Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Josh Ederington, Professor of Economics, Miami University

National economies are increasingly moving in sync and responding to the same booms and busts as a result of near-instantaneous communications and interdependent global supply chains. This is a sharp change from much of the 21st century, when economies were primarily affected by economic shocks in neighboring countries.

That’s what we found in a paper published in the journal Economic Letters, in which we calculated measures of economic correlation using data on gross domestic product for 70 countries over the past 60 years. Along with fellow economic scholars Yoonseon Han and David Lindequist, we found that physical distance was indeed less important than it used to be, particularly with regard to how interconnected countries are to one another.

Specifically, we measured the extent to which countries have found their business cycles — the traditional boom-bust intervals of economic performance — in sync. For example, when there is a positive shock to production in Germany, to what extent does this affect incomes in the United States?

We were interested in whether the relationship between distance and economic correlation has changed over time.

What we found was that from 1960-1999, business cycles were strongly localized. That is, a country’s economy was much more likely to be impacted by shocks to nearby countries than by shocks in faraway countries. For example, the U.S. was more affected by economic conditions in Canada or Mexico than it was to economic conditions in the United Kingdom or South Korea.

This finding is not surprising and fits well with a long economic literature showing that countries are more likely to trade with nearby countries and that the volume of trade between two countries is a significant predictor of how synchronized their business cycles are.

However, we went on to find that this relationship between physical distance and economic correlation started to break down after 2000. Specifically, for the past 20 years, there has been no statistically significant relationship between the geographic distance between two countries and the extent to which incomes in the two countries move together — what economists refer to as their economic covariance.

Why it matters

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a number of economists, including Frances Cairncross and Thomas Friedman, popularized the idea that new technologies like the internet and containerization had led to the death of distance, in which our new lives would be increasingly globalized. They imagined a future in which these new technologies not only impacted how goods were produced — like global supply chains — but also how we work and live.

Such theories were met with some skepticism by trade researchers at the time, and not all of the predictions have come true. For example, the link between distance and trade flows has proved stubbornly persistent. Even today, the top-two trading partners of the U.S. remain Canada and Mexico. And one only has to look at housing prices in major urban centers in the U.S. to see that physical location remains highly valued to most people.

However, our research suggests that at least some of the popular predictions about the globalized economy might be coming true. For instance, the world economy appears to have made countries increasingly susceptible to global, as opposed to localized, shocks.

This was made devastatingly clear to millions of people during the pandemic, when supply chain bottlenecks reverberated across the globe, subsequently generating a worldwide rise in prices. As a result, U.S. economic and trade policy discussions have been increasingly focused on potential vulnerabilities to foreign shocks. Indeed, a new buzzword during the Biden administration was “supply chain resiliance.”

What still isn’t known

Our work provides evidence that business cycles and economic shocks have become more globalized over the past couple of decades. Many of the main economic events from 1960-2000 – like the 1980s savings and loan crisis or the 1997 Asian currency crisis – had primarily localized effects. But more recently, the principal economic events of the past two decades — like the 2008 financial crisis — have had far more global implications.

What we don’t know is whether this pattern will continue, resulting in a new era in which most of the world’s economies move in tandem. Or will a new turn toward economic nationalism lead to a reversal in which economies – and economic shocks – become more localized once again?

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

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

– ref. Has globalization lessened the importance of physical distance? For economic shocks, new research suggests ‘yes’ – https://theconversation.com/has-globalization-lessened-the-importance-of-physical-distance-for-economic-shocks-new-research-suggests-yes-272213

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jack Buffington, Associate Professor of Practice in Supply Chain Management, University of Denver

Grocery prices have risen by 25% in Colorado over the past five years, more than wages have grown over that same period.

One of the top issues facing Americans is the cost of living relative to housing, health care and food, according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey from December 2025.

Food prices are a more acute problem in Colorado than in many U.S. states due to a highly concentrated retail and supply chain system. King Soopers, which is part of Kroger, and Walmart control nearly half of the total market share. Safeway/Albertsons is losing market share and closing stores, Costco and Sam’s Club are limited, members-only warehouses, and the remaining stores are niche providers and small independents.

Other than raising concerns about food prices with politicians, consumers can’t do much to address this kitchen table topic.

But food shoppers in Colorado are about to get a new option. Grocery store giant Aldi announced that 50 stores and a distribution center will be built in the state over the next five years.

Opportunity for market disruption

It’s true that Aldi’s 50 stores will barely make a dent in a state with well over 1,000 places to buy groceries. But when entering a market, Aldi doesn’t try to compete head-to-head against the giants. Nationwide, it controls just 3% of market share versus Walmart’s 21% and Kroger’s 9%. Instead, Aldi enters a market as a lowest-cost retailer, something that is desperately needed in Colorado.

I spent 20 years in the food industry and research the supply chain.

From my experience, I’ve seen retailers consolidate their market share by lowering prices – only to raise those prices again once the competition has gone out of business. Quite possibly, Aldi’s supply chain strategy is the greatest opportunity to disrupt the stagnation in Colorado’s food market and create positive change for consumers.

Competition in Colorado

Making Colorado’s grocery market more competitive isn’t as simple as adding new stores. There’s a chicken-and-egg, no pun intended, conundrum between retailers and the food supply chain, leading to a lack of healthy market competition.

Colorado isn’t a particularly attractive market for food supply chains because it lies in the sparsely populated and remote Mountain West region, and other than beef, it isn’t a significant food producer. The state is largely a food importer. Its vegetables come from California, Arizona and Mexico, processed meats from Nebraska, Kansas and Texas, and packaged foods from the Midwest.

Colorado has a stable retail market through the two largest grocery chains in the U.S. – Kroger and Walmart – but the state does not offer an attractive opportunity for new entrants or even those existing players. Walmart, for example, has a lower market share of 11% in Colorado than its average U.S. share of 21%. These two companies have little incentive to compete by bringing costs down for Colorado’s consumers.

The grocer market was weakened in 2024 in Colorado and other parts of the U.S. due to a failed merger attempt between Kroger and Safeway/Albertsons. The merger, blocked by a federal court, left these companies in a no-man’s-land in the American food system: not large or efficient enough to compete against Walmart, and not nimble and focused enough to compete against the new upstarts, such as Trader Joe’s and Aldi.

Aldi to upset the market

Nontraditional supermarkets, such as Walmart and Aldi, pose an existential threat to the traditional American supermarket. Nontraditional supermarkets hold 63% of U.S. market share versus 37% for traditional.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for the traditional American supermarket, such as King Soopers, to compete with nontraditional stores that operate on razor-thin margins, pay higher wages and operate massive stores that offer a huge selection of offerings, such as 100 kinds of salad dressing.

In the face of the new realities of higher food costs, I believe that only Walmart can survive in this supercenter model. The alternative is a trend toward smaller, more nimble stores with lower costs and a smaller number of products.

Aldi’s arrival in Colorado may be the necessary catalyst for disruption. It has the lowest costs – and the lowest profit margins – of any grocery retailer in the U.S. Aldi mainly operates relatively small stores, which means it has lower overhead and sells fewer products than many of its competitors. The key to its low-cost strategy is that nearly all of its product lines are private label. They are produced by a manufacturer and sold under Aldi’s brand name, lowering marketing costs.

Aldi announced plans to build a distribution center in Aurora, Colorado, by 2029. The new center will join ones owned by Walmart and Kroger, creating a more robust, local food supply chain infrastructure that is necessary for lower food prices.

Supply chain innovation coming to Colorado

Americans spend 10% of their income on food, one of the lowest rates worldwide, but many feel like they are becoming less able to afford the groceries they need.

In Colorado, food insecurity affects 1 in 8 people. Rural areas of the state and pockets within cities have become food deserts where the largest supermarkets choose not to enter.

Aldi’s smaller stores, private label products and Colorado-based supply chain system could have a ripple effect on retailers in low-income areas where Dollar Tree and regional independents currently dominate. A stronger emphasis on nimble and efficient food supply chains in places with many supermarkets will inevitably spill into underserved communities with very few or none at all. It’s even possible that this could improve food affordability and accessibility across the state.

Jack Buffington 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. Aldi is coming to Colorado, and the disruption could lead to lower food prices – https://theconversation.com/aldi-is-coming-to-colorado-and-the-disruption-could-lead-to-lower-food-prices-274186

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Frédéric Dimanche, Professor and former Director (2015-2025), Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Toronto Metropolitan University

With an upcoming FIFA World Cup being staged across the nation, 2026 was supposed to be a bumper year for tourism to the United States, driven in part by hordes of arriving soccer fans.

And yet, the U.S. tourism industry is worried. While the rest of the world saw a travel bump in 2025, with global international arrivals up 4%, the U.S. saw a downturn. The number of foreign tourists who came to the United States fell by 5.4% during the year – a sharper decline than the one experienced in 2017-18, the last time, outside the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, that the industry was gripped by fears of a travel slump.

Policy stances from the Trump administration on everything from immigration to tariffs, along with currency swings and stricter border controls, have seemingly proved a turnoff to travelers from other countries, especially Canadians – the single largest source of foreign tourists for the United States. Canadian travel to the U.S. fell by close to 30% in 2025. But it is not just visitors from Canada who are choosing to avoid the United States. Travel from Australia, India and Western Europe, among others, has also shrunk.

We are experts in tourism. And while we don’t possess a crystal ball, we believe that the tourism decline of 2025 could well continue through 2026. The evidence appears clear: Washington’s ongoing policies are putting off would-be travelers. In other words, the tourism industry is in the midst of a “Trump slump.”

Fewer Canadians heading south

The impact of Donald Trump’s policies are perhaps most pronounced when looking north of the U.S. border. According to the U.S. Travel Association, Canadian visitors generated approximately 20.4 million visits and roughly US$20.5 billion in visitor spending in 2024, supporting about 140,000 American jobs.

The economic impact of fewer Canadian visitors in 2025 affects mostly border states that depend heavily on people driving across the border for retail, restaurants, casinos and short-stay hotels.

The sharp drop in return trips by car to Canada is a direct indication that border economies might be facing stress. This has led elected officials and tourism professionals to woo Canadians in recent months, sometimes with “Canadian-only deals.”

And it isn’t just border states. In Las Vegas, some hotels are now offering currency rate parity between Canadian and U.S. dollars for rooms and gambling vouchers in a bid to attract customers.

Winter-sun states, such as Florida, Arizona and California, are facing both fewer short-stay arrivals and an emerging drop-off in Canadian “snowbirds.” Reports indicate a noticeable increase in Canadians listing U.S. properties in Florida and Arizona for sale and canceling seasonal plans, threatening lodging, health care spending and property tax revenue.

Economic and safety concerns

Economic policies pursued by the Trump administration appear to be among the main reasons visitors are staying away from the U.S. Multiple tariff announcements – pushing tariffs to the highest levels since 1935 – along with tougher border-related rhetoric and an aggressive foreign policy have contributed to a negative perception of the U.S. among would-be tourists.

Many foreigners report feeling unwelcome or uncertain about travel to the U.S., and some public leaders from Canada and Europe have urged citizens to spend domestically, instead. This significantly reduced intent to travel to the U.S. in 2025.

Meanwhile, exchange rates and inflation have further affected some aspiring travelers, especially Canadians. The Canadian dollar was weakened in 2025, making U.S. trips more expensive. This disproportionately affected day-trip and shopping-driven border crossings.

Travelers are also staying away from the U.S. because of safety concerns. Several countries have posted travel advisories about the risks of traveling to the U.S., with Germany being the latest. Although most worries are related to increased border controls, recent aggressive tactics by immigration agents have added to potential visitors’ decisions to avoid the U.S.

A wake-up call for the US

The current tourism outlook is reason for concern. Julia Simpson, president and CEO of the industry association World Travel and Tourism Council, has described the situation as a “wake-up call” for the U.S. government.

“The world’s biggest travel and tourism economy is heading in the wrong direction,” she said in May 2025. “While other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the U.S. government is putting up the ‘closed’ sign.”

According to estimates, the U.S. stood to lose about $30 billion in international tourism in 2025 as travelers chose to travel elsewhere.

The disappointing figures for U.S. tourism follow a longer trend. The share of global international travel heading to the U.S. fell from 8.4% in 1996 to 4.9% in 2024 and was expected to drop to 4.8% in 2025. Meanwhile, arrivals to other top tourism destinations, including France, Greece, Mexico and Italy, are set to increase.

The decline is also being felt by the business tourism sector, with every major global region sending fewer people to the U.S. for work.

A World Cup bump?

So what does that mean for the upcoming FIFA World Cup, with 75% of the soccer matches being hosted across the United States? Traditionally, host nations benefit from sports events, although impacts are often overestimated. After a disappointing year, the U.S. tourism sector expects the World Cup to boost visits and revenue.

But Trump’s foreign policy may undermine those expectations.

A new visa integrity fee of $250 and plans for social media screening of some visitors make travel to the U.S. less attractive. And there are growing calls for a boycott of the U.S. following some of Trump’s policies, including his aggressive stance about Greenland.

Former FIFA President Sepp Blatter has suggested that fans avoid going to the U.S. for the World Cup.

It remains to be seen whether fans will follow his call. Bookings for flights and hotels were up after the dates and venues of games were announced in December.

But current political rhetoric is affecting travel decisions, especially given that fans from some specific countries may not be able to get visas. The U.S. government has imposed travel bans on Senegal, Ivory Coast, Iran and Haiti, all of which have qualified for the World Cup.

European soccer leaders have even discussed the possibility of a boycott, although such an action is unlikely to happen, given the revenue at stake for national teams and football associations.

Will the ‘Trump slump’ continue?

White House policies look unlikely to drastically change in the next few months. And this causes concern for tourism professionals, although most have remained silent about the recent immigration crackdown.

To make matters worse, federal funding for Brand USA, the national destination marketing organization, was cut deeply in mid-2025, leading to staff shortages that have reduced the country’s capacity to counter negative sentiment through positive promotion.

Soccer fans tend to be passionate about following their national side. And this could offset some of the impact of the Trump travel slump.

Yet, with sky-high match ticket prices and the international reputation of the U.S. as a tourism destination damaged, we believe it is unlikely that the tourism industry will recover in 2026. It will take a long time and good strategies to repair the serious damage done to the nation’s image among travelers in the rest of the world.

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

– ref. Will a ‘Trump slump’ continue to hit US tourism in 2026 − and even keep World Cup fans away? – https://theconversation.com/will-a-trump-slump-continue-to-hit-us-tourism-in-2026-and-even-keep-world-cup-fans-away-274244

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Emily Messina, Associate Professor of Rehabilitation and Recreational Therapy, Florida International University

What do collecting old editions of Dungeons & Dragons monster manuals, securing the same tailgate spot for over 20 years and mastering yoga postures have in common? They are all forms of “serious leisure.”

These pursuits are different from casual hobbies in several ways. They require participation over longer periods, which makes people who practice them more skilled and more connected with the activity over time. The driving force for casual leisure is having fun; when a participant becomes more focused on accomplishment and improving their skills, the pursuit can gradually become more serious.

I direct the Rehabilitation and Recreational Therapy Program at Florida International University. In my research, I study leisure pursuits and various contexts for serious leisure, with a focus on the tabletop role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons.

I also work in recreational therapy, which helps people recover and return to their pursuits after injury or illness. The approach we use can work as well for someone starting out with a new hobby.

The idea of serious leisure was coined in 1982 by sociologist Robert Stebbins, who described the unique characteristics of more structured leisure pursuits. The more we understand about why people do the things they do, the more they can benefit from their pursuits. Even fringe or supposedly nerdy activities like D&D offer insight into the connections people form when they delve into a nonwork activity.

Why so serious?

People often associate leisure with ease and freedom. In contrast, serious leisure involves pursuing something for a long time and gradually developing the skills and knowledge required to excel at it. People have to push through barriers or setbacks to stay engaged and make progress.

Over time, participants come to identify with the activity and to feel included in a subculture that has its own norms and values. In my work, that sometimes means developing elaborate characters who can battle beasts, dragons and giants.

Dungeons & Dragons, which was developed in 1974, is a long-form game that takes place in multiple sessions that can last weeks, months or years. A Dungeon Master moderates the game and assumes the role of all monsters and non-player characters.

The Dungeon Master narrates an adventure, aided by a Dungeon Master’s Guide and Monster Manual. Players create characters that possess certain traits and qualities. The outcomes of battles, decisions and interactions are determined by dice rolls.

My study included convening focus groups with regular D&D players to determine whether their experiences playing the game represented serious leisure, as opposed to casual leisure associated with traditional board games.

Players described developing their characters for years and acquiring knowledge and skills. They learned how magical items and weapons worked, made calculations and researched their character sheets. All of these practices are attributes of a uniquely D&D subculture.

Participants also described the benefits they received from playing the game. For many of them, D&D offered a sense of community. It also was a safe space and a welcoming activity for those who might feel excluded by traditional leisure pursuits, such as sports and competitive games.

From yoga to tailgating

Prior studies have identified many other activities that can qualify as serious leisure, depending on the level of engagement. Some are in-person physical activities like yoga, sport clubs and rock climbing. Others include online pursuits like multiplayer online games and a virtual Harry Potter running club where members share running stories and experiences keyed to Harry Potter-themed discussion topics, such as logging miles in virtual races for their specific Hogwarts houses. Studies have explored game-based pursuits like tournament bridge, and even the social art of tailgating among serious football fans.

In each case, researchers found that participants experienced hallmarks of serious leisure. For example, participants in multiplayer online games describe prolonged immersion in the activity. Yoga students pursued systematic training and skill development. And maniacally devoted Florida Gators fans scheduled family events around football season.

In all cases, participants became increasingly involved over time, acquired knowledge and skills, and often forged shared identities and social connections.

Are you serious?

How do you know if your favorite leisure pursuit has gotten serious? One indication could be spending a lot of time on it and expanding your related knowledge or skills. You may also personally identify with the activity and its associated norms or subculture. Perhaps you’re increasingly spending time with other participants, and even using shared lingo.

Ideally, your serious leisure pursuit will give you pride and a sense of accomplishment. Belonging to a shared subculture can make it easier to express yourself, which promotes social interaction and a feeling of belonging.

These benefits aren’t trivial. Studies show that Americans’ social networks are getting smaller and that people are spending more time alone. These trends are associated with increased risks for premature death, heart disease and stroke, anxiety and depression, and dementia. In 2023, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory on the loneliness epidemic that called for a national strategy to advance social connection.

Leisure pursuits are a way to develop shared interests and social contacts. For example, dedicated bridge players describe a social world unique to champion-level players that involves hierarchies and relationships spanning decades. Serious participants in multiplayer online games describe feeling like part of a team and working together to share materials, skills and knowledge to help win challenges and battles. And serious football fans describe rites of passage associated with fandom, such as a solo performance of the team fight song on the tailgate of a truck.

How to start

Serious leisure doesn’t happen instantly, and not every practice needs to reach this level of commitment. Casual leisure has benefits too, so there is value in just getting started. But when a beginner gets obsessed with a new pursuit, it may start to take on the qualities of serious leisure over time.

Starting a new hobby can be nerve-racking, especially when it takes place outside of our familiar home environments. Start small, go easy and match the level of challenge with your skill. You just may find yourself getting serious about it.

Emily Messina works for Florida International University.

– ref. Whether it’s yoga, rock climbing or Dungeons & Dragons, taking leisure to a high level can be good for your well-being – https://theconversation.com/whether-its-yoga-rock-climbing-or-dungeons-and-dragons-taking-leisure-to-a-high-level-can-be-good-for-your-well-being-268842

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Alla Katsnelson, Associate Health Editor, The Conversation

The measles outbreak in South Carolina reached 876 cases on Feb. 3, 2026. That number surpasses the 2025 outbreak in Texas and hits the unfortunate milestone of being the largest outbreak in the U.S. since 2000, when the disease was declared eliminated here.

The outbreak is exposing the breadth of dangers the disease can pose. South Carolina’s state epidemiologist revealed on Feb. 4 that cases of brain swelling, a rare complication of the disease, had emerged in some infected children, according to Wired magazine.

Some signs suggest that this particular outbreak may be starting to wane. But many public health scholars worry that the resurgence of measles across the U.S. and worldwide, driven by a drop in vaccination rates, may signal a coming wave of other vaccine-preventable diseases

The Conversation U.S. compiled a set of five stories from our archives to help readers gauge both practical considerations around vaccination and the bigger picture of what the return of measles might mean for public health.

1. A measles vaccine primer

Measles is one of the most contagious human diseases on the planet – much more contagious than more familiar infectious illnesses such as flu, COVID-19 and chickenpox. But the vaccine, which is given as a two-dose regimen, is 97% effective in preventing measles infection, wrote Daniel Pastula, a neurologist and medical epidemiologist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

Most people born after 1957 have received the vaccine as children. A striking – though unsurprising – feature of the South Carolina outbreak is that at least 800 of the reported cases occurred in people who weren’t vaccinated.

For those worried about the risks and wondering how to protect themselves, Pastula offered some essential practical guidance.

“The immunity from a vaccine is effectively the same immunity you get from having measles itself – but vastly safer than encountering the wild virus unprotected,” Pastula explained. “The point of vaccines is to create immunity without the risks of severe infection. It is basically a dress rehearsal for the real thing.”

---

Read more:
Measles cases are on the rise − here’s how to make sure you’re protected

---

2. Long-term consequences

Most people who contract measles will experience 10-14 days of a high fever, cold-like symptoms, eye inflammation and a rash that starts on the face and spreads across the body. Because the infection usually resolves on its own, it’s easy to dismiss the fact that it can have severe consequences.

“What generally lands people with measles in the hospital is the disease’s effects on the lungs,” wrote Peter Kasson, a biologist studying viruses at the Georgia Institute of Technology, in an article explaining the near- and long-term risks of infection.

Perhaps the most terrifying is a condition called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE, in which the virus lies dormant in the brain of someone who recovered from a measles infection and reawakens 7-10 years later to cause “a progressive dementia that is almost always fatal,” Kasson wrote.

This outcome is rare, but it does happen. The Los Angeles County public health department reported a case in September 2025.

---

Read more:
Measles can ravage the immune system and brain, causing long-term damage – a virologist explains

---

3. What’s at stake

A common adage in public health is that vaccines are often victims of their own success. That’s particularly true for the measles vaccine – because it’s so effective, many doctors and nurses practicing today have never seen a case.

Infectious disease pediatrician Rebecca Schein at Michigan State University explored recent modeling studies that predict the trajectory of measles infection rates. One 2025 study she described found that the U.S. is on track to see 850,000 cases over the next 25 years at current vaccination rates.

“If vaccine rates decrease further, the study found, case numbers could increase to 11 million over the next 25 years,” she wrote.

That scenario is not a foregone conclusion, of course. Another study suggested that outbreaks could be contained if they’re stopped quickly – as long as 85% of the population is vaccinated against the disease.

---

Read more:
Measles could again become widespread as cases surge worldwide

---

4. Why do some parents opt out of vaccines?

Much ink, digital and otherwise, has been spilled discussing the rise of vaccine hesitancy in the U.S. and globally. But a safe assumption is that parents the world over want the same thing: to keep their children as healthy as possible.

To explain how parents might reasonably weigh the risks posed by vaccines and the risks posed by a disease like measles and decide not to vaccinate, public policy expert Y. Tony Yang and health economist Avi Dor at George Washington University invoked a mathematical framework called “game theory”.

“Game theory reveals that vaccine hesitancy is not a moral failure, but simply the predictable outcome of a system in which individual and collective incentives aren’t properly aligned,” they wrote.

---

Read more:
Game theory explains why reasonable parents make vaccine choices that fuel outbreaks

---

5. Measles-free status

Measles is said to be eliminated from a country after at least 12 months in which there’s minimal spread of the disease internally and only small outbreaks linked to international travel.

The World Health Organization announced on Jan. 26 that the U.K. and five other European countries lost their measles elimination status, according to Reuters. And the organization’s Pan American office issued an alert on Feb. 3, noting the alarming spread of the disease across North, Central and South America.

In November 2025, when Canada lost its measles elimination status, global health epidemiologist Kathryn H. Jacobsen at the University of Richmond noted that the U.S. will likely lose it in 2026, along with Mexico.

Jacobsen explained why this designation is so important for public health.

“The loss of measles elimination status is a symptom of a deeper issue: declining trust in public messaging about science and health, which has led to decreased vaccination rates and growing vulnerability to vaccine-preventable diseases,” she wrote.

---

Read more:
Canada loses its official ‘measles-free’ status – and the US will follow soon, as vaccination rates fall

---

This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

– ref. US experiencing largest measles outbreak since 2000 – 5 essential reads on the risks, what to do and what’s coming next – https://theconversation.com/us-experiencing-largest-measles-outbreak-since-2000-5-essential-reads-on-the-risks-what-to-do-and-whats-coming-next-275164

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Naomi Cahn, Professor of Law, University of Virginia

Anti-abortion conservatives have long sought to force Planned Parenthood’s clinics to close their doors and to make it harder, if not impossible, to get abortion pills as part of a two-pronged approach to limit access to abortion.

First, undermine Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers by questioning their credibility and block their funding. Second, try to ban mifepristone – a drug used in more than half of all abortions – in part by saying it’s unsafe.

As law professors who teach courses about health, poverty and reproductive rights law, we’re closely watching what’s happening with both strategies. We are particularly interested in how they will affect women’s health care, now that each state can write its own abortion laws.

Attacking Planned Parenthood

Opponents of abortion rights are attacking Planned Parenthood because its clinics perform hundreds of thousands of abortions, in addition to more than 9 million other procedures, every year.

For example, it screens patients for cancer, provides contraceptive care, tests people for sexually transmitted infections, conducts pregnancy tests and offers prenatal services. Abortions account for only 4% of all of Planned Parenthood’s services.

Conservative-led states are taking aim at the nonprofit with both litigation and legislation.

For example, the attorneys general of Missouri and Florida allege in 2025 lawsuits that Planned Parenthood’s website “lies” about the safety of mifepristone.

Planned Parenthood is not the only nonprofit that is accused of deceiving the public that way. In December 2025, the South Dakota attorney general sued Mayday Health, a reproductive health education nonprofit, alleging that its advertising in South Dakota violated a state law that bans “deceptive practices.”

In late January, after Mayday countersued in a federal court in New York, that court temporarily blocked South Dakota’s actions.

Other states are taking similar steps. Kentucky, which, like South Dakota, has a nearly complete ban on abortion, is investigating the legality of ads that Mayday Health posts at gas stations. The ads tell women how they can get help obtaining an abortion.

Undermining funding

Meanwhile, state and federal efforts to reduce Planned Parenthood’s funding are making headway.

In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic in favor of South Carolina’s attempt to bar its Medicaid program from reimbursing Planned Parenthood for health care services. That decision made it clear that any state may deny Medicaid funding for care provided by organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, that perform abortions.

Medicaid, the U.S. government’s health insurance program that primarily covers low-income people, is jointly funded by federal and state governments. About 1 in 10 women of reproductive age who received family planning services and are enrolled in Medicaid relied on Planned Parenthood’s services in 2021.
EG: Is it more accurate to say “… who in 2021 received family planning services and WERE enrolled in Medicaid relied on Planned Parenthood’s services”?

Under what’s known as the Hyde Amendment, federal Medicaid dollars may not be used to pay for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. States are free to use their own Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions, and some do so.

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, Congress passed a measure prohibiting federal Medicaid dollars from going to any clinics that perform abortions – such as Planned Parenthood.

The provision, which bars reimbursement for all services, including those unrelated to abortion, was in the big tax-and-spending package that President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025. The defunding measure went into effect immediately, for one year, and applies to the whole country.

The provision is supposed to end in July 2026.

Due in part to the financial pressure that measure caused, Planned Parenthood says that dozens of its clinics around the country closed in 2025.

Planned Parenthood, as well as 22 states and Washington, D.C., challenged this provision in two lawsuits in a Massachusetts federal court.

The court granted Planned Parenthood’s request to dismiss its case in January 2026. The other case, brought by the states and Washington, D.C.’s local government, is still pending.

Trying to discredit mifepristone’s safety

Efforts to designate mifepristone as a dangerous drug began before the Food and Drug Administration approved its use in 2000. Abortion opponents have stepped up that campaign since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling in 2022.

That same year, a group of doctors and medical associations opposed to abortion challenged the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and the guidelines governing its prescription.

In essence, they claimed that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating the drug’s safety, although it has been used by millions of people for more than 20 years. Several prominent medical associations, citing hundreds of peer-reviewed clinical studies and decades of evidence-based research, assert that the drug is “conclusively safe.”

Many studies have found that mifepristone is as safe as ibuprofen and safer than Viagra.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit because the doctors did not have standing. That is, the physicians couldn’t show that they faced any clear and concrete harms from the FDA’s actions making mifepristone more widely available.

Arguing that the FDA made a mistake

But in 2024, the Missouri, Kansas and Idaho state governments were allowed to join the lawsuit, after they argued that they had standing.

The three states similarly claimed that the FDA acted improperly in 2016 as well as later, when it loosened the regulations around mifepristone, including allowing it to be prescribed via telehealth or mailed to patients.

While their case works its way through the courts, other states are questioning the FDA’s treatment of the drug.

In late 2024, Louisiana classified abortion pills as controlled substances, restricting their use more tightly than the FDA. In October 2025, the state went further, challenging the FDA’s loosened regulations, including its elimination of requirements that the pill be dispensed in person.

And in early December, Florida and Texas sued the FDA. Those states argue that its approval and regulation of mifepristone violated several federal laws, including one that gives the FDA authority to regulate drugs.

Revisiting safety findings

There are also regulatory threats to mifepristone’s availability because the Trump administration is reconsidering evidence regarding the drug’s safety.

In September 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the FDA would conduct “its own review of the evidence,” including the drug’s “real-world outcomes and evidence, relating to the safety and efficacy.”

Kennedy referenced a report cited by 22 Republican state attorneys general that, according to Kennedy, indicates “potential dangers that may attend offering mifepristone without sufficient medical support or supervision.”

The report has not been peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal. Many experts describe it as “junk science.”

If the FDA were to find mifepristone unsafe or to further restrict how it’s prescribed, this could make it harder to get an abortion. While misoprostol, which is commonly prescribed for ulcer prevention, can be used alone for abortions, it is less effective and less safe than when it’s used in combination with mifepristone.

What happens next might take a while. Some efforts to end access to mifepristone appear to be on hold – for political rather than legal reasons.

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary told the officials working in his agency in December 2025 to delay their review of data concerning the safety of mifepristone “until after the midterm elections” in November 2026.

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

– ref. Federal and state authorities are taking a 2-pronged approach to make it harder to get an abortion – https://theconversation.com/federal-and-state-authorities-are-taking-a-2-pronged-approach-to-make-it-harder-to-get-an-abortion-271378

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Shyam Bansal, Associate Professor of Medicine, Penn State

Around 64 million people worldwide suffer from heart failure, and nearly half die within the first five years of diagnosis due to a lack of effective treatments to stop the disease from getting worse.

Heart failure occurs when the heart’s ability to pump blood drops to less than 40%. Most available treatments tend to focus on reducing the effort necessary for the heart to pump blood, rather than tackling the underlying causes of the disease. This is mostly because researchers still don’t know what causes heart failure and what makes it worsen with time.

Turns out the immune system, the body’s protection against infection and disease, may be responsible for worsening heart failure.

T cells heal and harm

For the past 13 years, I have been studying how the T cells of the immune system behave during heart failure.

T cells help the body heal from injuries and fight infections. They do this by making proteins called anti-inflammatory cytokines that help wounds close, and recruiting or modifying other immune cells that kill invading pathogens.

However, when T cells are mistakenly activated against the body’s own cells, it can cause autoimmune diseases. For example, Type 1 diabetes is caused by T cells attacking pancreatic cells, and psoriasis occurs when T cells are activated against skin cells.

T cells and heart failure

If T cells can help heal things like wounds on the skin, why are they unable to heal the heart? My team and I have been working to answer this question.

In initial studies in mice, we found that a type of immune cell called helper T cells makes proteins called pro-inflammatory cytokines that induce more damage to the heart during heart failure, making the disease worse.

In our latest research, we have been studying failing hearts obtained from patients receiving a transplant or an artificial pump. We found that T cells remain active in failing hearts and also turn on pro-inflammatory proteins that worsen heart damage instead of healing the heart.

We also found that the proteins within T cells of failing hearts are similar to proteins seen in T cells involved in autoimmune diseases. These parallels suggest that heart failure induces T cells to behave similarly to those in autoimmune disease rather than those that heal injuries.

Heart failure and autoimmunity

How T cells are activated in the heart might contribute to the worsening heart damage that results in slow and sustained disease progression.

While the underlying mechanisms behind heart failure remain elusive, our findings suggest that viewing heart failure as an autoimmune condition could help lead to new treatments.

Further research on how to stop T cells from damaging the heart could provide a way to stop heart failure from worsening and save the lives of millions of patients.

Shyam Bansal receives funding from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association and the W.W. Smith Charitable Trust. He is a member of the American Heart Association and the Society for South Asian Heart Research.

– ref. Overactive immune cells can worsen heart failure – targeting them could offer new treatments – https://theconversation.com/overactive-immune-cells-can-worsen-heart-failure-targeting-them-could-offer-new-treatments-273551

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bruce Schneier, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

In 2023, the science fiction literary magazine Clarkesworld stopped accepting new submissions because so many were generated by artificial intelligence. Near as the editors could tell, many submitters pasted the magazine’s detailed story guidelines into an AI and sent in the results. And they weren’t alone. Other fiction magazines have also reported a high number of AI-generated submissions.

This is only one example of a ubiquitous trend. A legacy system relied on the difficulty of writing and cognition to limit volume. Generative AI overwhelms the system because the humans on the receiving end can’t keep up.

This is happening everywhere. Newspapers are being inundated by AI-generated letters to the editor, as are academic journals. Lawmakers are inundated with AI-generated constituent comments. Courts around the world are flooded with AI-generated filings, particularly by people representing themselves. AI conferences are flooded with AI-generated research papers. Social media is flooded with AI posts. In music, open source software, education, investigative journalism and hiring, it’s the same story.

Like Clarkesworld’s initial response, some of these institutions shut down their submissions processes. Others have met the offensive of AI inputs with some defensive response, often involving a counteracting use of AI. Academic peer reviewers increasingly use AI to evaluate papers that may have been generated by AI. Social media platforms turn to AI moderators. Court systems use AI to triage and process litigation volumes supercharged by AI. Employers turn to AI tools to review candidate applications. Educators use AI not just to grade papers and administer exams, but as a feedback tool for students.

These are all arms races: rapid, adversarial iteration to apply a common technology to opposing purposes. Many of these arms races have clearly deleterious effects. Society suffers if the courts are clogged with frivolous, AI-manufactured cases. There is also harm if the established measures of academic performance – publications and citations – accrue to those researchers most willing to fraudulently submit AI-written letters and papers rather than to those whose ideas have the most impact. The fear is that, in the end, fraudulent behavior enabled by AI will undermine systems and institutions that society relies on.

Upsides of AI

Yet some of these AI arms races have surprising hidden upsides, and the hope is that at least some institutions will be able to change in ways that make them stronger.

Science seems likely to become stronger thanks to AI, yet it faces a problem when the AI makes mistakes. Consider the example of nonsensical, AI-generated phrasing filtering into scientific papers.

A scientist using an AI to assist in writing an academic paper can be a good thing, if used carefully and with disclosure. AI is increasingly a primary tool in scientific research: for reviewing literature, programming and for coding and analyzing data. And for many, it has become a crucial support for expression and scientific communication. Pre-AI, better-funded researchers could hire humans to help them write their academic papers. For many authors whose primary language is not English, hiring this kind of assistance has been an expensive necessity. AI provides it to everyone.

In fiction, fraudulently submitted AI-generated works cause harm, both to the human authors now subject to increased competition and to those readers who may feel defrauded after unknowingly reading the work of a machine. But some outlets may welcome AI-assisted submissions with appropriate disclosure and under particular guidelines, and leverage AI to evaluate them against criteria like originality, fit and quality.

Others may refuse AI-generated work, but this will come at a cost. It’s unlikely that any human editor or technology can sustain an ability to differentiate human from machine writing. Instead, outlets that wish to exclusively publish humans will need to limit submissions to a set of authors they trust to not use AI. If these policies are transparent, readers can pick the format they prefer and read happily from either or both types of outlets.

We also don’t see any problem if a job seeker uses AI to polish their resumes or write better cover letters: The wealthy and privileged have long had access to human assistance for those things. But it crosses the line when AIs are used to lie about identity and experience, or to cheat on job interviews.

Similarly, a democracy requires that its citizens be able to express their opinions to their representatives, or to each other through a medium like the newspaper. The rich and powerful have long been able to hire writers to turn their ideas into persuasive prose, and AIs providing that assistance to more people is a good thing, in our view. Here, AI mistakes and bias can be harmful. Citizens may be using AI for more than just a time-saving shortcut; it may be augmenting their knowledge and capabilities, generating statements about historical, legal or policy factors they can’t reasonably be expected to independently check.

Fraud booster

What we don’t want is for lobbyists to use AIs in astroturf campaigns, writing multiple letters and passing them off as individual opinions. This, too, is an older problem that AIs are making worse.

What differentiates the positive from the negative here is not any inherent aspect of the technology, it’s the power dynamic. The same technology that reduces the effort required for a citizen to share their lived experience with their legislator also enables corporate interests to misrepresent the public at scale. The former is a power-equalizing application of AI that enhances participatory democracy; the latter is a power-concentrating application that threatens it.

In general, we believe writing and cognitive assistance, long available to the rich and powerful, should be available to everyone. The problem comes when AIs make fraud easier. Any response needs to balance embracing that newfound democratization of access with preventing fraud.

There’s no way to turn this technology off. Highly capable AIs are widely available and can run on a laptop. Ethical guidelines and clear professional boundaries can help – for those acting in good faith. But there won’t ever be a way to totally stop academic writers, job seekers or citizens from using these tools, either as legitimate assistance or to commit fraud. This means more comments, more letters, more applications, more submissions.

The problem is that whoever is on the receiving end of this AI-fueled deluge can’t deal with the increased volume. What can help is developing assistive AI tools that benefit institutions and society, while also limiting fraud. And that may mean embracing the use of AI assistance in these adversarial systems, even though the defensive AI will never achieve supremacy.

Balancing harms with benefits

The science fiction community has been wrestling with AI since 2023. Clarkesworld eventually reopened submissions, claiming that it has an adequate way of separating human- and AI-written stories. No one knows how long, or how well, that will continue to work.

The arms race continues. There is no simple way to tell whether the potential benefits of AI will outweigh the harms, now or in the future. But as a society, we can influence the balance of harms it wreaks and opportunities it presents as we muddle our way through the changing technological landscape.

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

– ref. AI-generated text is overwhelming institutions – setting off a no-win ‘arms race’ with AI detectors – https://theconversation.com/ai-generated-text-is-overwhelming-institutions-setting-off-a-no-win-arms-race-with-ai-detectors-274720

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael J. Socolow, Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine

On Dec. 26, 1926, 16,000 hockey fans packed Madison Square Garden to witness the birth of a rivalry between the New York Americans and the brand-new New York Rangers. The game would later be remembered for establishing a foundation of popularity for the sport in New York City.

The only American playing for the Rangers that night also happened to be the largest player in the history of the NHL up to that point, defenseman Clarence “Taffy” Abel.

Standing over 6 feet tall and weighing 225 pounds, Abel was a brutal behemoth on the ice. Yet off the ice, he was a quiet, personable man who charmed sportswriters.

Despite being a foundational figure in American hockey – an Olympic silver medalist and a two-time Stanley Cup champion – Abel has been largely erased from the national memory. His story is not just one of athletic prowess, but of a secret identity maintained for survival and a career ended by a league that turned against him. As a scholar of Olympic media history, I recognize Abel’s story as an important but overlooked example of how race and labor issues can influence public memory.

Passing as white: Abel’s secret identity

Taffy Abel, who earned his lifelong nickname from his childhood love of candy, was half-Ojibwe, born in 1900 in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. One of Abel’s few surviving relatives, George Jones, a nephew by marriage, recalled that his mother, Charlotte, an Ojibwe woman, encouraged Taffy and his sister to “pass” as white to protect them from the era’s rampant racism and the threat of being sent to an Indian boarding school. Though his heritage remained an open secret in his hometown, Abel maintained his whiteness throughout his hockey career.

His mother died in 1939, and it was only after her death – and years after his retirement – that Abel began to speak openly and proudly of his Indigenous roots. This forced silence is a primary reason his legacy remained obscured; for decades, he was categorized simply as a white American athlete, masking his status as a racial trailblazer.

Pioneer on the ice

Abel’s hockey journey was historic. At the 1924 Chamonix Games – the first official Winter Olympics – he was chosen to carry the U.S. flag during the opening ceremony. He led the American team to a silver medal before being recruited by Conn Smythe for the inaugural New York Rangers roster.

Because of his size, and perhaps also because of his biracial identity, which was likely known to many players in the NHL, Abel was forced to fight often in his rookie year. He led the Rangers with 78 penalty minutes, and soon became famous around the league for his jarring and ferocious checking.

In Abel’s second season playing for the Rangers, the team won the Stanley Cup. He became the first American player to win a medal at the Olympic Games and the Stanley Cup, cementing his legacy as one of the finest hockey players in the world. In 1929, he was traded to the Chicago Black Hawks, where he anchored the defense on a team that won the Stanley Cup in 1934.

Hits the wall

The end of Abel’s career was not dictated by age or injury, but by a stand for labor dignity. After the 1934 championship, he held out for a salary that reflected his value as a star attraction. Black Hawks management responded by insulting him in the press, portraying Abel as an ungrateful prima donna.

Around the league, executives mocked Abel’s weight, telling newspapers that Abel walked out because he wouldn’t respect a team-mandated diet. Abel believed a team would sign him for 1935, but it soon became clear he had become effectively banned from the league due to his advocacy for equitable pay.

He had been a star attraction for the Black Hawks, and despite leading the team to the Stanley Cup in his final game, Abel never played another game in the NHL. At age 34, he returned to Sault Ste. Marie, operated a café and coached youth hockey, quietly fading from the national spotlight.

Complicated reckoning

Only recently has the NHL acknowledged Abel’s Native American heritage. However, his story presents a challenge to the league’s historical narrative. To celebrate Abel as a pioneering person of color requires the NHL to confront its own role in the systemic racism that forced him to hide his identity. Only recently has the league’s longtime, historical ban on nonwhite players – dating from its founding in 1917 – been an open and popular subject of public discussion.

Furthermore, the history is messy. Because Abel passed as white during his playing days, some modern observers find it difficult to reconcile his achievements with those of later pioneers who broke the color barrier more overtly.

Ultimately, Clarence “Taffy” Abel was a resilient path breaker who navigated artificial borders – between the U.S. and Canada, and between white and Indigenous identities. He was a charter member of the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in 1973, and his memory inspired future Indigenous stars like T.J. Oshie.

Yet his name remains largely unknown because, I believe, his life forces a reckoning with a society that dehumanized him. Even Abel’s U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame biography minimizes his heritage, noting “Thought by some to be the first Native American to play in the NHL.”

Abel fought for fair pay, against racism and through physical pain. He died in 1964, but the issues he grappled with – labor exploitation and racial identity – remain at the forefront of the American story today.

Michael J. Socolow 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. Clarence ‘Taffy’ Abel: A pioneering US Olympic hockey star who hid his Indigenous identity to play in the NHL – https://theconversation.com/clarence-taffy-abel-a-pioneering-us-olympic-hockey-star-who-hid-his-indigenous-identity-to-play-in-the-nhl-275144

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian O’Neill, Professor of Practice, International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology

In separate encounters, federal immigration agents in Minneapolis killed Renée Good and Alex Pretti in January 2026.

Shortly after Pretti’s killing, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said he committed an “act of domestic terrorism.” Noem made the same accusation against Good.

But the label “domestic terrorism” is not a generic synonym for the kind of politically charged violence Noem alleged both had committed. U.S. law describes the term as a specific idea: acts dangerous to human life that appear intended to intimidate civilians, pressure government policy or affect government conduct through extreme means. Intent is the hinge.

From my experience managing counterterrorism analysts at the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center, I know the terrorism label – domestic or international – is a judgment applied only after intent and context are assessed. It’s not to be used before an investigation has even begun. Terrorism determinations require analytic discipline, not speed.

Evidence before conclusions

In the first news cycle, investigators may know the crude details of what happened: who fired, who died and roughly what happened. They usually do not know motive with enough confidence to declare that coercive intent – the element that separates terrorism from other serious crimes – is present.

The Congressional Research Service, which provides policy analysis to Congress, makes a related point: While the term “domestic terrorism” is defined in statute, it is not itself a standalone federal offense. That’s part of the reason why public use of the term can outpace legal and investigative reality.

This dynamic – the temptation to close on a narrative before the evidence warrants it – seen most recently in the Homeland Security secretary’s assertions, echoes long-standing insights in intelligence scholarship and formal analytic standards.

Intelligence studies make a simple observation: Analysts and institutions face inherent uncertainty because information is often incomplete, ambiguous and subject to deception.

In response, the U.S. intelligence community codified analytic standards in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The standards emphasize objectivity, independence from political influence, and rigorous articulation of uncertainty. The goal was not to eliminate uncertainty but to bound it with disciplined methods and transparent assumptions.

When narrative outruns evidence

The terrorism label becomes risky when leaders publicly call an incident “domestic terrorism” before they can explain what evidence supports that conclusion. By doing that, they invite two predictable problems.

The first problem is institutional. Once a senior official declares something with categorical certainty, the system can feel pressure – sometimes subtle, sometimes overt – to validate the headline.

In high-profile incidents, the opposite response, institutional caution, is easily seen as evasion – pressure that can drive premature public declarations. Instead of starting with questions – “What do we know?” “What evidence would change our minds?” – investigators, analysts and communicators can find themselves defending a superior’s storyline.

The second problem is public trust. Research has found that the “terrorist” label itself shapes how audiences perceive threat and evaluate responses, apart from the underlying facts. Once the public begins to see the term as a political messaging tool, it may discount future uses of the term – including in cases where the coercive intent truly exists.

Once officials and commentators commit publicly to a version ahead of any assessment of intent and context, confirmation bias – interpreting evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs – and anchoring – heavy reliance on preexisting information – can shape both internal decision-making and public reaction.

The long-term cost of misuse

This is not just a semantic fight among experts. Most people carry a mental file for “terrorism” shaped by mass violence and explicit ideological targeting.

When Americans hear the word “terrorism,” they likely think of 9/11, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing or high-profile attacks abroad, such as the 2005 London bombings and December 2025 antisemitic attack in Sydney, where intent was clear.

By contrast, the more common U.S. experience of violence – shootings, assaults and chaotic confrontations with law enforcement – is typically treated by investigators, and understood by the public, as homicide or targeted violence until motive is established. That public habit reflects a commonsense sequence: First determine what happened, then decide why, then decide how to categorize it.

U.S. federal agencies have published standard definitions and tracking terminology for domestic terrorism, but senior officials’ public statements can outrun investigative reality.

The Minneapolis cases illustrate how fast the damage can occur: Early reporting and documentary material quickly diverged from official accounts. This fed accusations that the narrative was shaped and conclusions made before investigators had gathered the basic facts.

Even though Trump administration officials later distanced themselves from initial claims of domestic terrorism, corrections rarely travel as far as the original assertion. The label sticks, and the public is left to argue over politics rather than evidence.

None of this minimizes the seriousness of violence against officials or the possibility that an incident may ultimately meet a terrorism definition.

The point is discipline. If authorities have evidence of coercive intent – the element that makes “terrorism” distinct – then they would do well to say so and show what can responsibly be shown. If they do not, they could describe the event in ordinary investigative language and let the facts mature.

A “domestic terrorism” label that comes before the facts does not just risk being wrong in one case. It teaches the public, case by case, to treat the term as propaganda rather than diagnosis. When that happens, the category becomes less useful precisely when the country needs clarity most.

Brian O’Neill 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. A terrorism label that comes before the facts can turn ‘domestic terrorism’ into a useless designation – https://theconversation.com/a-terrorism-label-that-comes-before-the-facts-can-turn-domestic-terrorism-into-a-useless-designation-274790