise that Denmark is also rated the best place to raise children, according to U.S. News and World Report. The small Scandinavian nation also scores near the top for child well-being, a measure of physical health, mental health, education and social relationships.

Government policies like generous parental leave, robust public investment in education and universal healthcare have certainly played a role in these rankings. Danes also score high on social trust, with 74% of Danes agreeing that most people can be trusted, whereas only 37% of Americans say the same.

But another factor could be contributing to Danish children’s well-being: They’re often encouraged to take part in risky, unstructured play.

This might seem at odds with a parent’s desire to do what they can to keep their kids safe. But as a native of Denmark and a psychologist, I’ve explored how the country’s hands-off parenting style may be one key to raising more resilient, self-reliant kids.

The benefits of unstructured play

Danes have two words for the English word “play.” There’s “leg,” which refers to unstructured play; and “spille,” which is used for games or activities with pre-established rules, such as playing soccer, chess or the violin.

Each type of play has benefits. But studies have shown that unstructured, spontaneous play requires more compromise and creativity, since kids have the freedom to change or make up the rules. Children learn to take turns and work through problems – skills that are harder to develop when adults step in or when the rules are predetermined.

Then there’s risky play, a form of unstructured play that involves exciting activities with a possibility of physical injury. On a playground, this might mean climbing tall towers, going headfirst down a slide or roughhousing. Off the playground it might involve building a fire, swimming, biking or using tools like saws, hammers and knives.

Norwegian early childhood education researcher Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter
pioneered the study of risky play. She’s explored its evolutionary functions – specifically, how it helps children become competent, independent adults. Other researchers have shown that risky play boosts mental health by teaching children to be more resilient and manage their emotions.

Positive risks vs. negative ones

When it comes to risky play, it’s useful to distinguish between positive risks and negative ones.

On a playground, a positive risk is a challenge that a child can recognize and decide to take. They can weigh if they want to try a zip line, or determine when they’ve reached their limit while ascending a climbing net for the first time. The goal is for the child to explore boundaries and learn to manage emotions like fear and anxiety. Sure, there’s the risk of scrapes and bumps. But success can breed more self-confidence.

A negative risk, on the other hand, is a danger that the child does not have the experience or knowledge to foresee. Using playground equipment that has rotted wood, wielding a tool like a drill without proper instruction or swimming in rapids could lead to serious accidents without any learning benefits.

Many playgrounds in Denmark are designed to encourage positive risks. The country has become known for its junk playgrounds, the first of which was created during World War II. These are play areas built with discarded tires, boards and ropes instead of fixed equipment. Kids are often given access to tools so they can build structures and remake the space on their own terms.

The point ultimately isn’t to put kids in harm’s way. It’s to let them explore on their own, test their limits and try new things.

The competent child

Of course, no parent wants to see their child get injured. But research suggests that Danish parents and American parents have distinct perceptions of risk – and different thresholds for what they consider dangerous.

One study compared U.S. and Danish mothers’ reactions to pictures showing a child engaged in 30 different types of play, such as sledding, biking, using a saw to cut wood and climbing a tall tree. It found that Danish mothers, on average, were more likely to say that they would be comfortable with their own child in these situations. In subsequent interviews, Danish mothers were also more likely to talk about practicing risky activities with their kids, such as how to use tools. (One described how she showed her 5-year-old to use an axe to chop wood.)

In fact, Danish daycares often teach children how to use a sharp knife, with some handing out knife diplomas once children have learned the skill. Learning how to ride a bike, meanwhile, can be practiced on what are known as “traffic playgrounds,” which have child-sized streets, bike lanes, traffic lights and signs.

This difference in risk tolerance could stem from differences in parenting approaches. Danish parents see their children as innately competent, meaning they trust their ability to navigate risks and challenges. Adults, in turn, try to create environments for these natural competencies to flourish; they work to encourage cooperation instead of using control.

In contrast, American parents are more likely to see kids as vulnerable and in need of protection. Mental health is a major concern, with 40% of American parents extremely or very worried that their child will suffer from anxiety or depression at some point, according to a 2023 Pew Research Survey. Somewhat ironically, kids who have less independence are more likely to have mental health challenges.

When permissiveness goes too far

Letting kids take the lead can work well, but sometimes they can’t see or anticipate certain risks.

Danish youth, for example, drink more alcohol than their European peers. A recent survey showed that almost 7 out of 10 Danish ninth grade students had consumed alcohol in the last month, and 1 out of 3 had been drunk in the past month. One study found that Danish parents who are stricter about alcohol consumption are less likely to have teens who frequently drink. Danish culture, overall, has a very permissive attitude toward drinking alcohol, so those parents are few and far between.

Furthermore, Danish 10-year-olds have among the highest rate of smartphone ownership in the world, even as studies have shown that smartphone ownership among children is associated with higher rates of depression, stress and anxiety, as well as less sleep.

But these statistics don’t relate to risky play, which even emergency physicians and nurses champion. Instead, they show how permissive parenting styles can sometimes have negative effects.

The benefits of risky play – like learning to tolerate failure, distress and uncertainty – aren’t just important parts of being a kid. They’re important parts of being human.

Marie Helweg-Larsen has received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. Denmark’s ‘hands-off’ approach to parenting could offer a blueprint for raising more resilient, self-reliant kids – https://theconversation.com/denmarks-hands-off-approach-to-parenting-could-offer-a-blueprint-for-raising-more-resilient-self-reliant-kids-281485

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Christian Franck, Bjorn Borgen Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director of the Center for Traumatic Brain Injury, University of Wisconsin-Madison

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 do you have to wear a helmet when you’re skateboarding? – Artie, age 13, Queens, New York

---

Back when I was 13, I was an avid skateboarder – the kickflip was my go-to trick. And I didn’t see why I needed to strap on a helmet before practicing my ollies.

But now, doing the work I do, I get it.

My research is centered on understanding how physical forces cause brain injury and how to best protect against it. So I spend a lot of time thinking about how the brain gets hurt and how to improve helmets. This includes work focusing on protecting members of the United States military in training and active combat zones.

So why is it so important to wear a helmet when skateboarding, and also riding your bike, and really any sport or activity where your head could get hurt?

Your very own supercomputer

Inside your head sits probably your most amazing organ – your brain. It allows you to do everything you love, such as tasting ice cream, watching movies, listening to music and, of course, skateboarding.

Your brain is the world’s mightiest supercomputer. Everything it does requires billions of tiny brain cells, called neurons, working together in unison. These cells send messages to the rest of your body that regulate everything from body processes you’re not even aware of – such as your heartbeat – to moving your muscles, to helping you think and talk.

Some researchers estimate that humans have about 86 billion neurons, although scientists are still working on finding the exact number. That’s more than 10 times the number of all the people living on earth. And they’re all crammed inside a space the size of a melon, working together tirelessly, day in and day out.

Of course, your brain is not just made up of neurons. There are a lot of other cells supporting the neurons, including astrocytes and microglia, which are important helper cells to the neurons.

But as busy as your brain cells are, they are also incredibly soft and squishy. In fact, your brain has the consistency of jello. And like jello, it is very vulnerable, especially to physical forces, such as a fall or a sudden jolt.

The physical forces of a fall

Now, you might be thinking, doesn’t my skull protect my brain? And, yes, it does offer some protection. But your skull is a layer of cortical bone only about .28 inches (7 millimeters) thick, making it a useful barrier that prevents dirt and other objects from getting into your brain, but it’s too thin and too stiff to keep your brain safe in case of a fall while skateboarding.

Why is that? It helps to break down what happens when your unprotected head hits the pavement: Upon impact, your skull deforms, or changes shape, and often rotates. But your skull is not capable of fully absorbing that impact. So the remaining energy is transferred through the hard bone of your skull and absorbed by your soft, squishy brain.

Imagine squeezing and wiggling a block of jello to change its shape. This is similar to what happens to your brain: Like the block of jello, when your skull deforms, your brain can be compressed and change shape. This can cause your neurons to stretch and move in ways they aren’t designed to, causing damage.

This is why wearing a helmet is so important. If you look at your helmet, you will see that it has two parts – an outer shell that is usually hard and an inner shell liner, usually made from stiff foam. The shell is meant to protect your brain from penetrating objects. It also holds the liner, which is there to absorb most of the energy from an impact so it doesn’t reach your brain.

Recovering from a brain injury

If you fall off your skateboard and you’re not wearing knee and wrist pads, you might skin your knee or break your wrist. But unlike your skin and bones, your brain doesn’t tend to heal easily.

Without a helmet, much of the energy from your fall gets absorbed by your brain. Depending on the amount of energy that enters your brain, your brain cells can be injured. Even a mild traumatic brain injury, such as a concussion, can cause significant damage to the cells inside your brain. This could mean that you lose some of those brain cells or that they won’t work properly anymore.

If too many of your brain cells are damaged or die, you may lose really important brain functions, such as walking, talking or seeing clearly. The brain cells you have now are largely the same ones you had when you were born. And once you lose them, there is no way to get them back.

When you lose brain cells, the remaining cells have to work extra hard to keep your brain function intact. While modern medicine has gotten really good at repairing most of the tissues and organs in your body, the brain is still a major challenge for researchers.

This is why researchers like me spend so much time trying to find ways to protect the brain from trauma: A protected brain doesn’t need to be healed. In fact, according to one study of bicyclists, those who wear helmets are 65% to 88% less likely to get a brain injury.

So next time you step onto your skateboard, remember that you need your brain to do all the amazing things it does for you, and do what you can to protect it. Helmet on!

---

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.

Christian Franck is director of the Office of Naval Research sponsored PANTHER program through which his research group at UW-Madison receives funding.

– ref. Why do you have to wear a helmet when you’re skateboarding? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-you-have-to-wear-a-helmet-when-youre-skateboarding-279956

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yinchu Li, Ph.D. Candidate in Marine Geology, Georgia Institute of Technology

Not all earthquake faults behave the same. Some stick and snap, causing earthquakes. Others move slowly over time.

For years, the leading explanation for slow-moving faults has been that high-pressure fluids along the fault lubricate it, allowing the slabs to slide steadily rather than building up stress until that stress is eventually released in a large, destructive earthquake.

But in a new study of the Shumagin Gap, a quiet section of the Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone – the area where one tectonic plate dives below another – my colleagues and I found that the fault does not contain enough fluid to explain why it slides slowly. Scientists may need to rethink this assumption about subduction zones around the world.

Pinning down why faults creep matters for how scientists build models of the world’s most powerful earthquake zones to assess long-term earthquake and tsunami hazards, from Alaska to Japan to the Pacific Northwest. Knowing how earthquakes are likely to behave is essential for helping communities decide where and how to build homes and other infrastructure so they can withstand an earthquake and tsunami.

How earthquakes happen along faults

An earthquake fault is a break in Earth’s outer rock layer where two blocks of rock slide past each other. The way they slide determines what kind of shaking, if any, reaches the surface.

Some faults are “locked.” They do not budge until stress builds to a breaking point, then they release it all at once in a sudden rupture. This is what happens during most damaging earthquakes. Other faults “creep.” They glide past each other steadily, releasing stress gradually.

The biggest and most destructive earthquakes on Earth happen along subduction zones, where one tectonic plate dives beneath another. The Alaska-Aleutian margin, the Japan Trench, the subduction zone off Chile and the Pacific Northwest’s Cascadia zone are all examples. When a locked patch of a subduction fault suddenly slips, the seafloor can jolt upward and a tsunami can follow.

A quiet fault challenges a common assumption

Deep underground, fault behavior is hard to see directly, especially offshore where faults often sit beneath kilometers of seawater and sediment.

Scientists rely on measurements from GPS stations, seismometers and seafloor sensors, and then build computer models of what must be happening below. For decades, the leading explanation for creeping faults has been that high-pressure fluids along the fault reduce friction, the way a film of water causes tires to hydroplane.

Testing that idea requires seeing the fluids, and that’s where our team came in.

We use marine electromagnetic imaging, a method that maps how easily underground materials conduct electricity. A ship tows an instrument close to the seafloor, sending electromagnetic signals into the rocks below, while other instruments on the seabed record the response. Different materials beneath the seafloor conduct electricity differently, and that shows up in the measurements. Because salty water conducts electricity very well, the method is especially good at mapping where fluids are and where they aren’t.

We surveyed a 75-mile (120-kilometer) stretch of seafloor across the Shumagin Gap, a section of the Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone that has been creeping for more than a century. The Shumagin Gap had long been considered a quiet part of the margin, even though neighboring segments have produced magnitude 8 and larger earthquakes.

To our surprise, the fault at the Shumagin Gap was not as fluid-rich as the leading explanation would predict.

Our images show that the shallow part of the fault, closest to the ocean, has little open space in the rock for fluid to occupy. And the fluid that is there is under roughly normal pressure, not the high pressure that the “slippery fluid” model predicts.

The fault surface is bumpy and rugged. The upper plate appears to be a patchwork of stronger and weaker material, and we found possible pathways where fluids may drain into the rock above the fault.

In other words, this quiet fault isn’t quiet because it’s well lubricated. Something else is keeping it stable, most likely a combination of rough fault surface, varying rock strength and, in some places, fluid.

What this means for assessing earthquake risks

Our findings about this fault have consequences for assessing earthquake and tsunami hazards more broadly.

Many models lean on the idea that fluid pressure helps determine whether a subduction fault slips suddenly or creeps. If fluid isn’t the main control keeping the Shumagin Gap quiet, other quiet faults might similarly lack fluid, raising questions about how stable those faults really are.

Understanding these mechanisms matters for assessing coastal communities’ earthquake and tsunami risks. A shallow slip near a trench is what drives the most destructive tsunamis. Tsunamis from Alaska–Aleutian earthquakes have reached distant coasts before. Large earthquakes in 1946, 1957 and 1964 generated tsunamis that damaged the coasts of Hawaii and California.

As our results show, there isn’t a single, simple story explaining slow-sliding faults. More and better offshore data will help scientists more accurately assess earthquake and tsunami hazards around the world and help communities well beyond Alaska prepare.

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation under grants OCE-1654652 and OCE-1654619.

– ref. A quiet Alaska fault is missing the fluids scientists expected – and it’s changing what we know about earthquake zones – https://theconversation.com/a-quiet-alaska-fault-is-missing-the-fluids-scientists-expected-and-its-changing-what-we-know-about-earthquake-zones-281510

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Idan Shalev, Associate Professor of Biobehavioral Health, Penn State

Imagine receiving a test result that tells you your body is biologically five years older than your chronological age. You exercise regularly, get good sleep, eat healthy meals and have a happy personal life. What have you been doing wrong? Can this test be trusted?

Dozens of companies are marketing products that promise to reveal a person’s “true” biological age – that is, how well your body is functioning – for a price ranging from around US$30 to over $1,000. These products are based on epigenetic aging clocks, which are research tools that estimate age based on a person’s DNA. These clocks are reshaping how scientists study aging and how the public thinks about it.

But while epigenetic clocks are highly effective research tools to study aging at the population level, they aren’t designed to make claims about the health of individuals.

We are biobehavioral health scientists who study how early development and environmental factors across the lifespan shape biological aging, influencing health and disease decades later. As researchers who use epigenetic clocks in our work, we have found them to be highly informative tools when studying large numbers of people. But these clocks can provide faulty results at the individual level, and they do not meet the standards required of common medical tests.

What are epigenetic clocks?

Measuring reversible chemical changes to DNA, known as epigenetic marks, can provide information about how your body is aging.

Using DNA obtained from routine blood draws, researchers can measure millions of these epigenetic marks in an individual. Running statistical algorithms on this information can produce a single value that represents that person’s epigenetic age, analogous to chronological age.

Epigenetic clocks work because the chemical marks on DNA can shift over time and are influenced by lifestyle, stress and the environment. These changes capture aspects of aging that chronological age alone may not reflect.

In this way, epigenetic clocks help scientists identify the experiences, exposures and behaviors that may accelerate or slow biological aging.

Not for individual health decisions

Why can’t epigenetic clocks provide reliable results about biological age for individual people?

First, there are dozens of different types of epigenetic clocks, each designed for a specific purpose. Some are used to predict a person’s age, while others are used to predict how fast someone is aging or how many years until they die. These different clocks do not always agree with one another, even when used on the same person.

Second, epigenetic changes are dynamic, making age predictions sensitive to short-term fluctuations in diet, environmental exposures, illness, time of day and other transient factors. As a result, estimated age could vary substantially depending on when someone is tested.

Third, constructing epigenetic clocks is technically challenging, and there is no established gold-standard method for generating clocks across laboratories. For example, testing epigenetic age in saliva versus blood samples can yield substantially different results for the same person. The technologies used to measure epigenetic marks have also evolved over time and will likely continue to improve. As these methods change, the original algorithms designed for specific measurement platforms may not perform the same way.

Fourth, scientists do not universally agree on what aging means, in part because it is a very complex process. Reducing that complexity to a single number, such as an epigenetic age, can be misleading.

Finally, epigenetic clocks are influenced by a person’s history of trauma, discrimination and early life adversity. This makes their use at the individual level potentially problematic. On average, marginalized communities tend to show signs of accelerated aging when assessed with epigenetic clocks. If insurance companies began using epigenetic age estimates to set premiums, many people could face higher costs for biological differences shaped by circumstances beyond their control, potentially deepening existing health disparities.

Studying how aging unfolds over time

While epigenetic clocks are not appropriate tools for individual health decisions, this does not mean they lack value.

Researchers have used epigenetic clocks to discover lifestyle habits that can, on average, slow down aging. Some examples include reducing daily calorie intake, exercising regularly, maintaining a healthy diet, getting enough sleep and avoiding smoking.

Epigenetic clocks can also help test new drug therapies aimed at slowing down specific aging processes. For example, researchers have shown that rapamycin, a drug connected to various aging processes, can reduce the epigenetic age of human skin cells. There is also some evidence that a treatment designed to regenerate the thymus may slow or even reverse epigenetic aging after one year of treatment. However, researchers have seen these effects only when looking at groups rather than individuals.

Epigenetic clocks are helping scientists advance scientific research on the aging processes, but they aren’t medical tests to measure individual health. In the future, epigenetic measurements may play a useful role in guiding personal health decisions. But for now, epigenetic clocks sold as biological age tests are best used and refined by researchers who are studying populations rather than individual people.

Idan Shalev receives funding from The National Institutes of Health.

Abner Apsley receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Biological age tests reveal what slows or hastens aging – but they’re useful only for researchers, not consumers – https://theconversation.com/biological-age-tests-reveal-what-slows-or-hastens-aging-but-theyre-useful-only-for-researchers-not-consumers-275974

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jasmine Farrier, Professor of Political Science, University of Louisville

May 1, 2026, marks the 60th day of Operation Epic Fury in Iran – a symbolically significant date designating when a president who has mounted unilateral military operations must receive Congressional approval or wind it down.

However, the complex history of the War Powers Resolution clock demonstrates it is a toothless milestone.

The Trump administration signaled on April 30, 2026, that it would ignore that deadline, set by the War Powers Resolution. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that “we are in a cease-fire right now, which my understanding is that the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a cease-fire. That’s our understanding, so you know.”

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, responded that the 60-day threshold poses a “legal question” and “constitutional concerns.”

This is not the first time presidents and members of Congress have sparred on the meaning of the War Powers Resolution. What happens next will play out through regular politics, because the conflict is not a matter of simple legal interpretation.

War: Collective judgment

In the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the president share war powers.

In the shadow of political struggles in the final years of the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities.”

A crucial section of the resolution reasserts legislators’ role, and makes clear that the constitutional power of the president to make war is subject to, or exercised with, the following conditions: a Congressional declaration of war; specific statutory authorization; or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces.

For new military campaigns that do not meet these criteria, the resolution included a 60-day clock that begins when a president reports the action to congressional leadership within 48 hours of the action beginning.

The clock can be expanded to up to 90 days upon presidential determination and certification of “unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces” related to removal of troops.

After 60 to 90 days, the resolution originally said this type of unilateral military action would be terminated automatically unless both chambers of Congress approved some form of legislative authorization.

Congress could also choose to terminate an unauthorized military operation any time before the 60 days with a concurrent resolution, which doesn’t require a president’s signature – essentially, a “legislative veto.”

And to make sure the president couldn’t stretch the definition of congressional approval, the resolution said neither existing treaties nor new budget appropriations could substitute for legislative authorization of a military action.

Since 1973, actions by all three branches across a variety of political and policy landscapes have undermined its intents and procedures.

Veto vetoed

In 1983, the Supreme Court declared various kinds of legislative vetoes unconstitutional, which led Congress to reinterpret its War Powers Resolution procedures and powers and effectively amend its processes to expedite any joint resolution or bill that “requires the removal of U.S. armed forces from hostilities outside the United States.”

Now, if members want to stop a presidential military campaign already in progress, they must act affirmatively and pass a disapproval resolution, which a president could veto like any other bill. Congress has sent only one such disapproval – to President Donald Trump in his first term – which he vetoed. Congress did not have the two-thirds required in the Constitution to override.

Both chambers of Congress now have to vote twice, once to disapprove a military action and then again to overcome a likely veto, to stop something it never approved in the first place.

The 60-day mark for the current Iran operation has therefore loomed as more of a politically charged symbol of this longstanding imbalance on war powers than a real deadline for action by either branch.

Parallels to Kosovo and Libya

The House and Senate have tried to pass legislation to stop military operations against Iran six times since operations began. All attempts have failed, including the most recent vote on April 30. Democrats are considering filing suit against President Trump if operations go beyond 60 days without authorization.

Yet federal courts have long expressed disinterest in getting involved in constitutional questions related to the War Powers Resolution, especially if members of Congress are the plaintiffs.

Although most presidents from Richard Nixon onward have claimed that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional check on their institutional powers, they usually filed the required reports on new military actions 48 hours after they began.

While the current Iran conflict is different in many ways, presidential unilateralism, inconclusive chamber actions and even member lawsuits all echo controversies over U.S. military action in Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011.

Where Trump administration may lean on Clinton

Operation Epic Fury against Iran began Feb. 28, 2026, and President Trump sent the required report to Congress on March 2, 2026.

After detailing the rationale for military action, Trump added “Although the United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary.”

He concluded the memo with his interpretation of constitutional power to act unilaterally.

“I directed this military action consistent with my
responsibility to protect Americans and United States interests both at home and abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests,” the president wrote. He acted, he said, “pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to conduct United States foreign relations.” He said he made the report “consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in these actions.”

Similarly, on March 26, 1999, President Bill Clinton sent a War Powers Resolution letter explaining his decision two days earlier to take part in a NATO-led operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, known as FRY.

Clinton wrote to Congress using mostly the same words and phrases Trump did in his 2026 letter. Clinton also said that he took the action “in response to the FRY government’s continued campaign of violence and repression against the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo.”

Clinton explained his authority in virtually the same language as Trump and, like Trump, said it was hard to predict how long the operations would continue.

The House and Senate repeatedly failed to either approve or disapprove of Clinton’s actions through a series of votes across March and April 1999. But lawmakers did send him supplemental appropriations for the operations in May.

NATO suspended the operation after 78 days. Almost a year later, a federal appellate court upheld a district court’s decision rejecting a lawsuit led by Rep. Tom Campbell, a California Republican, alleging Clinton violated the War Powers Resolution. Rather than deciding on the merits, the decision rejected the lawmakers’ claims of injury as not reviewable by the court.

Obama did it, too

In a very different context, a similar rhythm played out during President Barack Obama’s presidency.

During the “Arab Spring” revolts of 2010-2011, the U.N. Security Council passed two resolutions condemning violence against Libyan civilians by security forces under the direction of Colonel Moammar Gadhafi.

On March 21, 2011, two days after NATO operations began against Gadhafi’s forces, which included American air support, Obama sent his War Powers Resolution letter to the Republican House and Democratic Senate. Obama had not received prior legislative authority from Congress.

Obama’s letter included language almost identical to Clinton’s earlier letter and Trump’s later one.

As with Kosovo, the House and Senate did not ultimately agree to either approve or disapprove of the president’s actions in support of the UN and NATO over the operation’s 222 days. In addition, Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio led a group of mostly Republican House members in a failed War Powers Resolution lawsuit to stop the president.

Unilateral action endures

The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice has published legal opinions that explain and defend presidential war powers, including with Kosovo and Libya. In December 2025, that office published a memo defending the imminent January 2026 capture of Nicolás Maduro. On April 21, 2026, the State Department published a defense of ongoing U.S. actions in Iran.

Within the current dynamics of the War Powers Resolution, until Congress musters bipartisan supermajorities to connect its own institutional ambition with constitutional power, presidents from either party will decide alone if, and when, the country goes to war. Instead of Congress, presidents may heed public opinion and economic indicators, especially in election years.

Jasmine Farrier is affiliated with the American Political Science Association.

– ref. Why the 60-day War Powers Resolution deadline doesn’t actually constrain presidents – https://theconversation.com/why-the-60-day-war-powers-resolution-deadline-doesnt-actually-constrain-presidents-281724

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Julie Pollock, Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Richmond

If you’re over the age of 10, the World Health Organization recommends that you consume at least 25 grams of fiber every day. The best fiber-containing foods come from plants: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains and legumes.

While it’s sometimes overshadowed by other nutrients, such as protein, fiber plays a significant role in gastrointestinal health, digestion and nutrient absorption.

As a biochemist and someone who enjoys eating all types of foods, I find it remarkable that the structure of fiber, which is so similar to other carbohydrates, gives it all these unique functions. A tiny difference in the bonds that hold the molecules together allows your body to process a bagel differently from a raspberry.

Structure dictates function

In the biochemistry classes I teach, I emphasize that structure dictates function. If you’re about to cross a bridge but notice the braces are falling off or the wood is rotting, you’ll probably avoid stepping on it because the structure looks fragile.

This concept is true in the food you eat as well. The structures of the molecules that make up your food require them to be broken down in different ways in order to produce the energy that fuels your body.

Some foods contain vitamins and minerals that your body absorbs and uses for multiple functions. Other foods can keep your digestive system healthy and help your body absorb nutrients.

Food molecules consist of proteins, fats and carbohydrates. Each of these classes of food molecules has unique structures that allow your body to process them differently. For example, fats are long chains of carbon atoms that do not dissolve in water, while proteins have large amounts of nitrogen due to their amino acids. In addition, subclasses of biomolecules have even more specializations in their structures and functions.

Carbohydrate structure

Carbohydrates, or sugars, are biomolecules made up of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms. Simple carbohydrates include single sugars, such as glucose or fructose, and two sugars linked together, such as sucrose – table sugar – or lactose, milk sugar. These simple carbohydrates exist mostly in rings, although they sometimes open up into a linear form.

Complex carbohydrates, on the other hand, have a lot – hundreds to thousands – of sugar molecules linked in large sheets called polysaccharides. These carbohydrates are linked only in their ring forms.

Plants connect sugar molecules in two types of polysaccharides – starch and fiber. These molecules have similar structures because they contain only one type of sugar – typically glucose – linked together many times.

However, one tiny difference in the chemical bonds within starch and fiber translates to very different functions for the molecules.

Starch, also called amylose and amylopectin, is a polysaccharide with glucose molecules that are linked using alpha bonds. Fiber, which consists primarily of cellulose, is a polysaccharide with glucose molecules that are linked using a beta bond.

The types of bonds refer to how certain parts of the molecules are oriented. These slight differences mean the two polysaccharides’ overall three-dimensional structures differ at the locations of these bonds.

The starch molecule is branched and doesn’t pack together very tightly. Plants use starch as a long-term store of glucose that they can break down to use for energy. The fiber molecules, due to their beta bonds, pack together very tightly. The glucose molecules in fiber form the support structures of a plant’s leaves, seeds and stems. The bonds of the starch enable the plants to easily break down the sugar so they can access quick energy, while the bonds of the fiber are designed to last and add strength to the plant’s architecture.

Fiber’s dietary function

The structural differences between starch and fiber mean these molecules have different dietary functions when you consume them.

Human bodies easily digest starch. Your body uses an enzyme called amylase that breaks the alpha bonds to release glucose molecules, which cells break down further to use for energy. Starch’s structure is perfect for fueling your cells. High starch foods include potatoes, pasta, rice, corn and bread.

Human bodies, on the other hand, cannot digest the beta bonds in the fiber we consume. They do not make enzymes that can release glucose molecules from the fiber, so most fibers pass through your digestive tract without being digested and absorbed. They contribute no energy to your diet. Foods with large amounts of fiber include peas, broccoli, oatmeal and pears.

The fiber does offer other health benefits. Fiber promotes bowel health by keeping your stools soft and moist, which reduces the risk of constipation, hemorrhoids and diverticulosis. Since the fiber stays intact in your gut, it gives your muscles something to push on to make it easier to eliminate stools, reducing pressure and inflammation in your intestines.

Some research has shown that consuming fiber reduces risk of inflammatory bowel diseases and protects against cardiovascular diseases. Fiber binds to bile acids that are excreted into your intestines, which helps with fat digestion. The fiber molecules interact with bile acids and dietary cholesterol, causing them to be excreted more easily and lower blood cholesterol levels.

Eating a high fiber diet also helps people feel more full. The fiber absorbs water and expands in your intestine, slowing the movement of food through the digestive system.

Learning about the structures of the carbohydrates you consume can help you understand their function in the body. Even though I think about biochemistry every day, I’m still amazed by how profoundly one bond can change the function of a biomolecule.

Julie Pollock receives funding from the Henry and Camille Dreyfus Foundation

– ref. Fiber’s structural integrity keeps plants strong – and its indigestibility keeps your digestive system healthy – https://theconversation.com/fibers-structural-integrity-keeps-plants-strong-and-its-indigestibility-keeps-your-digestive-system-healthy-280248

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Nir Eisikovits, Professor of Philosophy and Director of Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston

In the summer of 2025, OpenAI released ChatGPT 5 and removed its predecessor from the market. Many subscribers to the old model had become attached to its warm, enthusiastically agreeable tone and complained at the loss of their ingratiating robotic companion. Such was the scale of frustration that Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, had to acknowledge that the rollout was botched, and the company reinstated access.

Anyone who’s been told by a chatbot that their ideas are brilliant is familiar with artificial intelligence sycophancy: its tendency to tell users what they want to hear. Sometimes it’s very explicit – “that is such a deep question” – and sometimes it’s a lot more subtle. Consider an AI calling your idea for a paper “original,” even if many people have already written on the same topic, or insisting that your dumb idea for saving a tree in your garden still contains a germ of common sense.

AI sycophancy seems harmless, maybe even cute, until you imagine someone consulting a chatbot about a weighty question, like a military strategy or a medical treatment. We study the impact of extensive human interactions with chatbots, and we recently published a paper on the ethics of AI sycophancy. We believe this tendency harms people’s ability to tell truth from fiction, and is psychologically and politically dangerous.

Flattery over facts?

In the simplest terms, sycophancy is the tendency to prioritize approval over factual accuracy, moral clarity, logical consistency or common sense. All AI models suffer from this trait, although there are some tonal differences between them. Open AI’s ChatGPT is often warm and affirming; Anthropic’s Claude tends to sound more reflective or philosophical when it agrees with you; and xAI’s Grok is insistently informal, even jocular.

Politeness and adapting to someone’s communication style are not the same as sycophancy. Neither is using diplomatic language to convey sensitive information. A chatbot can be tactful without becoming sycophantic, just like a person can. Unlike people, though, AIs can’t be aware of their own sycophancy, because they are not – so far – aware of anything at all. Calling AIs sycophantic describes their patterns of behavior, not their character traits.

The problem stems from the architecture of chatbot technology and the sources it draws from. Models are sycophantic because a great deal of language use on the internet – the raw material that chatbots learn from – displays sycophantic features. After all, humans often communicate with each other in sycophantic ways.

Second, the training process to fine-tune AI models’ responses includes a kind of “quality control” carried out by human supervisors. This training method is known as “reinforcement learning from human feedback,” and it involves people rating chatbots’ comments for appropriateness and helpfulness. Human beings often are subject to an “agreeableness bias”: Our own preference toward sycophancy rubs off on models as we train them.

Finally, it’s hard to deny that sycophancy renders chatbots more likable. That, in turn, increases the chance that a given user will keep using it. It also increases the technology’s ability to extract user data, assuming that people are more likely to divulge information to a friendly bot.

Truth and trust

Why is this phenomenon so troubling?

Let’s begin with AI sycophancy’s epistemic harms: how it hurts human users’ capacity to know the truth.

The quality of any decision depends on a clear grasp of the facts pertaining to it. A general inquiring about the combat-readiness of an infantry division needs straightforward information. A CEO considering a merger with a competitor needs an honest assessment of the market conditions. A public health leader needs to know the real risk that an emerging pathogen poses.

In all those cases, telling leaders what they might like to hear instead of the truth could lead them to make dangerous decisions. And the same is true in more humdrum contexts. People need to have the best information available before choosing a job, picking a major, buying a house or deciding on a medical procedure.

In our February 2026 paper, we argue that sycophancy is also psychologically damaging. And that is true whether it comes from a person or from a chatbot. You never quite know if your very obliging interlocutor is being nice because they like you or because they want something. A shadow of suspicion creeps in: “Could my ideas really be that brilliant?” “Are my jokes really that hilarious?” This background music of doubt undermines the quality of the interaction.

Sycophancy also undermines people’s capacity to know their own minds. If conversation partners – human or artificial – keep telling you how smart, funny and insightful you are, it damages your ability to identify your own weaknesses and blind spots.

The psychological harms are compounded as people develop relationships with chatbots. The sycophancy of these models profoundly limits the kind of “friendship” you can have with them. In his classic account of friendship, Aristotle wrote that real friendship, which he calls a friendship of virtue, is based on trust and equality between the friends. You can’t trust a sycophant, because he doesn’t tell you the truth. And since he only tells you what you’d like to hear, he doesn’t put himself on an equal footing.

More importantly, interactions with sycophantic chatbots impart all the wrong habits for navigating the world of human relationships, where friction, disagreement, boredom and different opinions than your own are prevalent.

AI sycophancy carries political risks as well. The success of liberal democracies has, traditionally, depended on the strength of their empirical and meritocratic mindset: on the ability of officials and citizens to identify, share and act on the truth.

Historian Victor Davis Hansen famously attributed some of the Allies’ success in World War II to their ability to quickly recognize and address the faults of their strategic bombing campaigns. Lower-ranking officers were able to tell their superiors what wasn’t going well and argue forcefully for changing course. That was a real advantage over authoritarian competitors.

Reining it in

What can we do to reduce the risks?

One promising approach is AI lab Anthropic’s embrace of what the company calls Constitutional AI: the attempt to teach chatbots to follow principles rather than mirror user preferences.

But beyond technical innovations, it’s important to consider the policy side. One idea is to require AI companies to run and then publish sycophancy audits of their models – tests that show how well their products meet honesty benchmarks. We would argue that AI labs should also disclose sycophancy-related risks that emerge while training and testing their models, and the mitigation efforts they have undertaken.

Some responsibility is on the users and their teachers: Schools and universities should be paying close attention to sycophancy as part of their AI literacy programs. But courts can also consider holding AI labs responsible for harms traceable to the sycophancy of their products, much as they are now contemplating social media companies’ responsibility for the addictive design of their platforms.

As people interact more with chatbots, asking for advice about everything from whether your shoes go with your pants to how countries should conduct wars, the impact of AI’s sycophantic behavior is likely to become dramatic. Our intellectual, psychological and physical well-being requires taking this algorithmic vice very seriously.

The Applied Ethics Center at UMass Boston receives funding from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Nir Eisikovits serves as the data ethics advisor to MindGuard, a startup focused on AI integration into companies’ workflow.

Cody Turner is a fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.

– ref. AI chatbots can prioritize flattery over facts – and that carries serious risks – https://theconversation.com/ai-chatbots-can-prioritize-flattery-over-facts-and-that-carries-serious-risks-274298

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Braithwaite, Distinguished Professor & Director, School of Government & Public Policy, University of Arizona

The phrase “concentration camp” is freighted with dark historical meaning. Most people hear it and instinctively think of concentration camps used by the Nazis to exterminate Jews and other minority populations during the Holocaust.

But the use and name of concentration camps originated far earlier. In the late 1800s, Spanish military officials used concentration camps – reconcentrados – during their 1896–97 Cuban campaign to isolate civilians from rebels, resulting in widespread death and disease.

We are scholars whose research into international relations and conflict includes studying historical and modern uses of these systems of camps as a form of repression.

In recent peer-reviewed research, we identified four characteristics that define what qualifies as a concentration camp system: targeting groups of civilians for imprisonment; enclosed spaces where the state controls who enters and exits; departure from standard detention practices; and abuse and neglect. We then created a dataset detailing 150 systems of camps used globally since 1896 that fit this criteria. This includes the U.S. internment of more than 125,000 Japanese immigrants and Japanese American citizens during World War II, the Argentine military junta’s use of camps in their mid-1970s campaign to reorganize society, and Vladimir Putin’s use of so-called filtration camps in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Our use of the term “concentration camp” is not meant to sensationalize or diminish its historical meaning, particularly as it relates to the Holocaust.

Rather, identifying such systems early is how the concept of “never again” – the promise to prevent mass atrocities, such as genocide, and combat extremism – can be translated into meaningful policy action from the public and policymakers.

Based on our criteria, we believe the network of detention facilities maintained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement fits into this broader definition of a system of concentration camps.

The evolution of concentration camps

After the use of concentration camps by the Spanish in Cuba, British officials adopted the practice in southern Africa during their counterinsurgency campaign against the Boer population – descendants of Dutch, French and German Protestant settlers – at the turn of the 20th century. The British detained 110,000 Boers and 37,000 indigenous Blacks in their network of 120 camps. At least 27,000 Boers and 14,000 Blacks died as a result of rampant disease and insufficient food supplies.

By the time major German military operations in Eastern Europe began in 1939, states around the world had erected more than 30 systems of concentration camps, according to our research.

Yet the term soon took on an even darker meaning. Concentration camps were employed most infamously as part of the Nazi regime’s brutal genocide in the 1930s and ’40s. In its 12 years in power, the Nazi government opened more than 1,000 concentration camps in which it detained millions of individuals. In addition to facilitating the Nazi Holocaust and other group-targeted violence against minoritized and non-German populations, Nazi security forces used the camps to repress political opposition and provide labor to the German civilian and military economies.

Though few camp systems have reached the severity or scale of those used during the Holocaust, modern camps often pursue similar goals of ethnic cleansing and forced displacement, practices such as torture and an absence of due process.

In our study, we found 93 examples of systems of concentration camps used since the conclusion of World War II. This includes more than 1,200 camps erected by Chinese authorities in Xinjiang province as part of an expansive policy of discrimination against the Uyghur population there. The Chinese government has detained more than 1 million Muslim Uyghurs since at least 2017, stripping them of their traditions, cultures and languages.

Our 4 criteria further explained

Our research confirms that the word “concentration” is critical to describing these camps. Two key criteria of the camps are the concentration of large numbers of targeted civilians into spaces, which are then secured by small numbers of captors who control who enters and exits the camps.

A third criteria we examined identifies concentration camps as “irregular” insofar as they operate outside of legal frameworks that regulate prisons, refugee camps and immigration detention centers. Concentration camps are run by separate authorities that deny detainees due process, such as formal criminal charges, legal representation or a fair trial.

The last criteria we used as we evaluated camps was the presence of squalor and routine violence. Specifically, we looked for evidence that detainees regularly experienced at least two forms of abuse, including but not limited to torture, beatings, mass killing, sexual violence, psychological abuse, lack of food, lack of water, lack of shelter, lack of healthcare, overcrowding and spread of disease.

ICE detention centers

As of April 2026, there are more than 240 active ICE detention facilities across the U.S.

Migrants held in these camps are not free to leave, though some are given a choice: self-deport − agreeing to leave the country immediately − or remain in custody. Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, migrants have filed more than 34,000 habeas corpus petitions challenging their confinement without trial, exercising a constitutional right.

Based on the criteria we developed, ICE detention camps fit in the spectrum of a system of concentration camps.

Starting with the first criteria, groups of civilians are being targeted by ICE, often based on their perceived ethnicity.

Though ICE’s stated mission is to detain those without documented legal status, many arrests have been based on physical appearance and location rather than evidence of unlawful presence in the United States.

More than 272,000 people arrested by ICE in the first six months of Trump’s second term were booked into ICE detention facilities. While deportations are increasing at a rapid rate, at least 60,000 people remain in detention facilities as of April 2026 – neither released nor deported. These numbers easily exceed counts of individuals held in immigrant detention centers in earlier years.

Hundreds of U.S. citizens have been detained, without justification and against their will, by ICE. The number of individuals arrested in homes and communities, often without an arrest warrant signed by a judge, reached more than 400 people per day in October 2025.

In terms of the second part of our definition, these people are being concentrated in spaces where the Trump administration controls who, when and under what conditions people may enter or exit these facilities. Access has been restricted for lawyers, family members of migrants, journalists and members of Congress.

As for the third criteria, the ICE detention centers also operate separately from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. ICE detention is managed by the Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations under the Department of Homeland Security, in collaboration with private prison companies.

As of April 2026, more than 70% of migrants had no criminal conviction, while many of the remainder were held for minor offenses, such as traffic violations. Failure to provide trials for migrants, particularly those who do not pose these risks, is a departure from established norms.

Our framework’s final criterion is purposeful abuse or neglect. This includes the practice of inflicting direct physical harm or the failure to provide basic necessities – food, water, shelter, healthcare.

Numerous reports have highlighted cutoffs in payments to third-party medical providers who gave care to detainees and a 36% decline in mandated detention facility inspections by ICE’s internal Office of Detention Oversight. These actions have resulted in unsanitary conditions and medical neglect in these facilities. Twenty-three deaths were reported between October 2025 and March 2026, putting the current fiscal year on pace to be the deadliest in over 20 years.

As scholars, we argue that ICE detention centers meet the criteria for concentration camps. We do so not to be provocative but to provide precise language, rather than euphemisms, so people can heed the warnings of atrocities committed in the past.

As journalist Andrea Pitzer argues in her writing about concentration camps, the longer camps exist, the more they shift from a transient emergency measure to a permanent pillar of state function.

Malia Hirasa and Sydney Horton, undergraduate students at the University of Arizona, contributed to this story.

Alex Braithwaite received funding from the US National Science Foundation (NSF) through grant award 2213615.

Rachel D. Van Nostrand 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 immigration detention becomes a system of concentration: Lessons from research on 150 historical cases – https://theconversation.com/when-immigration-detention-becomes-a-system-of-concentration-lessons-from-research-on-150-historical-cases-277728

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Robert I. Harris, Assistant Professor of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology

The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects nationwide retail gasoline prices to average near US$4.30 a gallon for April 2026 – the highest monthly average of the year. The political response has been familiar. Georgia has suspended its state gas tax, other states are weighing their own tax holidays, and the White House has issued a temporary waiver of a law known as the Jones Act in hopes of moving more domestic fuel to East Coast ports.

As an energy economist, I am often asked about what contributes to gas prices and what different policies can do to affect them.

The price of a retail gallon of gas is the sum of four things: the cost of crude oil, refining, distribution and marketing, and taxes.

In nationwide figures from January 2026, crude oil accounted for about 51% of the pump price, refining roughly 20%, distribution and marketing about 11% and taxes about 18%. That mix shifts with conditions: When crude oil prices spike, that can drive more than 60% of the price; when the price drops, taxes and logistics are larger shares of the cost.

Crude oil is the biggest ingredient

Because the price of crude oil is the largest element, most of the price at the pump is derived from the global oil market.

Usually, big swings in crude prices come mainly from shifts in global demand and expectations – not from supply disruptions, according to widely cited research in 2009 by the economist Lutz Kilian.

But what is happening in early 2026 with the war in Iran is one of the exceptions: a classic supply shock. Severe disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on Middle East oil infrastructure have taken millions of barrels a day off the global market.

Most drivers generally can’t quickly reduce how much they drive or how much gas they use when prices rise, so gasoline demand doesn’t change much in the short run. That means a jump in crude costs tends to result in people paying more rather than driving less.

Refining, regulations and the California puzzle

Refining turns crude into gasoline at industrial scale. The U.S. doesn’t have a single gasoline market, though. Roughly a quarter of U.S. gasoline is a cleaner-burning blend of petroleum-derived chemicals called “reformulated gasoline,” which is required in urban areas across 17 states and the District of Columbia to reduce smog.

California uses an even stricter formulation that few out-of-state refineries make. California is also geographically isolated: No pipelines bring gasoline in from other U.S. refining regions.

California’s gasoline prices have long run above the national average, explained in part by higher state taxes and stricter environmental rules. But since a refinery fire in Torrance, California, in 2015 reduced production capacity, the state’s prices have been about 20 to 30 cents a gallon higher than what those factors would indicate.

Energy economist and University of California, Berkeley, professor Severin Borenstein has called this the “mystery gasoline surcharge” and attributes it to the fact that there isn’t as much competition between refineries or gas stations in California as in other states. California’s own Division of Petroleum Market Oversight says the surcharge cost the state’s drivers about $59 billion from 2015 to 2024. It’s not exactly clear who is getting that money, but it could be gas stations themselves or refineries, through complex contracts with gas stations.

Getting the gas into your car

The distribution and marketing category covers the costs of everything involved in getting the gasoline from the refinery gate to your tank.

Gasoline moves by pipeline, ship, rail and truck to wholesale terminals, and then by local delivery truck to service stations.

At the retailer’s end, the key factors are station rent and labor, the cost to buy gasoline in bulk to be able to sell it, credit card fees of as much as 6 to 10 cents a gallon at current prices, and franchise fees paid to the national brand, such as Sunoco or ExxonMobil, for permission to put their branding on the gas station.

Most gas station operators net only a few cents per gallon on fuel itself – which is why many gas stations are really convenience stores with pumps out front. Borenstein and some of his collaborators have also documented that retail gas prices rise quickly when wholesale costs climb but fall slowly when wholesale costs drop.

The question of gas tax holidays

The federal government charges a tax on fuel, of 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.3 cents a gallon for diesel. States charge their own taxes, ranging from 70.9 cents a gallon for gas in California to 8.95 cents in Alaska.

When gas prices rise, many politicians start talking about temporarily suspending their state’s gas tax. That does reduce prices, but not as much as politicians – or consumers – might hope. Research on past gas tax holidays has found that consumers get about 79% of the reduction in gas taxes. That means oil companies and fuel retailers keep about one-fifth of the tax cut for themselves rather than passing that savings to the public.

Gas tax holidays also reduce funding for what the taxes are designed to pay for, typically roads and bridges. That pushes road and bridge upkeep costs onto future drivers and general taxpayers.

There is an additional problem, too: Taxes on gasoline are supposed to charge drivers for some of the costs their driving imposes on everyone else – carbon emissions, local air pollution, congestion and crashes. But Borenstein has found that U.S. fuel tax levels are already far below the true cost to society. Removing the tax on drivers effectively raises the costs for everyone else.

The Jones Act: A small number that adds up

The 1920 Jones Act is a federal law that requires cargo moving between U.S. ports to travel on vessels built and registered in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed primarily by U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Of the world’s 7,500 oil tankers, only 54 meet this requirement. Only 43 of these can transport refined fuels such as gasoline.

So, despite significant refining capacity on the Gulf Coast, some U.S. gasoline is exported overseas even as the Northeast imports fuel, in part reflecting the relatively high cost of moving fuel between U.S. ports.

Economists Ryan Kellogg and Rich Sweeney estimate that the law raises East Coast gasoline prices by about a penny and a half per gallon on average, costing drivers roughly $770 million a year. In light of the war’s effect on gas prices, the Trump administration has temporarily suspended the Jones Act requirements – an action more commonly taken when hurricanes knock out Gulf Coast refineries and pipeline networks.

What moves the number

The result of all these factors is that the price that drivers see at the pump mostly reflects the global price of crude, plus a stack of domestic costs, only some of which are inefficient.

Tax holidays give a partial, short-lived rebate. Jones Act waivers trim pennies, though permanent repeal may cause more fundamental changes, such as reduced rail and truck transport of all goods, which could lower costs, emissions and infrastructure damage associated with cargo transportation. Harmonizing fuel blends across states and seasons may lower prices somewhat, but likely at the expense of increased emissions.

Ultimately, the best protection against oil price shocks is a more efficient gas-burning vehicle, or one that doesn’t burn gasoline at all. In the meantime, the best I can offer as an economist is clarity about what that $4.30 actually buys.

Robert I. Harris 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’s in the price of a gallon of gas? – https://theconversation.com/whats-in-the-price-of-a-gallon-of-gas-281494