Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on Sept. 25, 2025 – only the second time in history an FBI director has faced criminal charges.

The indictment came just five days after President Donald Trump took to social media to demand that Comey be prosecuted, and three days after Trump installed a former aide as the prosecutor to bring the case.

Legal experts across the political spectrum describe this as an unprecedented political prosecution that breaks fundamental democratic norms and mirrors tactics used by authoritarian leaders worldwide.

As a professor of law, I think Comey’s indictment is momentous because it tests a principle that has protected American democracy for 50 years: Presidents should not direct prosecutors to charge their political enemies.

When leaders can abuse the justice system to target critics and investigators, the rule of law collapses.

An unconstitutional indictment

The evidence of political interference in Comey’s indictment is unusually strong. Trump waged an eight-year vendetta against Comey after the FBI investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

On Sept. 20, Trump posted on Truth Social demanding prosecution: “What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell… We can’t delay any longer… JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

After the indictment, Trump called Comey “one of the worst human beings this country has ever been exposed to.”

The Fifth Amendment protects against vindictive and selective prosecution. To prove vindictive prosecution, a defendant must show through objective evidence that the prosecutor acted with “genuine animus” and that the defendant would not have been prosecuted except for that hostility.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit explained in United States v. Wilson in 2001, the government cannot prosecute someone to punish them “for doing what the law plainly allows him to do.” When circumstances create a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness, the burden shifts to the government to justify its conduct.

After Comey’s indictment, Jordan Rubin, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan D.A.’s office, stated: “If the Trump administration’s prosecution of James Comey isn’t ‘selective’ and ‘vindictive,’ then those words have lost all meaning.”

Additionally, three former White House ethics counsels – Norman Eisen, Richard Painter and Virginia Canter – wrote to Congress after Comey’s indictment, saying that in the U.S. “a president should never order prosecutions of his enemies. That happens in Putin’s Russia, and it has happened in other dictatorships, but not here. Until now.”

They concluded: “If the Trump administration can do this, then no American is safe from political prosecution.”

Broken judicial norms

For 50 years since the Watergate scandal that exposed President Richard Nixon’s abuses of power, American presidents have followed a core principle: They must not interfere in decisions about who gets investigated or charged, especially not for political reasons.

The Justice Department’s manual includes the post-Watergate requirement that legal judgments must be “impartial and insulated from political influence.”

The three former ethics counsels emphasized that during their service, they “never once saw” Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama or Bill Clinton “suggest that the Department of Justice should prosecute a specific person, much less a political adversary.”

Comey was indicted on two counts – one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding, both in connection with his testimony before a Senate committee in September 2020.

The allegations against Comey were reviewed multiple times. Special counsel John Durham examined them during Trump’s first term. Prosecutors with the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., during the Biden administration called Comey to testify before a grand jury about allegedly using his friend Daniel Richman as a conduit to leak information to the press. And career prosecutors in 2025 under former U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert also reviewed the allegations. Everyone declined to charge Comey.

The procedural breakdown reveals how fundamentally this case violates norms.

Career prosecutors wrote a memo in September 2025 stating they could not establish probable cause to charge Comey. When Siebert refused to proceed, Trump removed him and installed Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s former personal defense attorney. She has no prosecutorial experience.

Three days later, Halligan brought the indictment. She signed it alone – no career prosecutors put their names on it, as is usually done. The grand jury rejected one of the three charges prosecutors tried to bring, a rare signal of weak evidence.

Comey’s son-in-law, Troy A. Edwards Jr., a federal prosecutor in the same office where Halligan now works, resigned immediately, stating he was leaving “to uphold my oath to the Constitution.”

Comey was arraigned on Oct. 8 and pleaded not guilty.

Echoes of authoritarians

Prosecuting former law enforcement officials who investigated the country’s leader is not typical of democracies. It is a hallmark tactic of authoritarian rulers seeking to consolidate power.

In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrested his main political rival in March 2025 on corruption charges that critics call politically motivated. Between 2014 and 2020, Erdogan investigated 160,000 Turks for insulting the president and prosecuted 45,000 of them, including a 14-year-old boy. More than 1,400 people were arrested and detained in nationwide protests.

Russia under Vladimir Putin provides the starkest example. Opposition leader Alexei Navalny was poisoned by security services, imprisoned on politically motivated charges and ultimately died in prison in 2024. Even the lawyers who defended Navalny faced criminal prosecution.

In Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro has systematically arrested opposition leaders and forced critics into exile. Maduro inherited a stacked Supreme Court from his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, that has systematically nullified opposition legislation. The court has also orchestrated takeovers of opposition parties and certified Maduro’s fraudulent 2024 election claim despite opposition evidence showing it won by a 2-to-1 margin.

And Hungary’s Viktor Orban created the Sovereignty Protection Office with powers to investigate any organization or person it suspects of receiving foreign support to influence public life or the democratic process. Orban also installed a loyalist chief prosecutor under whose office “numerous high-profile allegations of corruption have been either quietly shelved or investigated perfunctorily before being dropped,” according to EU Today.

The pattern is clear: When leaders can use the justice system to protect themselves, whether by prosecuting investigators, refusing to investigate corruption or intimidating the judiciary, democratic institutions erode and the rule of law becomes a tool of political control rather than a constraint on power.

What this means for America

Legal experts predict Comey will be acquitted – the evidence is weak and the political interference is blatant.

But as a scholar of legal ethics, I believe the damage is already done.

Trump has shown he can force prosecutors to charge his enemies. Future government officials now face an impossible choice: investigate powerful people, as Comey did, and risk prosecution, or decline to investigate and allow corruption to flourish.

Yet there may be a silver lining: When governments break norms this brazenly, they often create legal vulnerabilities.

Legal commentator Ed Whelan has pointed out that Halligan’s appointment may violate a 1986 Office of Legal Counsel memo authored by then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Samuel Alito, which concluded that only one interim U.S. attorney appointment is permitted under the statute. Former interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert had already served that term. If Halligan wasn’t validly appointed, the indictment may be legally void.

The precedent this case sets affects every American. As the former ethics counsels wrote after Comey’s indictment: “No American should have to go through the experience of being prosecuted under these circumstances, and the rest of us should not have to live in fear that it may also happen to us.”

Cassandra Burke Robertson 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. James Comey’s indictment is a trademark tactic of authoritarians – https://theconversation.com/james-comeys-indictment-is-a-trademark-tactic-of-authoritarians-266214

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Moones Alamooti, Assistant Professor of Energy and Petroleum Engineering, University of North Dakota

As energy use rises and the planet warms, you might have dreamed of an energy source that works 24/7, rain or shine, quietly powering homes, industries and even entire cities without the ups and downs of solar or wind – and with little contribution to climate change.

The promise of new engineering techniques for geothermal energy – heat from the Earth itself – has attracted rising levels of investment to this reliable, low-emission power source that can provide continuous electricity almost anywhere on the planet. That includes ways to harness geothermal energy from idle or abandoned oil and gas wells. In the first quarter of 2025, North American geothermal installations attracted US$1.7 billion in public funding – compared with $2 billion for all of 2024, which itself was a significant increase from previous years, according to an industry analysis from consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.

As an exploration geophysicist and energy engineer, I’ve studied geothermal systems’ resource potential and operational trade-offs firsthand. From the investment and technological advances I’m seeing, I believe geothermal energy is poised to become a significant contributor to the energy mix in the U.S. and around the world, especially when integrated with other renewable sources.

A May 2025 assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey found that geothermal sources just in the Great Basin, a region that encompasses Nevada and parts of neighboring states, have the potential to meet as much as 10% of the electricity demand of the whole nation – and even more as technology to harness geothermal energy advances. And the International Energy Agency estimates that by 2050, geothermal energy could provide as much as 15% of the world’s electricity needs.

Why geothermal energy is unique

Geothermal energy taps into heat beneath the Earth’s surface to generate electricity or provide direct heating. Unlike solar or wind, it never stops. It runs around the clock, providing consistent, reliable power with closed-loop water systems and few emissions.

Geothermal is capable of providing significant quantities of energy. For instance, Fervo Energy’s Cape Station project in Utah is reportedly on track to deliver 100 megawatts of baseload, carbon-free geothermal power by 2026. That’s less than the amount of power generated by the average coal plant in the U.S., but more than the average natural gas plant produces.

But the project, estimated to cost $1.1 billion, is not complete. When complete in 2028, the station is projected to deliver 500 megawatts of electricity. That amount is 100 megawatts more than its original goal without additional drilling, thanks to various technical improvements since the project broke ground.

And geothermal energy is becoming economically competitive. By 2035, according to the International Energy Agency, technical advances could mean energy from enhanced geothermal systems could cost as little as $50 per megawatt-hour, a price competitive with other renewable sources.

Types of geothermal energy

There are several ways to get energy from deep within the Earth.

Hydrothermal systems tap into underground hot water and steam to generate electricity. These resources are concentrated in geologically active areas where heat, water and permeable rock naturally coincide. In the U.S., that’s generally California, Nevada and Utah. Internationally, most hydrothermal energy is in Iceland and the Philippines.

Some hydrothermal facilities, such as Larderello in Italy, have operated for over a century, proving the technology’s long-term viability. Others in New Zealand and the U.S. have been running since the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Enhanced geothermal systems effectively create electricity-generating hydrothermal processes just about anywhere on the planet. In places where there is not enough water in the ground or where the rock is too dense to move heat naturally, these installations drill deep holes and inject fluid into the hot rocks, creating new fractures and opening existing ones, much like hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas production.

A system like this uses more than one well. In one, it pumps cold water down, which collects heat from the rocks and then is pumped back up through another well, where the heat drives turbines. In recent years, academic and corporate research has dramatically improved drilling speed and lowered costs.

Ground source heat pumps do not require drilling holes as deep, but instead take advantage of the fact that the Earth’s temperature is relatively stable just below the surface, even just 6 or 8 feet down (1.8 to 2.4 meters) – and it’s hotter hundreds of feet lower.

These systems don’t generate electricity but rather circulate fluid in underground pipes, exchanging heat with the soil, extracting warmth from the ground in winter and transferring warmth to the ground in summer. These systems are similar but more efficient than air-source heat pumps, sometimes called minisplits, which are becoming widespread across the U.S. for heating and cooling. Geothermal heat pump systems can serve individual homes, commercial buildings and even neighborhood or business developments.

Direct-use applications also don’t generate electricity but rather use the geothermal heat directly. Farmers heat greenhouses and dry crops; aquaculture facilities maintain optimal water temperatures; industrial operations use the heat to dehydrate food, cure concrete or other energy-intensive processes. Worldwide, these applications now deliver over 100,000 megawatts of thermal capacity. Some geothermal fluids contain valuable minerals; lithium concentrations in the groundwater of California’s Salton Sea region could potentially supply battery manufacturers. Federal judges are reviewing a proposal to do just that, as well as legal challenges to it.

Researchers are finding new ways to use geothermal resources, too. Some are using underground rock formations to store energy as heat when consumer demand is low and use it to produce electricity when demand rises.

Some geothermal power stations can adjust their output to meet demand, rather than running continuously at maximum capacity.

Geothermal sources are also making other renewable-energy projects more effective. Pairing geothermal energy with solar and wind resources and battery storage are increasing the reliability of above-ground renewable power in Texas, among other places.

And geothermal energy can power clean hydrogen production as well as energy-intensive efforts to physically remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as is happening in Iceland.

Geothermal potential in the US and worldwide

Currently, the U.S. has about 3.9 gigawatts of installed geothermal capacity, mostly in the West. That’s about 0.4% of current U.S. energy production, but the amount of available energy is much larger, according to federal and international engineering assessments.

And converting abandoned oil and gas wells for enhanced geothermal systems could significantly increase the amount of energy available and its geographic spread.

One example is happening in Beaver County, in the southwestern part of Utah. Once a struggling rural community, it now hosts multiple geothermal plants that are being developed to both demonstrate the potential and to supply electricity to customers as far away as California.

Those projects include repurposing idle oil or gas wells, which is relatively straightforward: Engineers identify wells that reach deep, hot rock formations and circulate water or another fluid in a closed loop to capture heat to generate electricity or provide direct heating. This method does not require drilling new wells, which significantly reduces setup costs and environmental disruption and accelerates deployment.

There are as many as 4 million abandoned oil and gas wells across the U.S., some of which could shift from being fossil fuel infrastructure into opportunities for clean energy.

Challenges and trade-offs

Geothermal energy is not without technical, environmental and economic hurdles.

Drilling is expensive, and conventional systems need specific geological conditions. Enhanced systems, using hydraulic fracturing, risk causing earthquakes.

Overall emissions are low from geothermal systems, though the systems can release hydrogen sulfide, a corrosive gas that is toxic to humans and can contribute to respiratory irritation. But modern geothermal plants use abatement systems that can capture up to 99.9% of hydrogen sulfide before it enters the atmosphere.

And the systems do use water, though closed-loop systems can minimize consumption.

Building geothermal power stations does require significant investment, but its ability to deliver energy over the long term can offset many of these costs. Projects like those undertaken by Fervo Energy show that government subsidies are no longer necessary for a project to get funded, built and begin generating energy.

Despite its challenges, geothermal energy’s reliability, low emissions and scalability make it a vital complement to solar and wind – and a cornerstone of a stable, low-carbon energy future.

Moones Alamooti 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. Geothermal energy has huge potential to generate clean power – including from used oil and gas wells – https://theconversation.com/geothermal-energy-has-huge-potential-to-generate-clean-power-including-from-used-oil-and-gas-wells-266555

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Shooshan Danagoulian, Associate Professor of Economics, Wayne State University

Seasonal allergies – triggered by pollen – appear to make deaths by suicide more likely. Our findings, published in the Journal of Health Economics, show that minor physical health conditions like mild seasonal allergies, previously thought not to be an immediate trigger of suicide, are indeed a risk factor.

To evaluate the link between seasonal allergies and suicide, my co-authors and I combined daily pollen measurements with daily suicide counts across 34 U.S. metropolitan areas.

Because both pollen and suicide are sensitive to weather conditions, we carefully accounted for temperature, rainfall and wind. We also controlled for differences in local climate and plant life, since pollen levels vary by region, and for seasonal averages that might otherwise obscure results. This allowed us to compare suicide counts on days with unexpectedly high pollen to days with little or none in the same county.

The results were striking. Relative to days with no or low levels of pollen, we found that deaths by suicide rose by 5.5% when pollen levels are moderate and 7.4% when levels are high. The increase was even larger among people with a known history of mental health conditions or treatment. We also showed that on high-pollen days, residents of affected areas experience more depressive symptoms and exhaustion.

Our analysis suggests that allergies exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, pushing some people toward crisis. We suspect that sleep disruption is the link between allergies and suicide rates.

Why it matters

More than 80 million Americans experience seasonal allergies each year.

Symptoms include sneezing, congestion, itchy eyes and scratchy throat. Most people experiencing these symptoms feel sluggish during the day and sleep poorly at night. Allergy sufferers might not realize, however, that these symptoms reduce alertness and cognitive functioning – some of the factors that can worsen mental health and increase vulnerability to suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Suicide rates have been growing steadily in the past two decades, by 37% between 2000 and 2018. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 49,000 Americans died by suicide in 2022, and over 616,000 visited emergency departments for self-harm injuries.

Although socioeconomic and demographic factors are the most important predictors of suicide, much less is known about its short-term triggers. Our study adds to growing evidence that the environment – including something as natural as pollen – can influence mental health risks.

This issue is likely to become more urgent as the climate changes. Rising temperatures lengthen pollen seasons and increase pollen volume. Over the past two decades, pollen seasons have grown in both intensity and duration, and projections suggest they will continue to worsen.

That means more people will experience stronger allergy symptoms, with ripple effects not only for physical health but also for sleep, mood and mental well-being.

What we still don’t know

Despite the scale of the problem, there are no national systems in the U.S. to consistently measure and communicate pollen levels. Most communities lack reliable forecasts and alert systems that would allow vulnerable people to take precautions. This gap limits both prevention and research.

Our study focused on metropolitan areas where pollen and death counts were available, but we cannot yet generalize to rural areas. That is a concern because rural communities often face greater shortages in mental health care and pharmacy access – and have seen rising suicide rates over the past decade.

What’s next

For people who are already receiving mental health care, recognizing and treating seasonal allergies is a key part of self-care.

Over-the-counter medications can be highly effective at reducing symptoms.

More broadly, people should be aware that during peak allergy season, reduced alertness, sleep disruptions and mood fluctuations may place an increased burden on their mental health, in addition to the allergy symptoms.

In terms of policy, improving pollen monitoring and public communication could help people anticipate high-risk days. Such infrastructure would also support further research, particularly in rural areas where data is currently lacking. Our next step, supported by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, is to examine the impact of pollen on rural communities.

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

Shooshan Danagoulian receives funding from American Foundation of Suicide Prevention.

– ref. Seasonal allergies may increase suicide risk – new research – https://theconversation.com/seasonal-allergies-may-increase-suicide-risk-new-research-266459

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Chris Wegemer, Postdoctoral researcher, University of California, Los Angeles

Artificial intelligence technology has begun to transform higher education, raising a new set of profound questions about the role of universities in society. A string of high-profile corporate partnerships reflect how universities are embracing AI technology.

The University of Florida began assembling one of the fastest university supercomputers through a collaboration with Nvidia encompassing AI infrastructure, research support and curriculum development. Princeton launched the New Jersey AI Hub with Microsoft, CoreWeave and the state government, which will house AI startups on university-owned land under a Princeton director. Meanwhile, the California State University system partnered with OpenAI to provide ChatGPT Edu to all students and faculty, branding itself as “the first AI-powered university system in the United States.”

As a social scientist who studies educational technology and organizational partnerships, I view these collaborations as part of a decades-long shift toward the “corporatization” of higher education – where universities have become increasingly market-driven, aligning their priorities, culture and governance structures with industry partners.

I see the rise of generative AI as accelerating this trend, which risks undermining higher education’s autonomy and public service mission. Examining the underlying organizational forces that shape the future of higher education can shed light on how AI challenges universities’ traditional principles – and how they might resist corporate influence.

The rise of corporate partnerships

Over the past 50 years, private sector support for university research has increased tenfold, outpacing overall growth in higher education research spending. A pivotal shift came in 1980, when universities gained the right to retain intellectual property from federally funded research. This made commercialization of university research far easier. Over time, corporate involvement pushed university research toward commercial needs and increasingly exposed universities to the profit motive.

But partnerships haven’t just brought in money for universities; they’ve reinforced a shift toward closer alignment with industry. Universities expanded dramatically in the second half of the 20th century to meet companies’ demand for skilled labor, further coupling higher education to market incentives.

After decades of growth, however, university enrollment peaked in 2010, partly due to demographics, and the decline is projected to continue. Meanwhile, competition from training programs offered by tech companies has been growing, and federal funding has been slashed under President Donald Trump.

As colleges continue to close at record rates, the imperative to attract tuition dollars and research grants increasingly dictates institutional priorities. I argue that universities risk sidelining research that serves the public interest by looking toward corporate funding and partnerships to fill the gaps.

In my view, the shift away from public-good scholarship to monetizable content and services shaped by external industry partners jeopardizes the academic freedom and intellectual stewardship that once anchored the mission of higher education. For example, under financial constraints, university administrators may be inclined to overlook glaring value misalignments between their public mission and the commercial objectives of AI firms.

The forces driving universities’ AI initiatives

At many universities, AI adoption and the turn toward corporate collaborations are driven by more than economic vulnerabilities. The broad range of partnerships with AI companies across higher education can provide insight into the deeper dynamics at work.

Differences in AI partnerships are emerging around long-standing divides between types of institutions. Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered AI can be interpreted as an attempt to steer global discourse on ethical AI while preserving human-led research as a marker of elite prestige. Meanwhile, AI initiatives at institutions with a strong focus on teaching and accessibility, such as California State University and Arizona State University, appear to prioritize efficiency in learning outcomes and workforce development.

This underscores how AI partnerships are not guided by market incentives alone. Before universities grew into multibillion-dollar businesses, their decision-making was primarily driven by markers of intellectual prestige, such as scholarly excellence and faculty reputation. Universities largely held a monopoly over knowledge production and served as the primary gatekeepers of intellectual legitimacy, until the digital revolution dramatically decentralized access to knowledge and its production. Universities now coexist in – and increasingly compete with – a crowded, complex ecosystem of companies and organizations that produce original research.

Generative AI represents a powerful new mode of knowledge production and synthesis, which further threatens to upend traditional forms of scholarship. Confronted with challenges to their authority, universities may attempt to preserve their elite intellectual status by rushing into partnerships with AI companies eager to capture the higher education market.

My interpretation is that economic pressures and the pursuit of prestige may be converging to reinforce a technocratic approach to higher education, where university decision-making is primarily guided by performance metrics and corporate-style governance rather than the public interest.

A purposeful path forward

The evolution of higher education in response to AI has brought long-standing debates about the purpose of universities to the forefront of public discourse. Decades of corporatization has helped fuel widespread “mission sprawl” and conflicting institutional goals across higher education. Consistent with organizational theory, ambiguity about universities’ role in society could lead many institutions to become increasingly susceptible to corporate co-optation, political interference and eventual collapse.

Although partnerships between universities and corporations can advance research and support students, corporate norms and academic principles are inherently distinct. And at many universities the process through which differences in institutional values are surfaced and reconciled is unclear, especially as AI initiatives have often sidestepped democratic faculty governance.

The recent surge in AI partnerships puts in plain view the growing dominance of market forces in higher education. As universities continue to adopt AI technologies, the consequences for intellectual freedom, democratic decision-making and commitment to the public good will become an increasingly pressing question.

Research support was provided by undergraduate research assistant Mehra Marzbani, whose contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

Chris Wegemer is affiliated with UCLA.

– ref. Why higher ed’s AI rush could put corporate interests over public service and independence – https://theconversation.com/why-higher-eds-ai-rush-could-put-corporate-interests-over-public-service-and-independence-260902

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Soon Hyeok Choi, Assistant Professor of Real Estate Finance, Rochester Institute of Technology

In today’s hot housing market, winning a bidding war can feel like a triumph. But my research shows it often comes with a catch: Homebuyers who win bidding wars tend to experience a “winner’s curse,” systematically overpaying for their new homes.

I’m a real estate economist, and my colleagues and I analyzed nearly 14 million home sales in 30 U.S. states over roughly two decades. We found that people who paid more than the asking price for their homes – a reliable sign of a bidding war – were more likely to default on their mortgages and saw significantly weaker returns.

How much weaker? On average, homebuyers who won bidding wars saw annual returns that were about 1.3 percentage points lower than those who didn’t, we found. We specifically looked at “unlevered” returns – basically, the returns you’d get if you bought the home outright with cash, without factoring in a mortgage.

Since the typical homeowner in our sample held a property for 6.3 years before selling it, this translates to about an 8.2% overpayment. Bidding-war winners were also 1.9 percentage points likelier to default.

Perhaps that loss would be worth it to someone who absolutely loves the property – but we found that homebuyers who purchase after a bidding war are also faster to resell. This suggests their overpayment is based less on enduring affection and more on bidding-war fever.

We also found that the effects of the winner’s curse – lower home appreciation and higher default rates – are stronger in places where bidding wars are more common. One example is my hometown of Rochester, New York, which has become a bidding-war hot spot in recent years.

Who bears the brunt? Lower-income, Black and Hispanic buyers are more likely to overpay in bidding wars, we found, making them more likely to suffer from the winner’s curse. This suggests that hot housing markets can worsen inequality.

Why it matters

While housing is the largest single form of wealth Americans own, past research on the winner’s curse mostly dealt with land auctions and company mergers – not the nation’s roughly 76 million owner-occupied, single-family homes. Our work is the first to show the direct evidence of the winner’s curse in residential housing markets.

This matters now because the housing market is cooling. Those who bought in the post-pandemic housing market and listed their homes in 2025 are already facing the risk of selling at a loss. Because this risk falls disproportionately on Black and Hispanic homebuyers, it could further widen the wealth gap.

By one measure, foreclosures are up 18% year over year. If the brunt of these losses falls on lower-income or otherwise vulnerable homeowners, the result could be an increase in housing insecurity and homelessness.

The good news is that the winner’s curse may be preventable. Better resources to prepare first-time homebuyers and comprehensive financial education related to mortgages and debt could help.

What still isn’t known

It’s possible more transparent bidding processes – or even formal auction systems for popular homes – could better inform prospective buyers and help them stave off the temptation of overpayment. Should the U.S. require real estate brokers or banks to caution their clients to think twice before going above the asking price? Or would that be unfair to sellers? Experimental research on these points would be useful.

Finally, our research focuses on the U.S. housing market. Whether the winner’s curse afflicts buyers in other countries remains an open question.

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

Soon Hyeok Choi 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. Winning a bidding war isn’t always a win, research on 14 million home sales shows – https://theconversation.com/winning-a-bidding-war-isnt-always-a-win-research-on-14-million-home-sales-shows-266723

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Kathy M. Newman, Associate Professor of English, Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Mellon University

Jane Fonda is joining forces with more than 500 celebrities and Hollywood heavyweights to defend free speech.

The membership roll already includes scores of famous actors like Jamie Lee Curtis, Viola Davis, Whoopi Goldberg, Pedro Pascal, Natalie Portman and Michael Keaton. Successful directors like Spike Lee and Ben Stiller have signed on, along with singer and actress Barbra Streisand and pop star and songwriter Billie Eilish.

Fonda, a star who has championed progressive causes since the 1970s, explained when she announced the group’s new edition on Oct. 1, 2025, that the effort isn’t really new. Instead, it marks the relaunch of the Committee for the First Amendment, an organization her father, actor Henry Fonda, had belonged to.

The original Committee for the First Amendment was formed in October 1947 at a time when the U.S. government worried that there were communists in Hollywood who were putting left-wing propaganda into the movies.

Hearings divided Hollywood

The attack on Hollywood started when a bipartisan congressional committee held a series of highly publicized hearings in 1947 on what it said was the “communist infiltration of the motion picture industry.”

The House Un-American Activities Committee, known as HUAC, invited 23 “friendly” anti-communist witnesses to testify.

Ayn Rand, a Russian-born novelist and screenwriter who hated communism, was one of the witnesses. She testified that the 1944 MGM movie “Song of Russia” showed clean, well-dressed, happy peasants, which she said was a sanitized, propagandized version of life in the USSR.

Another movie that came under suspicion was “It’s a Wonderful Life.” The FBI complained that the 1946 blockbuster, which starred Jimmy Stewart as a broken man who learns the true value of his life, “deliberately maligned the upper classes” with its negative portrayal of Mr. Potter, the town’s richest man.

The HUAC hearings continued for a decade and divided Hollywood. The committee’s interrogators demanded that people turn on each other and “name names.” Due to these hearings, as well as an anti-communist publication called Red Channels, hundreds of screenwriters, directors, producers, actors and musicians were fired or blacklisted for having ties to liberal groups.

Fighting back

The HUAC hearings brought Hollywood stars and the flashbulbs of the nation’s press corps to Capitol Hill. Conservative screen idols like Gary Cooper testified that communism wasn’t “on the level.”

Friendly witnesses, like Rand and Cooper, were allowed to read prepared statements and to speak for as long as they liked. Such courtesies were not granted to the 10 “unfriendly” witnesses – the suspected communists who became known as the “Hollywood 10.”

Screenwriter John Howard Lawson was the first of the Hollywood 10 to testify. Lawson, after refusing to answer if he was a communist or not, was shouted down by Rep. J. Parnell Thomas, a New Jersey Republican who served as HUAC chair. After Lawson was removed from the courtroom, HUAC’s chief investigator, Robert Stripling, read detailed evidence of Lawson’s communist affiliations.

Prominent Hollywood liberals understood that these hearings were an attack on free speech, free assembly and other rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Ira Gershwin, the lyricist known for his hit show tunes such as “I Got Rhythm” and “They Can’t Take That Away From Me,” hosted the first gathering of the Committee for the First Amendment at his Beverly Hills mansion. Attendees included Judy Garland, Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall and Gene Kelly.

The committee quickly raised US$13,000 – the equivalent of $188,000 today – and chartered an airplane to Washington. Upon their arrival in the capital, they marched and spoke out in support of the Hollywood 10. Next, they produced a radio broadcast, “Hollywood Fights Back,” as a defense of the rights of Americans to write, produce, act in and see whatever movies they pleased.

The committee released an initial statement with 35 signatories. A few months later, it published a pamphlet with more than 300 additional names supporting the effort.

Purging Hollywood

If you’ve never heard of that committee, or if you only learned about it recently when the new version made headlines, you’re not alone. The group fizzled out almost as quickly as it had mobilized.

Bogart, perhaps its most famous member, soon retracted his support for the Hollywood 10, saying in March 1948 that he regretted his trip to Washington.

“I’m no Communist,” the “Casablanca” star declared in a widely circulated statement.

Two crucial developments kneecapped the committee. First, the HUAC cited the Hollywood 10 for contempt of Congress. They were later tried in court and convicted of that crime. They eventually served prison time.

Also, studio executives drafted new hiring policies for the movie industry. Later known as the “Waldorf declaration” because the meeting took place in the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in Manhattan, the studio heads announced that the Hollywood 10 would be fired and banned from any studio, and that all the studios would agree to fire and ban any known communists.

Over the next decade, hundreds more stars and other key players in the entertainment industry were fired, purged and blacklisted in what became known as the blacklist era.

I’m a professor of English and film studies, and I’m writing a book about progressive films made during those years. The original committee’s members were mainly leftists and liberals whose careers survived the political pressures to root them out of show business.

The Committee for the First Amendment ultimately failed to protect the Hollywood 10 from professional attacks or incarceration, nor did it prevent hundreds of others from being blacklisted.

Bad timing

But I don’t believe that the original Committee for the First Amendment was destined to fail.

The Hollywood 10’s legal strategy, rooted in the First Amendment, reflected the hope that their convictions might be eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

Unluckily, however, Frank Murphy and Wiley Blount Rutledge, two of the court’s most liberal justices, died before the appeal of the first two Hollywood 10 convictions could reach them.

After President Harry Truman replaced them, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals. Most of the Hollywood 10 served prison sentences between 1950 and 1951.

Why bother?

Given that the Committee for the First Amendment failed to protect Hollywood from conservative repression in the 1940s and 1950s, why would anyone revive it?

One reason is that there are parallels between the blacklist era and today.

For example, the Trump administration is trying to get comedians who poke fun at him kicked off the air, as evidenced by talk show host Jimmy Kimmel being temporarily pulled off the air.

Hollywood has also seen a surge in labor organizing. Many members of the new Committee for the First Amendment were on the front lines of the screenwriters and actors strikes of 2023.

Finally, this fight is arguably worth waging. Most Americans see the First Amendment as enshrining valuable rights. An October 2025 Marist poll found that 4 in 5 Americans think the U.S. is restricting First Amendment freedoms too much.

Americans still debate whether or not it was right to fire and blacklist Hollywood’s suspected communists. While many see the HUAC hearings as a travesty, others defend the House committee and the anti-communist fervor that inspired it.

Resilience and silence

Many look at the blacklist era as a time of capitulation by progressives in the face of repression. While there’s some validity to these claims, I’ve found that many progressive filmmakers also banded together, using allegory and other creative techniques to make movies with progressive – sometimes radical – messages.

Take “The Pajama Game,” for example. It’s a musical comedy about labor trouble in a pajama factory. While the film is a sexy, frothy romp, on the one hand, the film also casts Doris Day as Babe, a feisty union steward. In “Racing with the Clock,” workers sing about the pressure they feel to speed up the pace of their labor.

Scenes include workers organizing a slowdown, sabotaging machinery and going on strike. The last word spoken in the film is “solidarity.”

To me, the revival of the Committee for the First Amendment draws attention to the dangers implicit in efforts to muzzle writers, artists and filmmakers.

“Silence the artist, and you silence the most articulate voice the people have,” the actress Katherine Hepburn said in May 1947 in a speech written for her by Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood 10. “Destroy culture and you destroy one of the strongest sources of inspiration from which a people can draw strength to fight for a better life.”

Kathy M. Newman 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. Jane Fonda, other stars, revive the Committee for the First Amendment – a group that emerged when the anti-communist panic came for Hollywood – https://theconversation.com/jane-fonda-other-stars-revive-the-committee-for-the-first-amendment-a-group-that-emerged-when-the-anti-communist-panic-came-for-hollywood-266751

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Richard Forno, Teaching Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, and Associate Director, UMBC Cybersecurity Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

As the United States experiences its latest government shutdown, most of the daily operations of the federal government have ground to a halt. This includes much of the day-to-day work done by federal information technology and cybersecurity employees, including those at the nation’s leading civilian cybersecurity agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

CISA is among the entities that will see the deepest staffing reductions during the shutdown that began Oct. 1, 2025, according to Department of Homeland Security documentation. Only about one-third of its employees remain on the job after federal employees were furloughed. As if cybersecurity wasn’t challenging enough, fewer CISA employees are being asked to do more and more work protecting American cyberspace during the shutdown. And they’ll be working with the promise of getting paid for their efforts at some date in the future once the shutdown ends.

The current CISA situation is grim, from my vantage point as a cybersecurity researcher and former industry practitioner. The agency was already experiencing deep cuts to its staff and resources before the shutdown. And now, coinciding with the shutdown, a key law that enabled the agency to facilitate information-sharing with the private sector has expired.

Taken together, the cyberdefense agency is being hobbled at a time when the need for its services has never been greater, from the ongoing China-led Salt Typhoon attack on U.S. telecommunications networks to ransomware, data breaches and threats to infrastructure.

CISA was created in 2007 within the Department of Homeland Security. As its name implies, the agency is charged with digital security matters across the federal government. The agency also works with the companies that operate and secure the numerous critical infrastructure sectors of the American economy, such as phone networks, the electric grid and energy pipelines. Additionally, it helps state and local governments across the country secure their vulnerable networks and data.

CISA also publishes threat and vulnerability alerts for the government and cybersecurity community and engages with public and private stakeholders on best practices in response to emerging vulnerabilities. Prior to the recent expiration of the 2015 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, the agency also made it easier for organizations to share useful information with the government to help cybersecurity teams better protect their systems.

Political football

The agency takes a nonpartisan approach to cybersecurity matters. However, some politicians have accused the agency of political bias for its work helping states protect their voting infrastructure from cyberattacks and external influence. Specifically, the agency was repeatedly maligned for calling the 2020 election the “most secure” in history. For some in elected office, this work on election security has tarnished CISA’s reputation and perhaps explains recent budgetary actions taken against the agency.

Since the Trump administration took office in January 2025, nearly 1,000 CISA employees have departed the agency through voluntary buyouts or deferred resignations. By the end of May 2025, nearly all of CISA’s senior leadership had resigned or had announced plans to do so.

For 2026, the president’s draft budget proposes to reduce CISA’s head count by nearly one-third, dramatically cutting staff from its risk management and stakeholder engagement divisions. Other cuts will significantly reduce the agency’s collaboration activities and funding for CISA’s various cybersecurity education and training programs.

Making the problem worse, the government shutdown began at the same time that Congress failed to renew the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. This law provided a legal shield that allowed companies and infrastructure operators to share timely and often sensitive information with CISA about the cyberattacks, vulnerabilities and incidents that they were encountering.

In the wake of the law’s expiration, prudent companies may consider restricting what information they share with the government. Without the indemnification provided by CISA, many companies will likely have their legal teams review any information to be shared with the government. And that takes time.

Unfortunately, adversaries do not reduce their attacks against the U.S. based on available federal cyber defense funding or the status of cybersecurity laws. In fact, malicious hackers often strike when their target’s guard is down.

Charting a better course

Early in my career I had to work through a prolonged government shutdown. I’ve also participated in and developed assorted public-private information-sharing environments to exchange intelligence and analysis on cyber- and national security matters. And having been in the D.C. area for over 30 years, I’ve seen how government works. So I have a good idea of what’s needed to improve American cybersecurity. The following suggestions are a starting point.

First, Congress could ensure that critical security agencies such as CISA are immune from the threat of recurring federal government shutdowns. If it desired, Congress could set budgets for America’s security agencies on a biennial basis – as 16 states already do for their entire budgets.

In terms of cybersecurity funding, the White House’s proposed 2026 budget reduces research and education on cybersecurity. For example, the nation’s premiere federal cybersecurity scholarship program to recruit, educate and place future federal cybersecurity workers would be reduced by over 60%. Protecting this funding would allow CISA and the federal government to maintain the pipeline for a robust and capable cybersecurity workforce both today and into the future.

Companies could develop new or expand existing nongovernmental information-sharing networks that are not completely dependent on the government to facilitate or fund, such as the Cyber Threat Alliance or the Center for Internet Security. Cybersecurity relies on trust. But right now, the instability of the federal government makes it difficult to rely on any entity under its policy or funding influence, no matter how well time-tested and trusted. Regardless, without legal protections, the information-sharing utility of these services will be limited.

Cybersecurity risks remain even if the federal government shuts down. So this is another reminder that each of us is responsible for our own cybersecurity. Individual users should continue to remain vigilant, follow accepted best practices for cybersecurity and always be mindful about online risks.

It’s ironic that the federal government is shutting down, CISA is being eviscerated and the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act has expired just as the country begins to observe national Cybersecurity Awareness Month – another collaborative public engagement activity that CISA promotes to help improve cybersecurity for all Americans.

Richard Forno has received funding related to cybersecurity research and education from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense (DOD), the US Army, State of Maryland, and private companies during his academic career since 2010. From 2012-2025 he co-directed UMBC’s Scholarship For Service program.

– ref. Federal shutdown deals blow to already hobbled cybersecurity agency – https://theconversation.com/federal-shutdown-deals-blow-to-already-hobbled-cybersecurity-agency-266862

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Santhosh Girirajan, Professor of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Genomics, Penn State

Genetic inheritance may sound straightforward: One gene causes one trait or a specific illness. When doctors use genetics, it’s usually to try to identify a disease-causing gene to help guide diagnosis and treatment. But for most health conditions, the genetics is far more complicated than how clinicians are currently looking at it in diagnosis, counseling and treatment.

Your DNA carries millions of genetic variants you inherit from your parents or develop by chance. Some are common variants, shared by many people. Others are rare variants, found in very few people or even unique to a family. Together, these variants shape who you are – from visible traits such as height or eye color to health conditions such as diabetes or heart disease.

In our newly published research in the journal Cell, my team and I found that a genetic mutation involved in neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions such as autism and schizophrenia is affected by multiple other genetic variants, changing how these conditions develop. Our findings support the idea that, rather than focusing on single genes, taking the whole genome into account would provide insight into how researchers understand what makes someone genetically predisposed to certain diseases and how those diseases develop.

Primary and secondary variants

Certain rare variants can cause problems on their own, such as the genetic mutations that cause sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. But in many cases, whether someone actually develops symptoms of disease depends on what else is happening across the genome.

While a primary variant might trigger a disease, secondary variants can alter how that disease develops and progresses. Think of it like a song: The melody (primary variant) is the main part of the song, but the bassist and drummer (secondary variants) can change its groove and rhythm.

That’s why two people with the same genetic mutation can seem so different. One person might have severe symptoms, another person mild symptoms, and another none at all. These variations can even occur within the same family. This phenomenon, called variable expressivity, arises from differences in the secondary variants a person has. In most cases, these variants amplify the effects of the primary mutation. A higher number of secondary variants on top of a primary variant generally leads to more severe disease.

Sometimes, a primary variant and a secondary variant together can cause two different disorders in the same person, such as Prader-Willi syndrome and Pitt-Hopkins syndrome. Other times, secondary variants have no obvious effect on their own but together can tip the balance of whether and how a disease will appear, even in the absence of a primary variant. This can be seen in the development of heart disease in children.

Insights from a missing piece of a chromosome

My team and I studied a genetic change known as a 16p12.1 deletion, where a small piece of chromosome 16 is missing. Researchers have linked this mutation to developmental delay, intellectual disability and psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia. Yet most children inherit this genetic variant from a parent who has milder symptoms, different symptoms or sometimes no symptoms at all.

To understand why this happens, we analyzed 442 individuals from 124 families carrying this genetic mutation. We found that children lacking this piece of chromosome 16 had more secondary variants elsewhere in the genome compared to their carrier parents. These secondary variants took many forms, including both small changes and large deletions, duplications and expansions of their DNA.

Each type of secondary variant was associated with different health outcomes. Some were linked to smaller head size and reduced cognitive function, while others contributed to higher rates of psychiatric or developmental symptoms. This suggests that while a 16p12.1 deletion makes the genome more sensitive to neurodevelopmental disorders, which symptoms manifest depends on which other variants are present.

The story gets even more complex when considering the fact that children not only inherit a 16p12.1 deletion from one parent but also inherit secondary variants from both parents.

My team and I found that the symptoms of the parent with this genetic mutation often match those of their spouse. For example, a parent with a 16p12.1 deletion who shows signs of anxiety or depression is more likely to have a partner who also has these symptoms. This pattern, called assortative mating, means that when parents with overlapping genetic risks have children, those risks can combine and accumulate.

Over generations, this stacking of secondary variants can lead to children who have more severe symptoms than their parents.

Biases in genetics research

One reason why scientific understanding of secondary variants has lagged is that genetic research often depends on who is recruited to participate in these studies and how researchers recruit them.

Most studies recruit patients affected with a particular disease. Families recruited from genetic clinics typically have children with severe versions of the disease. But if studies focus only on patients with the most acute symptoms, researchers may overestimate the effects of primary variants and miss the subtler role that secondary variants may play in how a disease develops.

But if researchers were to study people drawn from the general population – say, by recruiting people from a large shopping mall – some might carry the same primary variant but have far milder symptoms or none at all. This variability allows researchers to better dissect how different parts of the genome interact with each other and affect how a disease develops.

In our study, for example, we found that people with a 16p12.1 deletion who were recruited from the general population often had milder symptoms and different patterns of secondary variants compared to those who were recruited in a clinic.

Embracing complexity in genetics

Instead of a deterministic view where one mutation equals one outcome, a more complex model accounts for the fact that whether and how a disease develops depends on the interplay between different genetic variants and environment. This has implications for how genetics is used in the clinic.

Currently, a child who tests positive for a genetic variant might be diagnosed with a disease tied to that mutation. In the future, doctors might also examine the child’s broader genetic profile to better predict their developmental trajectory, psychiatric risk or response to therapies. Families could be counseled with a more realistic picture of their child’s probability of developing a disease, rather than assuming every person with the same genetic variant will share the same outcome.

The science is still emerging. Larger and more diverse datasets and models that can better capture the subtle effects of genetic variants and environmental factors are still needed. But what’s clear is that secondary variants are not secondary in importance.

By embracing this complexity, I believe genetics can move closer to its ultimate promise: not just explaining why disease happens, but predicting who is most at risk and personalizing care for each individual.

Santhosh Girirajan receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. 1 gene, 1 disease no more – acknowledging the full complexity of genetics could improve and personalize medicine – https://theconversation.com/1-gene-1-disease-no-more-acknowledging-the-full-complexity-of-genetics-could-improve-and-personalize-medicine-266558

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Donald Nieman, Professor of History and Provost Emeritus, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Bipartisan agreement is rare in these politically polarized days.

But that’s just what happened in response to ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The suspension followed the Federal Communications Commission chairman’s threat to punish the network for Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer.

It lit up the media. Democrats and civil libertarians denounced the FCC chairman Brendan Carr for violating the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Voices on the right, including Senator Ted Cruz, joined them.

Within a week, Kimmel’s show was back on the air.

While bipartisan agreement may be rare, it’s not surprising that it came in defense of the First Amendment – and a popular TV show. A recent poll found that a whopping 90% of respondents called the First Amendment “vital,” while 64% believed it’s so close to perfection that they wouldn’t change a word.

In just 45 words, it bars Congress from establishing or preventing the free exercise of religion, interfering with the peoples’ right to assemble and petition, or abridging freedom of speech or the press.

I’m a historian and scholar of modern U.S. law and politics. Here’s the story of why this amendment – now considered fundamental to American freedom and identity – wasn’t part of the original Constitution and how it was included later on.

Added three years after the Constitution was ratified, it resulted from political compromise and a change of heart by framer James Madison.

Soured on bills of rights

Building a strong national government was the focus of Madison and the other delegates who met in Philadelphia in May 1787 to draft the Constitution.

They believed the government created by the Articles of Confederation after the colonists declared independence was dysfunctional, and the nation was disintegrating.

The government could not pay its debts, defend the frontier or protect commerce from interference by states and foreign governments.

Although Madison and the other framers aimed to create a stronger national government, they cared about protecting liberty. Many had helped create state constitutions that included pioneering bills of rights.

Madison himself played a critical role in securing passage in 1776 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, a monument to civil liberties.

By the time the Constitutional Convention met, however, Madison had soured on such measures. During the 1780s, he had watched with alarm as state legislatures trampled on rights explicitly guaranteed by their constitutions. Bills of rights, he concluded, weren’t sufficient to protect rights.

So Madison and his colleagues put their faith in reinventing government.

No appetite to haggle

The Constitution they wrote created a government powerful enough to promote the national interests while maintaining a check on state legislatures. It also established a system of checks and balances that ensured federal power wasn’t abused.

In the convention’s waning days, delegates briefly discussed adding a bill of rights but unanimously decided against it. They had sweated through almost four months of a sweltering Philadelphia summer and were ready to go home. When Virginia’s John Rutledge noted “the extreme anxiety of many members of the Convention to bring the business to an end,” he was stating the obvious. With the Constitution in final form, few had the appetite to haggle over the provisions of a bill of rights.

That decision nearly proved fatal when the Constitution went to the states for ratification.

The new Constitution’s supporters, known as Federalists, faced fierce opposition from Anti-Federalists who charged that a powerful national government, unrestrained by a bill of rights, would inevitably lead to tyranny.

Ratification conventions in three of the most critical states – Massachusetts, New York and Virginia – were narrowly divided; ratification hung in the balance. Federalists resisted demands to make ratification contingent on amendments suggested by state conventions. But they agreed to add a bill of rights – after the Constitution was ratified and took effect.

That concession did the trick.

Harmless, possibly helpful

The three critical states ratified without condition, and by midsummer 1788, the Constitution had been approved.

However, when the First Congress met in March 1789, the Federalist majority didn’t prioritize a bill of rights. They had won and were ready to move on.

Madison, now a Federalist leader in the House of Representatives, insisted that his party keep its word. He warned that failure to do so would undermine trust in the new government and give Anti-Federalists ammunition to demand a new convention to do what Congress had left undone.

But Madison wasn’t just arguing for his party keeping its word. He had also changed his mind.

The ratification debates and Madison’s correspondence with Thomas Jefferson led him to think differently about a bill of rights. He now thought it harmless and possibly helpful. Its provisions, Madison conceded, might become “fundamental maxims of a free government” and part of “the national sentiment.” Broad popular support for a bill of rights might provide a check on government officials and how they wielded power.

Madison pushed his colleagues relentlessly. Wary of provisions that would weaken the national government, he developed a slate of amendments focused on individual rights. Ultimately, Congress approved 12 amendments – ensuring rights from freedom of speech to protection from cruel and unusual punishment – and sent them to the states for ratification.

First Amendment no cure-all

By the end of 1791, 10 of them – including the First Amendment ≠ had been ratified.

As Madison anticipated, the First Amendment wasn’t a cure for a government bent on suppressing dissent. From the Sedition Act in the 1790s to McCarthyism in the 1950s and the Trump administration’s assault on the First Amendment, government has used its awesome powers to pursue and punish critics.

On occasion, courts have intervened to protect First Amendment rights, a weapon Madison didn’t anticipate. But not always.

Perhaps the ultimate protection for First Amendment rights is “national sentiment,” as Madison suggested. Norm-breaking presidents can disregard the law, and judges may cave. But public sentiment is a powerful force, as Jimmy Kimmel can attest.

Donald Nieman receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American Council of Learned Societies. He is affiliated with Braver Angels.

– ref. Why free speech rights got left out of the Constitution – and added in later via the First Amendment – https://theconversation.com/why-free-speech-rights-got-left-out-of-the-constitution-and-added-in-later-via-the-first-amendment-266639

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Graham G. Dodds, Professor of Political Science, Concordia University

President Donald Trump set the tone for his second term by issuing 26 executive orders, four proclamations and 12 memorandums on his first day back in office. The barrage of unilateral presidential actions has not yet let up.

These have included Trump’s efforts to remove thousands of government workers and fire several prominent officials, such as members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the chair of the Commission on Civil Rights. He has also attempted to shut down entire agencies, such as the Department of Education and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

For some scholars, these actions appear rooted in the psychology of an unrestrained politician with an overdeveloped ego.

But it’s more than that.

As a political science scholar who studies presidential power, I believe Trump’s recent actions mark the culmination of the unitary executive theory, which is perhaps the most contentious and consequential constitutional theory of the past several decades.

A prescription for a potent presidency

In 2017, Trump complained that the scope of his power as president was limited: “You know, the saddest thing is that because I’m the president of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I am not supposed to be involved with the FBI, I’m not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I’m very frustrated by it.”

The unitary executive theory suggests that such limits wrongly curtail the powers of the chief executive.

Formed by conservative legal theorists in the 1980s to help President Ronald Reagan roll back liberal policies, the unitary executive theory promises to radically expand presidential power.

There is no widely agreed upon definition of the theory. And even its proponents disagree about what it says and what it might justify. But in its most basic version, the unitary executive theory claims that whatever the federal government does that is executive in nature – from implementing and enforcing laws to managing most of what the federal government does – the president alone should personally control it.

This means the president should have total control over the entire executive branch, with its dozens of major governmental institutions and millions of employees. Put simply, the theory says the president should be able to issue orders to subordinates and to fire them at will.

The president could boss around the FBI or order the U.S. attorney general to investigate his political opponents, as Trump has done. The president could issue signing statements – a written pronouncement – that reinterpret or ignore parts of the laws, like George W. Bush did in 2006 to circumvent a ban on torture. The president could control independent agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The president might be able to force the Federal Reserve to change interest rates, as Trump has suggested. And the president might possess inherent power to wage war as he sees fit without a formal authorization from Congress, as officials argued during Bush’s presidency.

A constitutionally questionable doctrine

A theory is one thing. But if it gains the official endorsement of the Supreme Court, it can become governing orthodoxy. It appears to many observers and scholars that Trump’s actions have intentionally invited court cases by which he hopes the judiciary will embrace the theory and thus permit him to do even more. And the current Supreme Court appears ready to grant that wish.

Until recently, the judiciary tended to indirectly address the claims that now appear more formally as the unitary executive theory.

During the country’s first two centuries, courts touched on aspects of the theory in cases such as Kendall v. U.S. in 1838, which limited presidential control of the postmaster general, and Myers v. U.S. in 1926, which held that the president could remove a postmaster in Oregon.

In 1935, in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., the high court unanimously held that Congress could limit the president’s ability to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. And in Morrison v. Olson the court in 1988 upheld the ability of Congress to limit the president’s ability to fire an independent counsel.

Some of those decisions aligned with some unitary executive claims, but others directly repudiated them.

Warming up to a unitary executive

In a series of cases over the past 15 years, the Supreme Court has moved in an unambiguously unitarian, pro-presidential direction. In these cases, the court has struck down statutory limits on the president’s ability to remove federal officials, enabling much greater presidential control.

These decisions clearly suggest that long-standing, anti-unitarian landmark decisions such as Humphrey’s are on increasingly thin ice. In fact, in Justice Clarence Thomas’ 2019 concurring opinion in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, where the court ruled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership structure was unconstitutional, he articulated his desire to “repudiate” the “erroneous precedent” of Humphrey’s.

Several cases from the court’s emergency docket, or shadow docket, in recent months indicate that other justices share that desire. Such cases do not require full arguments but can indicate where the court is headed.

In Trump v. Wilcox, Trump v. Boyle and Trump v. Slaughter, all from 2025, the court upheld Trump’s firing of officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

Previously, these officials had appeared to be protected from political interference.

Total control

Remarks by conservative justices in those cases indicated that the court will soon reassess anti-unitary precedents.

In Trump v. Boyle, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “whether this Court will narrow or overrule a precedent … there is at least a fair prospect (not certainty, but at least a reasonable prospect) that we will do so.” And in her dissent in Trump v. Slaughter, Justice Elena Kagan said the conservative majority was “raring” to overturn Humphrey’s and finally officially embrace the unitary executive.

In short, the writing is on the wall, and Humphrey’s may soon go the way of Roe v. Wade and other landmark decisions that had guided American life for decades.

As for what judicial endorsement of the unitary executive theory could mean in practice, Trump seems to hope it will mean total control and hence the ability to eradicate the so-called “deep state.” Other conservatives hope it will diminish the government’s regulatory role.

Kagan recently warned it could mean the end of administrative governance – the ways that the federal government provides services, oversees businesses and enforces the law – as we know it:

“Humphrey’s undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control. Congress created them … out of one basic vision. It thought that in certain spheres of government, a group of knowledgeable people from both parties – none of whom a President could remove without cause – would make decisions likely to advance the long-term public good.”

If the Supreme Court officially makes the chief executive a unitary executive, the advancement of the public good may depend on little more than the whims of the president, a state of affairs normally more characteristic of dictatorship than democracy.

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

– ref. The Supreme Court is headed toward a radically new vision of unlimited presidential power – https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-is-headed-toward-a-radically-new-vision-of-unlimited-presidential-power-265840