Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Elizabeth Chiarello, Associate Professor of Sociology, Washington University in St. Louis

Imagine walking into your pharmacy, handing over your prescription and having it denied. Now imagine that the reason is not insufficient insurance coverage or the wrong dose, but a pharmacist who personally objects to your medication. What right does a pharmacist have to make moral decisions for their patients?

Lawmakers have wrestled with this question for decades. It reemerged in August 2025 when two pharmacists sued Walgreens and the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, saying they had been punished after refusing to dispense gender-affirming care medications that go against their religious beliefs.

According to the pharmacists, Walgreens refused their requests for a formal religious accommodation, citing state law. One pharmacist had her hours reduced; the other was let go. If Minnesota law does not allow such an accommodation, their lawsuit argues, it violates religious freedom rights.

As a sociologist of law and medicine, I’ve spent the past 20 years studying how pharmacists grapple with tensions between their personal beliefs and employers’ demands. Framing the problem as a tension between religious freedom and patients’ rights is only one approach. Debates about pharmacists’ discretion over what they dispense also raise bigger questions about professional rights – and responsibilities.

Duty to dispense?

The most famous controversy, perhaps, dealt with contraception. In the early 2000s, some pharmacists refused to dispense Plan B, also known as “emergency contraception” or the “morning-after pill.” Their refusal stemmed from a belief that it caused an abortion.

That is inaccurate, according to medical authorities. When Plan B first became available in 1999, the label said the medication might work by expelling an egg that had already been fertilized. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration relabeled Plan B to say that it acts before fertilization. From a medical perspective, both mechanisms are contraception, not abortion.

States responded to pharmacists’ refusals by adopting “responsibility laws.” Some states adopted “conscience clauses” that permitted pharmacists not to fill the prescription. Others opted for “duty to dispense” laws that required pharmacists or pharmacies to provide the medication, or “refuse and refer” laws obligating objecting pharmacists to hand the prescription off to a colleague.

This fight largely broke down across political lines. Groups that oppose abortion rights argued that pharmacists should have the right to opt out, while groups in favor of abortion rights argued that pharmacists should be required to dispense.

As this fight escalated, the conflict became about more than contraception or abortion. It revealed Americans’ views about what kinds of professionals pharmacists should be, and whether they are professionals at all – that is, members of occupational groups that have specialized knowledge and skills, and exclusive rights to do particular kinds of work.

In 2015, for example, the advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice American – now called Reproductive Freedom for All – released an ad with a man and a woman in bed, their feet hanging out of the sheets. Stuck between them was someone else wearing heavy black shoes. “Who invited the pharmacist?” the ad asked.

Pro-choice organizations insisted that pharmacists had no right to question a doctor’s prescription. “A pharmacist’s job is to dispense medication, not moral judgment,” said the president of Planned Parenthood Chicago.

Some pharmacists felt that such messages did not just criticize “moral gatekeeping” but also undermined their claims to professional authority. Pharmacists undergo six years of training to earn a doctorate and are health care’s medication specialists. The idea that pharmacists were simply technicians, hired to fill whatever a prescription said, made them seem like physicians’ underlings.

Keeping patients safe

A short time later, when the opioid overdose crisis began to escalate, pharmacists again found themselves pulled in two directions. This time, the question was whether they should be both medical and legal gatekeepers.

When the U.S. first tried to crack down on unauthorized opioid use, many pharmacists felt ambivalent about tasks like identifying people who were misusing or selling medications. One pharmacist told me, “Although I’m in the business of patient safety, I’m not in the police business.”

Later, pharmacists began to see policing tasks as health care tasks. They reasoned that policing patients helped keep patients safe, and they embraced enforcement as a key component of their work.

Fast-forward to 2021. America was in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic, and some doctors were prescribing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to treat sick patients, though the FDA had not approved the medications for that purpose. Many pharmacists refused to fill those prescriptions, citing lack of scientific evidence and potential harm.

Legislators in Missouri, where I teach, responded by passing a bill that required pharmacists to dispense the two medications, no questions asked – though that rule was later struck down by a federal judge. Similar conflicts played out in Iowa and Ohio, among other states.

Again, the fight broke down along political lines, but in the opposite direction. Liberals tended to oppose the bills, portraying pharmacists as skilled professionals whose expertise is essential to prevent harm. Conservative supporters claimed that pharmacists should dispense whatever the doctor writes.

Professional power

Each of these controversies has focused on a specific legal, ethical or medical issue. By extension, though, they are also about what kinds of professional discretion pharmacists should be able to exercise.

When it comes to medication, doctors prescribe, nurses administer and pharmacists dispense. Before the 20th century, pharmacists diagnosed disease and also compounded drugs. That changed when physicians placed themselves at the top of the medical hierarchy.

When it comes to professional autonomy, states regulate health care, but they permit health care professions to regulate themselves: to educate, license and discipline their own workers through professional boards. In exchange, these boards must do so “in the public interest” – prioritizing public health, safety and welfare over professionals’ own interests.

Health care professionals, including pharmacists, must also follow ethical codes. The day they receive their iconic white coats, pharmacists vow to “consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering [their] primary concerns.” Pharmacists also commit to “respecting the autonomy and dignity of each patient,” which means that pharmacists partner with patients to make choices about their health.

Self-regulation has legally given pharmacists the right to act as “medical gatekeepers” – to use their professional expertise to keep patients safe. This role is critical, as patients whose lives have been saved by pharmacists catching errors can attest.

It has not, however, given them the right to be “moral gatekeepers” who put their personal beliefs above the patient’s. Pharmacists control medications because of professional commitments, not personal beliefs. The code of ethics describes the pharmacist-patient relationship as a “covenant” that creates moral obligations for the pharmacist – including helping “individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications,” being “committed to their welfare” and maintaining their trust.

If pharmacists wish to regulate themselves, history makes clear they need to define what it means to act in the public interest and ensure that other pharmacists comply. If not, the state has proved more than willing to step in and do the job for them. They may not like the results.

Elizabeth Chiarello has received funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Conflict at the counter: When pharmacists’ and patients’ values collide – https://theconversation.com/conflict-at-the-counter-when-pharmacists-and-patients-values-collide-264844

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

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

---

What is meant by solar storm and solar wind? – Nihal, age 11, Amalapuram, India

---

Every day on Earth, you experience weather. You feel the wind blowing and see clouds move across the sky. Sometimes there are storms where the wind gets really strong, it might rain, or there might be thunder and lightning.

Did you know that there’s weather in space too? It all starts with the Sun.

The Sun: The bright star in our solar system

The Sun is a very hot, very big ball of gas at the center of our solar system. Its surface can reach a blistering 10,800 degrees Fahrenheit (6,000 degrees Celsius). That’s nearly five times hotter than lava that spews from volcanoes on Earth, and just like lava, the Sun glows from the heat.

The Sun is made up of what solar physicists like us call plasma.

Normal gases, like the air you breathe on Earth, are made up of atoms bouncing around. Atoms consist of a positively charged bundle of particles called the nucleus and negatively charged particles called electrons. The nucleus and the electrons are tightly stuck together so that atoms are overall neutral – that is, they have no charge.

A gas becomes a plasma when the atoms it’s made of become so hot that their negatively charged electrons split apart from their positively charged nuclei. Now that the charged particles are separated from each other, the plasma can conduct electricity, and magnetic fields may pull the plasma or push it away.

Solar wind blows out of the Sun all the time

Sometimes, the Moon lines up with Sun, blocking it from view and turning the sky dark. This phenomenon is called a total solar eclipse. During an eclipse, you can see faint, wispy structures surrounding the Moon that extend across the sky. In that moment, what you are seeing is the Sun’s atmosphere: the corona.

The corona can reach millions of degrees, which is much hotter than the Sun’s surface. In fact, the corona is so hot that the particles shoot out of the Sun, escaping from the Sun’s gravity, engulfing the entire solar system. This stream of plasma is called the solar wind.

The solar wind’s invisible, continuous gust of plasma fills a bubble in space that extends far beyond the orbit of Pluto. It can reach up to 2 million miles per hour (3 million kilometers per hour) – at that speed, the solar wind would take less than a minute to circle the Earth. For comparison, the International Space Station takes 90 minutes to go around the Earth.

While it’s hard to see the solar wind directly in photos once it leaves the corona, we can measure the gas directly with instruments in space. Scientists have recently gotten up close and personal with it by sending missions such as the Parker Solar Probe closer to the Sun than ever before. The Parker Solar Probe flies directly into the solar wind and measures the gas directly just as it escapes the Sun – like a weather station.

The Parker Solar Probe also has a specialized camera that points sideways to see the Sun’s light as it scatters off the solar wind. Light scattering is the same process that makes the sky blue on Earth.

Big solar explosions

The solar wind surrounds and engulfs the Earth and other planets all the time, but most of the time it is safely guided around us by our planet’s magnetic field. However, occasionally the Sun also generates huge explosions that release big clouds of plasma into our solar system, some of which are directed toward Earth. These massive events are called coronal mass ejections.

Compared to the solar wind, which is always blowing, coronal mass ejections are short-lived but extreme. You can think of them as solar storms. Solar storms also involve one important force that doesn’t really play a role in the weather on Earth: magnetism.

The Sun is like a giant magnet. All magnets create what we call magnetic field lines, which are lines along which charged particles such as plasma have an easy time traveling. The Sun’s magnetic field lines can be very twisted, and the solar wind and coronal mass ejections deform and drag them outward from the Sun.

When these solar storms reach Earth, their coiled magnetic fields can sometimes interact with our planet’s own magnetic field and cause disturbances called space weather.

Space weather is caused by the Sun

The Earth has a magnetic field and a protective bubble: the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere shields us from the Sun’s solar wind and solar storms, acting like a force field to keep living things safe from the energetic particles released by the Sun.

Most of the time this protective bubble works so well that you can’t tell that there is anything special happening out in space. During particularly big storms, however, some solar wind plasma can make it down into the Earth’s atmosphere. As coronal mass ejections pass over Earth, their magnetic field can interact with Earth’s magnetic field. The Sun and Earth’s magnetic field lines untangle and rearrange, and for a short while these fields can link together and let the Sun’s plasma in.

When this happens, it can cause big magnetic storms all over the world. This interaction between ejections from the Sun and the Earth is what scientists refer to as space weather.

Space weather is just like the weather on Earth, generated by its atmosphere. It is important for scientists to understand and predict this space weather, as it can lead to power blackouts, interrupt communication and even cause satellites to prematurely fall down to Earth.

Besides these dangers though, space weather can create beautiful light shows in the sky called Northern Lights, or aurora borealis, and Southern Lights, or aurora australis. You can observe these if you’re near the North or South Poles. If you ever get a chance to see them, remember what you’re seeing is space weather, the result of eruptions and solar wind from the Sun.

---

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

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

Yeimy J. Rivera receives funding from NASA’s Parker Solar Probe project through the SAO/SWEAP subcontract 975569.

Tatiana Niembro receives funding from NASA’s Parker Solar Probe project through the SAO/SWEAP subcontract 975569 and the LWS grant number 80NSSC23K0897.

Samuel Badman receives funding from NASA’s Parker Solar Probe project through the SAO/SWEAP subcontract 975569.

– ref. What are solar storms and the solar wind? 3 astrophysicists explain how particles coming from the Sun interact with Earth – https://theconversation.com/what-are-solar-storms-and-the-solar-wind-3-astrophysicists-explain-how-particles-coming-from-the-sun-interact-with-earth-264013

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mkhaimar Abusada, Visiting Scholar of Global Affairs, Northwestern University

Weakened militarily and facing declining Palestinian support, particularly among Gazans, Hamas was already a shadow of the militant group it once was. And then came President Donald Trump’s peace plan.

On Oct. 3, 2025, Hamas said that it accepted some aspects of the 20-point proposal, including handing over administration of the Gaza Strip to a body of independent Palestinian technocrats and releasing all remaining Israeli hostages.

Those hostage are the last of the 252 taken during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack – an event that two years on looks to represent a high point, so to speak, of Hamas’ power. As an expert on Palestinian political attitudes, I believe the group now has few options to survive.

Like former resistance groups in past peace processes, it could renounce arms and transform itself into a purely political party. But to do so, it needs to overcome a series of hurdles: confronting other parts of Trump’s plan, its unpopularity at home and its rigid ideology being the three most prominent.

Campaign of assassination

It is worth taking stock of just how degraded Hamas has become as the result of two years of onslaught by Israel’s vastly superior military.

According to many intelligence reports, Hamas has lost most of its senior command in the Al-Qassam Brigades, its military wing. Izz al-Din al-Haddad, its current commander, survives, having presumably taken over from Mohammed Sinwar – the brother of Yahya Sinwar, mastermind of Oct. 7 attack – who was killed in May 2025. But he presides over a dwindling army.

President Trump may not have been exaggerating when he indicated on Truth Social on Oct. 3 that Hamas had lost 25,000 fighters. Estimates regarding the group’s losses vary, but it could represent more than half of the fighting force it had at the beginning of the war.

Hamas has succeeded in recruiting new fighters during that time. But many of these new recruits lack the competence and the experience of the dead ones. And the only motivations the new recruits have are hate and anger toward Israel.

Hamas’ political leadership has also been decimated. Chief political leaders, including Ismail Haniyeh, Saleh al-Arouri and Yahya Sinwar, have all been killed.

And it could have been worse. Had the Israeli attack on Hamas’ political leadership in Doha, Qatar, succeeded in September 2025, it could have been a devastating loss for the movement. But the operation missed its primary targets there.

Falling support in Gaza

Palestinian public pressure on Hamas has risen as the miseries of war have mounted.

According to local heath officials, more than 67,000 have been killed, and more than 169,000 have been injured. Most of the Gaza Strip has been reduced to rubble, and more than 90% of the population has been displaced multiple times – with most Gazans now living in tents. International organizations have reported famine and starvation in some parts of the Gaza Strip.

Hamas has lost its power and influence over many areas now under Israeli control. Israeli military and intelligence have encouraged some members of the local Palestinian clans and militia to offer services in militia-controlled areas.

In such areas, Hamas fighters have often clashed with other Palestinian groups, resulting in many deaths and growing resentment toward Hamas.

Hamas’ execution and torture of Palestinians suspected of collaboration with Israel has only worsened the situation, leading to chaos and lawlessness in many parts of Gaza.

It is little wonder, then, that half of Gazans in the latest poll of attitudes – taken in May 2025 – say they supported anti-Hamas demonstrations. Indeed support for the group in both Gaza and the West Bank have continued to decline as the war has progressed.

The push for peace

The ongoing war and the inhumane daily conditions that local Palestinians in Gaza are dealing with have led to exhaustion and fatigue among the public.

On social media, many Palestinians are asking Hamas publicly to endorse the Trump plan and put an end to their misery.

In deciding whether to accept all of the plan’s 20-points, Hamas will, from its perspective, have to weigh whether agreeing to a very bad outcome is better than the alternative. Trump has warned that a failure to get on board will cause Hamas to face “all hell.”

Hamas has already agreed to release all of the remaining Israeli hostages and to relinquish power in Gaza to a technocratic Palestinian committee. If endorsed in full, this would put an end to the war and see the gradual Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and no expulsion of the Palestinians out of Gaza.

Egypt, Qatar and Turkey have been facilitating Hamas’ response to the plan. And there is huge regional and international pressure to get the deal over the line.

However it would force Hamas to disarm itself and allow the entry of an international and regional force into Gaza to oversee the destruction of military infrastructure, including tunnels, weapon manufacturing and the remaining rockets – points of the latest plan that Hamas appears more unwilling to accept.

What happens to the remaining Hamas fighters is a sticking point that might lead to the collapse of the whole plan.

And any rejection of the plan that can be blamed on Hamas will no doubt be welcomed by members of the Israeli extreme right. Hardline factions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition have an alternative plan: to fully occupy Gaza, expel the Palestinians and reestablish Israeli settlements in Gaza.

Where next for Hamas?

Perhaps the most viable option for Hamas is to transform itself into a political party. But to do so, the group will need to reform not only its structures but also its ideology.

Political momentum is swinging back to a two-state solution. France and Saudi Arabia recently spearheaded a fresh push to that end at the United Nations, and a host of Western nations recognized Palestinian statehood for the first time. Hamas may feel the pressure to finally accept a two-state solution, something it has long resisted. For its part, Trump’s plan only makes vague assertions noting the Palestinian “aspiration” for a state.

If transforming into a purely political party is to be the fate of Hamas, it will need to play its cards shrewdly and swiftly. The Palestine Liberation Organization went through this process after their departure from Beirut in 1982, eventually putting politics and diplomacy over armed resistance. And Qatar, Turkey and Egypt can help Hamas moderate its stances, too.

The rigid ideology of Hamas remains a hurdle. Since it was formed in 1987, Hamas has tethered itself to a hardline Islamist ideology that does not allow fundamental compromises on issues such as recognition of Israel and the development of Palestine as a secular state.

But there is the recent example of Syria, where following the ouster of long-term dictator Bashar al-Assad, the main Islamist fighting group pivoted to politics, and was lauded in the international community for doing so.

Whether Hamas can succeed in such a transformation – should it attempt to – remains to be seen. And there is one final snag: Even if Hamas does accept the latest peace proposal, other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza might not – and could attempt to sabotage the whole process.

Mkhaimar Abusada is affiliated with, Member of the Board of Commissioners of the Independent Commission for Human Rights, Palestine

– ref. Hamas has run out of options – survival now rests on accepting Trump’s plan and political reform – https://theconversation.com/hamas-has-run-out-of-options-survival-now-rests-on-accepting-trumps-plan-and-political-reform-266515

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Simon F. Haeder, Associate Professor of Public Health, The Ohio State University

Major rifts over key health care issues are at the heart of the federal government shutdown that began at the stroke of midnight on Oct. 1, 2025.

This is not the first time political arguments over health care policy have instigated a government shutdown. In 2013, for example, the government shut down due to disputes over the Affordable Care Act.

This time around, the ACA continues to play a central role, with Democrats demanding, among other things, an extension of subsidies for ACA plan insurance premiums that are set to expire at the end of 2025. Democrats are also holding out to roll back cuts to the Medicaid program that President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, as part of what he called his “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Without a budget agreement in place, Trump ordered most federal agencies to wind down their nonessential activities. The shutdown will continue until Congress passes either a short-term or long-term funding bill and Trump signs it.

Government shutdowns are nothing new, but as a health policy expert, I worry this time around the impasse may have far-reaching effects on health care.

Even as Democrats stage their battle over access to health care, the shutdown itself could also make it harder for Americans to get the care they need. Meanwhile, Trump has threatened to use the crisis to permanently cut federal jobs on a mass scale, including ones in the health care sector, which could substantially reshape federal health agencies and their ability to protect Americans’ health.

The partisan health care divide

Historically, questions about how the government should support access to health care have long been a source of conflict between the two main political parties. The passage of the ACA in 2010 and its implementation have only intensified this friction.

In the lead-up to the current shutdown, Republicans needed Democratic votes in the Senate to pass a bill that would keep funding the government at existing levels at least until November.

In return for their support, Democrats sought several concessions. A major one was to extend subsidies for ACA insurance policy premiums, which were established during the COVID-19 pandemic. These subsidies addressed a shortcoming in the ACA by decreasing premiums for millions of Americans – and they played a crucial role in more than doubling enrollment in the ACA marketplaces.

Without this extension, ACA premiums are set to rise by more than 75% in 2026, and the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 4.2 million Americans would lose insurance. At least some Republicans seemed open to considering the ACA subsidies, particularly those from districts that were more moderate and that had large numbers of people enrolled in ACA plans. But many have objected to doing that as part of the budget process.

Democrats are also pushing to renegotiate some of the changes made to Medicaid in the budget bill. These include new work requirements that are a cornerstone of Republican demands, under which certain adults would have to work or engage in qualifying activities to maintain Medicaid benefits. Work requirements are set to take effect in 2027, but implementing them would lead to an estimated 5 million people losing their health insurance coverage.

Most contentiously, these rollbacks to Medicaid cuts would reverse restrictions that made immigrants who are generally present in the country legally, such as refugees and asylum-seekers, ineligible for Medicaid and ACA coverage. These restrictions, which were included in the budget bill, could lead to the loss of insurance for about 1.4 million lawfully present immigrants, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated.

Republicans have balked at these demands, taking particular issue with the prospect of restoring Medicaid benefits to immigrants. Some Republicans – and Trump himself – have misconstrued the Democrats’ position, saying they are seeking free health care for immigrants in the country illegally.

What kinds of health services might be affected?

Most obviously, large-scale staff reductions would interfere with a wide range of health-related services not considered essential during the shutdown. This includes everything from surveying and certifying nursing homes to assisting Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries and overseeing contracts or extra payments to rural ambulance providers.

Some seniors may face an immediate impact as two programs have now lost funding without a new budget in place. One expanded access for seniors to telehealth services. The other allowed people to receive services at home that are generally provided in a hospital.

Crucially, most seniors will continue to receive Social Security payments. However, providers might be hesitant to schedule patients covered by Medicare if the shutdown drags on over a long period of time. This is because payments to medical providers would likely be delayed.

What health services will continue to function?

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has indicated that there is enough funding for Medicaid, the government program that primarily provides health services to low-income Americans, to support the program through the end of the calendar year. If the shutdown lasts beyond that, states may have to decide whether to temporarily fund the program on their own or whether to reduce or delay provider payments. However, no previous shutdown has ever lasted more than 34 days.

Community health centers are generally expected to receive some funding, at least for now. These providers offer nonemergency medical services for about 34 million Americans each year. Many also provide important services across the nation’s schools. However, if the standoff continues for more than a few days, those centers may struggle to keep their doors open.

Health and Human Services has also indicated that it will use all available funding to maintain “minimal readiness for all hazards” and will maintain certain medical services, such as the Indian Health Service. The Veterans Health Administration will also stay open. One of the agencies most affected by previous layoffs, the Food and Drug Administration, has indicated that it would be exempt from further cuts.

A longer-term view

Ultimately, the severity of the shutdown’s effects on health care will depend on how long it lasts.

It will also depend on whether Trump makes good on his stated intention to use the shutdown as “an unprecedented opportunity” to reshape the federal bureaucracy. The White House announced plans for potential mass firings of workers, particularly those at “Democrat Agencies.”

Whether this threat is simply a bargaining tactic remains to be seen, and it’s unclear whether health-related workers and agencies are in the crosshairs. But given that previous layoffs specifically targeted health programs, more permanent reductions in programs that affect health care may be on the way.

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

– ref. How the government shutdown is hitting the health care system – and what the battle over ACA subsidies means – https://theconversation.com/how-the-government-shutdown-is-hitting-the-health-care-system-and-what-the-battle-over-aca-subsidies-means-266565

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Menika Dirkson, Associate Professor of History, Morgan State University

On April 13, 1967, around 1:30 p.m., Lt. Joseph Larkin of the Philadelphia Police Department’s subway unit visited the Philadelphia High School for Girls to interview the school’s librarian, 61-year-old Miriam S. Axelrod.

Axelrod had written a letter to Mayor James H.J. Tate about poor conditions on Philadelphia’s Broad Street Line subway. In her letter, she stated that the escalators in the subway concourse of the Walnut-Locust station were out of operation for several weeks and requested that they “be put in running order.”

Axelrod also asked that “something be done” about people using the subway stairs “as a latrine.”

As a historian of post-1968 Philadelphia, a proud alumna of Girls’ High and a rider of Philadelphia’s mass transit, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority – more commonly known as SEPTA – I was thrilled to find Axelrod’s story among 1960s administrative reports to the police commissioner in the city archives.

Axelrod’s story reminds us that for nearly a century, Philadelphia’s mass transit has been plagued by poor conditions and unstable funding. Commuters’ complaints have often convinced government officials to act. However, no effective plan has ever been implemented to definitively solve the city’s transit crises.

SEPTA’s current turmoil

On Sept. 15, 2025, SEPTA fully restored its service, by court order, after implementing 20% service reductions and a 21.5% fare increase due to a US$213 million budget deficit.

Service cuts began on Aug. 24, just one day before public school students returned to classrooms. This left kids, seniors and people from nonwhite, working-class communities with few alternative routes. Riders faced lengthy travel times or were even stranded on their daily commute.

Over 600,000 people travel on SEPTA’s 172 routes each day. For weeks, state legislators could not agree on how to fund SEPTA within the state budget. City officials, transit executives and tourism experts advocated for a bailout because Pennsylvania will reap tax revenue when Philly hosts millions of tourists in 2026 for America’s 250th birthday, the FIFA World Cup and the Major League Baseball All-Star Game.

Ultimately, Gov. Josh Shapiro authorized the use of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s capital funds to finance SEPTA’s operations through June 2027.

Some lawmakers have argued that SEPTA is guilty of mismanaging funds, since the agency already received over $1 billion in state subsidies last year for operating assistance and asset improvement.

Public transport in the 1920s

As a longtime Philadelphian who lived in Center City, Miriam Axelrod was familiar with the strengths and shortcomings of public transportation.

At the age of 4, her family emigrated from Russia to Carmel, New Jersey. By 1920, they made Philadelphia their home just as the city’s Russian community became the largest immigrant group due to Jewish people escaping pogroms in Europe. Axelrod grew up living in South and North Philadelphia.

At that time, dozens of private transit companies operated in Philly.

Southern Penn operated city buses. Red Arrow provided suburban trolley service. Pennsylvania and Reading railroads offered high-speed rail lines. The Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. alone brokered deals with 64 underlying companies to annually rent their services under 999-year leases. Fiscal responsibility for quality transportation was complicated and often dependent on public funding.

During PRT’s early years, it paid the city $15,000 annually for snow removal. In return, the city spent $2 million for street paving and bridge repairs.

By 1922, the PRT and the city had built and unified two elevated train routes – with assistance from the Union Traction Co. and the Market Street Elevated Passenger Railway Co. – to create the Market-Frankford Elevated Train Line.

That was the same year Axelrod graduated from William Penn High School for Girls. Her classmates keenly noted in their yearbook that she had a “remarkable capacity for starting arguments” in which “any debatable subject will do.”

Six years later, the first segment of the Broad Street Subway traveling from Olney Station in North Philadelphia to City Hall opened to the public. Unlike the bus, trolley and railways systems, the city owned the El, short for elevated, line and subway. The city leased both systems to PRT and made the transit company responsible for their maintenance.

The Depression years

Philadelphia first witnessed underfunded mass transit during the Great Depression.

In 1934, PRT faced a budget deficit when it was unable to pay the $7.1 million annual rentals to the underliers. PRT later went to court to request a consolidation plan. To make matters worse, PRT had spent approximately $230 million from 1902 through 1939, but that didn’t include spending to modernize old transit equipment.

On Jan. 1, 1940, the Philadelphia Transportation Co., a private company with a 21-member board of directors that included five city representatives including the mayor, Robert E. Lamberton, merged the transit companies and took over PRT’s operations. PTC became responsible for 10,000 employees and providing transportation for 2 million passengers a day.

PTC also acquired extensive financial responsibilities. Payroll expenses cost $327,000 each week. The annual rate for leasing the subway and El was roughly $3 million. PTC had to provide its 25,000 bondholders an annual income of at least $959,207 while also fulfilling its promise to offer modern transit vehicles.

Overcrowding and frequent fare increases

During the 1940s through the 1960s, Axelrod took public transportation to her job as a librarian at Central High School and later Frankford High School.

Meanwhile, PTC made good on its promise to provide better transit service. In its first eight years of operation, PTC spent $22.8 million to purchase 1,506 new streetcars, buses and trackless trolleys while also improving terminal and plant facilities. The company even purchased advertisements in The Philadelphia Inquirer to highlight its achievements. PTC extended 38 existing routes and created 18 new routes that serviced old residential and industrial areas, along with newly developed neighborhoods.

By 1949, however, many of PTC’s 3.2 million daily riders were complaining about overcrowded subways, the end of free exchanges between popular routes and frequent fare increases.

Both PTC and the city faced scrutiny for these issues, although each party had distinct transit obligations outlined in their joint contract. PTC had to provide “safe and adequate service” that included spending on maintenance and replacement of transit equipment. The city was responsible for police and fire services on mass transit along with auditing PTC’s records. Both parties had to agree on fare changes under the state Public Utility Commission’s supervision.

Nevertheless, when issues on mass transit occurred, the city could persuade PTC to improve conditions, but the city was only required to offer emergency services to commuters.

When Larkin personally addressed Axelrod’s 1967 complaint about the subway, he informed her that the United Elevator Co. was repairing the escalators. He also assured her that the subway unit arrested 45 to 50 intoxicated people each month because they were at risk of falling onto the subway tracks. In “isolated cases,” Larkin explained, police arrested people for public urination and defecation.

Larkin reassured Axelrod that PTC could keep subway conditions clean and under control. In reality, PTC was underwater in responsibilities and debt.

On Sept. 30, 1968, SEPTA, a state agency formed five years earlier, took over PTC and managed transportation for the city and its surrounding areas. SEPTA bought PTC for approximately $47.9 million, settling the company’s debt, accepting its pension liability and buying out the institution’s roughly 1.7 million shareholders. Now federal and state funding rather than fare revenue largely determined the quality of the city’s public transit.

Decades of unpredictable funding

Since the 1960s, annual government funding to SEPTA has been unpredictable. White flight, deindustrialization and job flight have contributed to depopulation, a declining tax base and government defunding of social programs in Philadelphia. These socioeconomic shifts continue to affect Philadelphia’s budget for education, public housing and recreation as well as SEPTA’s $2.743 billion budget as a public transit agency.

Five counties in Greater Philadelphia contribute subsidies to SEPTA in exchange for transit service. Philadelphia alone contributes $110 million. State subsidies also help finance SEPTA’s $1.74 billion operating budget, while federal subsidies support SEPTA’s $1 billion capital budget to pay for major repairs and new equipment. State politicians annually vote on funding for SEPTA, but there has not been a concrete solution to the funding crisis.

For years, politicians have proposed using county sales and gas taxes along with business licensing fees to fund mass transit, without success. Additionally, since 2008 rising rates of car ownership have also led to fewer commuters and reduced fare revenues for SEPTA.

However, Philadelphians never ceased to demand better transit service. During the 1980s, the Pennsylvania Public Interest Coalition established the Transit Riders Action Campaign, also known as TRAC, which advocated that SEPTA have better safety, funding, accountability, service and stable fares. The Transport Workers Union Local 234 advised TRAC, while several organizations partnered with them: the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens, the Clean Air Council, Disabled in Action and the Delaware Valley Interfaith Coalition.

Even today, local groups such as Save the Train with outspoken commuters – like Axelrod was in her day – have launched campaigns to halt service cutbacks and encourage residents to write and telephone legislators who can vote to fund SEPTA. Residents have consistently united to advocate for quality mass transit. All that remains is an agreement among lawmakers to make it possible.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Menika Dirkson 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. Commuters have bemoaned Philly’s public transit for decades − in 1967, a librarian got the city to listen – https://theconversation.com/commuters-have-bemoaned-phillys-public-transit-for-decades-in-1967-a-librarian-got-the-city-to-listen-264860

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ryan Summers, Associate Professor of Science Education, University of North Dakota

Scientists have always needed someone to help foot the bill for their work.

In the 19th century, for example, Charles Darwin made an expensive voyage to the southernmost tip of the Americas, visiting many other places en route, including his famous trek through the Galapagos Islands. The fossil evidence Darwin collected over his five-year journey eventually helped him to think about an infinite variety of species, both past and present.

The HMS Beagle and its crew traversed these places while testing clocks and drawing maps for the Royal Navy, and the voyage was funded by the British government. Darwin’s position as a naturalist aboard the ship was unpaid, but, fortunately, his family’s private assets were enough to cover his living expenses while he focused on his scientific work.

Today, government and private funding both remain important for scientific discoveries and translating knowledge into practical applications.

As a professor of science education, one of my goals while preparing future teachers is to introduce them to the characteristics of scientific knowledge and how it is developed. For decades, there has been a strong consensus in my field that educated citizens also need to know about the nature of the scientific enterprise. This includes understanding who pays for science, which can differ depending on the type of research, and why it matters.

Funding for science is more than just the amount of money. To a large extent, the organizations that fund research set the agenda, and different funders have different priorities. It can also be hard to see the downstream benefits of scientific research, but they typically outweigh the upfront costs.

Basic research leads to new knowledge

Basic research, also called fundamental research, involves systematic study aimed at acquiring new knowledge. Scientists often pursue research that falls into this category without specific applications or commercial objectives in mind.

Of course, it costs money to follow where curiosity leads; scientists need funding to pursue questions about the natural and material world.

About 40% of basic research in the U.S. has been federally funded in recent years. The government makes this investment because basic research is the foundation of long-term innovation, economic growth and societal well-being.

Funding for basic research is distributed by the federal government through several agencies and institutes. For more than a century, the U.S. National Institutes of Health have sponsored a breadth of scientific and health research and education programs. Since 1950, the National Science Foundation has advanced basic research and education programs, including the training of the next generation of scientists.

Other federal agencies have complementary missions, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, created in response to the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957. DARPA focuses on technological innovations for national security, many of which have become fixtures of civilian life.

Through a competitive review process at these agencies, subject experts vet research proposals and make funding recommendations. The amount of funding available from the NIH, NSF and DARPA varies annually, depending on congressional appropriations. Most of the awarded funds go to universities, research institutions and other health and science organizations that conduct research. The sum of research dollars awarded differs among states.

Applying research

Scientists undertake basic research to generate new knowledge with no specific end goal in mind. Applied research is different in that it aims to find solutions to real-world problems.

Research that investigates specific, practical objectives or improvements with commercial potential is more likely to attract private investors. Companies directly invest in research and development to gain a competitive edge and turn a profit. Private industry is more likely to sink dollars into applied rather than basic research because the potential payoff in the form of a new product or advance is more visible.

From discovery to real-world implementation

As applied research addresses problems, promising findings are moved toward clinical application or mainstream use. This research and development process can lead to tangible benefits for individuals and society.

Federal agencies such as the NIH make substantial investments in the basic and applied science underlying new drugs. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies heavily invest in the development of drug candidates. Recent reports have shown that industry has been responsible for 50% or more of the dollars invested in health and biomedical research in recent years. This expenditure includes significant spending to advance clinical trials – the studies that test new medical treatments before they get approved for use.

The NIH funded basic research that contributed to every single drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016. This includes key work that led to COVID-19 vaccines. The COVID-19 vaccination campaign likely saved the U.S. more than $1 trillion in health care expenses that would have otherwise been incurred and also saved lives.

Initial NSF investments in research was instrumental in capturing images of black holes and exploring deep oceans. Basic research funded by NSF paved the way for everyday conveniences such as smartphones, the Google search engine and artificial intelligence. Other funded projects led to quality of life improvements such as American Sign Language and kidney matching for transplants. Educational programming, such as “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and “The Magic School Bus,” were NSF-backed projects, too.

It matters who pays: Funding shapes science

Funders and financial systems shape the trajectory of research across fields. Institutions advertise funding opportunities based on their current priorities. Changes in the amount of funding available ultimately direct the attention of researchers. Any interruptions to basic research, such as changes to financial supports or institutions, may threaten future discoveries and potential payoffs for years to come.

According to numbers reported by a coalition of research institutions, every dollar that NIH spends on research leads to $2.56 of new economic activity. For the 2024 fiscal year, this means, of the $47.35 billion Congress appropriated for NIH, the $36.94 billion awarded to U.S. researchers fueled $94 billion in activity through employment and the purchase of research-related goods and services.

Economist Pierre Azoulay and colleagues recently imagined an alternative history where NIH was 40% smaller and dispersed less money – a budget akin to current federal proposals. They argued that more than half of the drugs FDA approved since 2000 are tied to NIH-funded research that would have been cut under this scenario. This thought experiment underscores how valuable those basic research dollars are.

Even seemingly out-of-touch or abstract studies may precede discoveries with major impact. Basic research into bee nectar foraging and movement around the colony, recently mentioned on “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” led to the development of an algorithm that distributes internet traffic between computer servers, which now powers the multibillion-dollar web-hosting industry. Learning about applications of research with visible societal impacts can help people understand and appreciate the role of funding in the scientific enterprise.

Ryan Summers receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He is affiliated with the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE), NARST, which is a global organization for improving science education through research, and the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA).

– ref. Science costs money – research is guided by who funds it and why – https://theconversation.com/science-costs-money-research-is-guided-by-who-funds-it-and-why-262587

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Celeste Kidd, Professor of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley

I’m in a coffee shop when a young child dumps out his mother’s bag in search of fruit snacks. The contents spill onto the table, bench and floor. It’s a chaotic – but functional – solution to the problem.

Children have a penchant for unconventional thinking that, at first glance, can look disordered. This kind of apparently chaotic behavior served as the inspiration for developmental psychologist Jean Piaget’s best-known theory: that children construct their knowledge through experience and must pass through four sequential stages, the first two of which lack the ability to use structured logic.

Piaget remains the GOAT of developmental psychology. He fundamentally and forever changed the world’s view of children by showing that kids do not enter the world with the same conceptual building blocks as adults, but must construct them through experience. No one before or since has amassed such a catalog of quirky child behaviors that researchers even today can replicate within individual children.

While Piaget was certainly correct in observing that children engage in a host of unusual behaviors, my lab recently uncovered evidence that upends some long-standing assumptions about the limits of children’s logical capabilities that originated with his work. Our new paper in the journal Nature Human Behaviour describes how young children are capable of finding systematic solutions to complex problems without any instruction.

Putting things in order

Throughout the 1960s, Piaget observed that young children rely on clunky trial-and-error methods rather than systematic strategies when attempting to order objects according to some continuous quantitative dimension, like length. For instance, a 4-year-old child asked to organize sticks from shortest to longest will move them around randomly and usually not achieve the desired final order.

Psychologists have interpreted young children’s inefficient behavior in this kind of ordering task – what we call a seriation task – as an indicator that kids can’t use systematic strategies in problem-solving until at least age 7.

Somewhat counterintuitively, my colleagues and I found that increasing the difficulty and cognitive demands of the seriation task actually prompted young children to discover and use algorithmic solutions to solve it.

Piaget’s classic study asked children to put some visible items like wooden sticks in order by height. Huiwen Alex Yang, a psychology Ph.D. candidate who works on computational models of learning in my lab, cranked up the difficulty for our version of the task. With advice from our collaborator Bill Thompson, Yang designed a computer game that required children to use feedback clues to infer the height order of items hidden behind a wall, .

The game asked children to order bunnylike creatures from shortest to tallest by clicking on their sneakers to swap their places. The creatures only changed places if they were in the wrong order; otherwise they stayed put. Because they could only see the bunnies’ shoes and not their heights, children had to rely on logical inference rather than direct observation to solve the task. Yang tested 123 children between the ages of 4 and 10.

Figuring out a strategy

We found that children independently discovered and applied at least two well-known sorting algorithms. These strategies – called selection sort and shaker sort – are typically studied in computer science.

More than half the children we tested demonstrated evidence of structured algorithmic thinking, and at ages as young as 4 years old. While older kids were more likely to use algorithmic strategies, our finding contrasts with Piaget’s belief that children were incapable of this kind of systematic strategizing before 7 years of age. He thought kids needed to reach what he called the concrete operational stage of development first.

Our results suggest that children are actually capable of spontaneous logical strategy discovery much earlier when circumstances require it. In our task, a trial-and-error strategy could not work because the objects to be ordered were not directly observable; children could not rely on perceptual feedback.

Explaining our results requires a more nuanced interpretation of Piaget’s original data. While children may still favor apparently less logical solutions to problems during the first two Piagetian stages, it’s not because they are incapable of doing otherwise if the situation requires it.

A systematic approach to life

Algorithmic thinking is crucial not only in high-level math classes, but also in everyday life. Imagine that you need to bake two dozen cookies, but your go-to recipe yields only one. You could go through all the steps of making the recipe twice, washing the bowl in between, but you’d never do that because you know that would be inefficient. Instead, you’d double the ingredients and perform each step only once. Algorithmic thinking allows you to identify a systematic way of approaching the need for twice as many cookies that improves the efficiency of your baking.

Algorithmic thinking is an important capacity that’s useful to children as they learn to move and operate in the world – and we now know they have access to these abilities far earlier than psychologists had believed.

That children can engage with algorithmic thinking before formal instruction has important implications for STEM – science, technology, engineering and math –education. Caregivers and educators now need to reconsider when and how they give children the opportunity to tackle more abstract problems and concepts. Knowing that children’s minds are ready for structured problems as early as preschool means we can nurture these abilities earlier in support of stronger math and computational skills.

And have some patience next time you encounter children interacting with the world in ways that are perhaps not super convenient. As you pick up your belongings from a café floor, remember that it’s all part of how children construct their knowledge. Those seemingly chaotic kids are on their way to more obviously logical behavior soon.

Celeste Kidd receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Jacobs Foundation, and the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.

– ref. Children can be systematic problem-solvers at younger ages than psychologists had thought – new research – https://theconversation.com/children-can-be-systematic-problem-solvers-at-younger-ages-than-psychologists-had-thought-new-research-266438

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Dipangkar Dutta, Professor of Nuclear Physics, Mississippi State University

A clever mathematical tool known as virtual particles unlocks the strange and mysterious inner workings of subatomic particles. What happens to these particles within atoms would stay unexplained without this tool. The calculations using virtual particles predict the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles with such uncanny accuracy that some scientists think “they must really exist.”

Virtual particles are not real – it says so right in their name – but if you want to understand how real particles interact with each other, they are unavoidable. They are essential tools to describe three of the forces found in nature: electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Real particles are lumps of energy that can be “seen” or detected by appropriate instruments; this feature is what makes them observable, or real. Virtual particles, on the other hand, are a sophisticated mathematical tool and cannot be seen. Physicist Richard Feynman invented them to describe the interactions between real particles.

But many physicists are not convinced by this cut-and-dried distinction.
Although researchers can’t detect these virtual particles, as tools of calculation they predict many subtle effects that ultrasensitive experiments have confirmed to a mind-boggling 12 decimal places. That precision is like measuring the distance between the North and South poles to better than the width of a single hair.

This level of agreement between measurements and calculations makes virtual particles the most thoroughly vetted idea in science. It forces some physicists to ask: Can a mathematical tool become real?

A bookkeeping tool

Virtual particles are the tool that physicists use to calculate how forces work in the microscopic subatomic world. The forces are real because they can be measured.

But instead of trying to calculate the forces directly, physicists use a bookkeeping system where short-lived virtual particles carry the force. Not only do virtual particles make the calculations more manageable, they also resolve a long-standing problem in physics: How does a force act across empty space?

Virtual particles exploit the natural fuzziness of the subatomic world, where if these ephemeral particles live briefly enough, they can also briefly borrow their energy from empty space. The haziness of the energy balance hides this brief imbalance, which allows the virtual particles to influence the real world.

One big advantage of this tool is that the mathematical operations describing the forces between particles can be visualized as diagrams. They tend to look like stick-figure cartoons of particle pingpong played with virtual particles. The diagrams – dubbed Feynman diagrams – offer an excellent intuitive framework, but they also give virtual particles an aura of reality that is deceiving.

Amazingly, this virtual particle-based method for calculation produces some of the most precise predictions in all of science.

Reality check

All matter is made of basic building blocks called atoms. Atoms, in turn, are made of small positively charged particles called protons found at their core, surrounded by even smaller negatively charged particles called electrons.

As a professor of physics and astronomy at Mississippi State University, I perform experiments that often rely on the idea that the electrons and protons seen in our instruments interact by swapping virtual particles. My colleagues and I have recently measured the size of the proton very precisely, by bombarding hydrogen atoms with a beam of electrons. This measurement assumes that the electrons can “feel” the proton at the center of the hydrogen atom by exchanging virtual photons: particles of electromagnetic energy.

Physicists use virtual particles to calculate how two electrons repel each other, with exquisite precision. The forces involved are represented as the accumulated effect of the two electrons trading virtual photons.

When two metal plates are placed extremely close together in a vacuum, they attract each other: This is known as the Casimir effect. Physicists can accurately calculate the force that pulls the plates together using virtual particle mathematics. Whether the virtual particles are really there or not, the math predicts exactly what researchers observe in the real world.

Yet another mysterious prediction made using the virtual particle tool kit is so-called Hawking radiation. When virtual particle pairs pop into existence at the edge of black holes, sometimes the black hole’s gravity grabs one partner while the other escapes. This rift causes the black hole to slowly evaporate. Although Hawking radiation has not yet been directly observed, researchers have recently observed it indirectly.

Useful fiction

Let’s circle back to the question: Can a mathematical tool become real? If you can perfectly predict everything about a force by imagining it is carried by virtual particles, do these particles qualify as real? Does their fictional status matter?

Physicists remain divided on these questions. Some prefer to “just shut up and calculate” – one of Feynman’s famous quips. For now, virtual particles are our best way to describe how particles behave. But researchers are developing alternative methods that do not need them at all.

If successful, these approaches could make virtual particles vanish for good. Successful or not, the fact that alternatives exist at all suggests virtual particles might be useful fiction rather than physical truth. It also fits the pattern of previous revolutions in science – the example of ether comes to mind. Physicists invented ether as a medium through which light waves traveled. Experiments matched well with calculations using this tool, yet they could not actually detect it. Eventually, Einstein’s theory of relativity showed it was unnecessary.

Virtual particles are a striking paradox of modern physics. They shouldn’t exist, yet they are indispensable for calculating everything from the strength of magnets to the behavior of black holes. They represent a profound dilemma: Sometimes the best insights into reality come through carefully constructed illusion. In the end, confusion around virtual particles may be just the price of understanding fundamental forces.

Dipangkar Dutta receives funding from US Dept. of Energy and NSF.

– ref. Virtual particles: How physicists’ clever bookkeeping trick could underlie reality – https://theconversation.com/virtual-particles-how-physicists-clever-bookkeeping-trick-could-underlie-reality-264739

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Douglas M. Charles, Professor of History, Penn State

Three converging events in the 1970s – the Watergate scandal, the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from the Vietnam War and revelations that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had abused his power to persecute people and organizations he viewed as political enemies – destroyed what formerly had been near-automatic trust in the presidency and the FBI.

In response, Congress enacted reforms designed to ensure that legal actions by the Department of Justice and the FBI, the department’s main investigative arm, would be insulated from politics. These included stronger congressional oversight, a 10-year term limit for FBI directors and investigative guidelines issued by the attorney general.

Some of these measures, however, were tenuous. For example, Justice Department leaders could alter FBI investigative guidelines at any time.

Donald Trump’s first presidential term seriously tested DOJ and FBI independence – notably, when Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. Trump claimed Comey mishandled a 2016 probe into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s private email server, but Comey also refused to pledge loyalty to the president.

Now, in Trump’s second term, prior guardrails have vanished. The president has installed loyalists at the DOJ and FBI who are dedicated to implementing his political interests.

As a historian of the FBI, I recognize the FBI has had only one other overtly political director in the past 50 years: L. Patrick Gray, who served for a year under President Richard Nixon. Gray was held accountable after he tried to help Nixon end the FBI’s Watergate investigation. Whether Trump’s current director, Kash Patel, has more staying power is unclear.

After Hoover

Ever since Hoover’s death in 1972, presidents have typically nominated independent candidates with bipartisan support and law enforcement roots
to run the FBI. Most nominees have been judges, senior prosecutors or former FBI or Justice Department officials.

While Hoover publicly proclaimed his FBI independent of politics, he sometimes did the bidding of presidents, including Nixon. Still, Nixon felt that Hoover had not been compliant enough, so in 1972 he selected Gray, a longtime friend and assistant attorney general, to be Hoover’s successor.

Gray took steps to move the bureau out of Hoover’s shadow. He relaxed strict dress codes for agents, recruited female agents and pointedly hired people from outside the agency – who were not indoctrinated in the Hoover culture – for administrative posts.

Gray asserted his authority with blunt force. FBI agents at field offices and at headquarters who resisted Gray’s power were censured, fired or transferred. Other senior officials opted to leave, including the bureau’s top fraud expert, cryptanalyst and skyjacking expert, and the head of its Crime Information Center.

Agents regarded these moves as a purge, and press reports claimed that bureau morale was at an all-time low, charges that Gray denied. According to FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, who became Gray’s second in command, 10 of 16 top FBI officials chose to retire, most of them notable Hoover men.

Gray surrounded himself with what journalist Jack Anderson called “sharp, but inexperienced, modish, young aides.” FBI insiders called these new hires the “Mod Squad,” a reference to the counterculture TV police series.

Gray helps Nixon

In contrast to Hoover, who had rarely left FBI headquarters and publicly avoided politics, Gray openly stumped for Nixon in the 1972 campaign. He was so rarely spotted at FBI headquarters that bureau insiders dubbed him “Two-Day Gray.” At the request of Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, Gray told field offices to help Nixon campaign surrogates by providing local crime information.

Gray cooperated with Nixon to stymie the FBI’s investigation of the 1972 Watergate break-in and the ensuing cover-up. He provided raw FBI investigative documents to the White House and burned documents from Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt’s White House safe.

When Nixon had CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters ask Gray, in the name of national security, to halt the FBI’s investigation, Felt and other agency insiders demanded that Gray get this order in writing. The White House backed down, but Nixon’s directive had been recorded. That tape became the so-called “smoking gun” evidence of a Watergate cover-up.

Felt, in classic Hoover fashion, then leaked information to discredit Gray, hoping to replace him. Gray resigned in disgrace.

While Felt never got the top job, he is now remembered as the prized anonymous source “Deep Throat,” who helped Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their Pulitzer Prize-winning Watergate investigation. But it was internal FBI resistance, from Felt and agents at lower levels, that led to Gray’s departure.

Political from the start

Campaigning in 2024, Donald Trump vowed to “root out” his political opponents from government. Realizing he was a target because of his investigation of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, FBI director Christopher Wray, whom Trump had nominated in 2017, resigned in December 2024 before Trump could fire him.

In Wray’s place Trump nominated loyalist Kash Patel, a lawyer who worked as a low-level federal prosecutor from 2013 to 2016 and then as a deputy national security appointee during Trump’s first term.

Patel publicly supported Trump’s vow to purge enemies and claimed the FBI was part of a “deep state” that was resistant to Trump. Patel promised to help dismantle this disloyal core and to “rebuild public trust” in the FBI.

Even before Patel was confirmed on Feb. 20, 2025, in an historically close 51-49 vote, the Justice Department began transferring thousands of agents away from national security matters to immigration duty, which was not a traditional FBI focus.

Hours after taking office, Patel shifted 1,500 agents and staff from FBI headquarters to field offices, claiming that he was streamlining operations.

Patel installed outsider Dan Bongino as deputy director. Bongino, another Trump loyalist, was a former New York City policeman and Secret Service agent who had become a full-time political commentator. He embraced a conspiracy theory positing the FBI was “irredeemably corrupt” and advocated “an absolute housecleaning.”

In February, New York City Special Agent in Charge James Dennehy told FBI staff “to dig in” and oppose expected and unprecedented political intrusions. He was forced out by March.

Patel then used lie-detector tests and carried out a string of high-profile firings of agents who had investigated either Trump or the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Some agents who were fired had been photographed kneeling during a 2020 racial justice protest in Washington, D.C. – an action they said they took to defuse tensions with protesters.

In response, three fired agents are suing Patel for what they call a political retribution campaign. Ex-NFL football player Charles Tillman, who became an FBI agent in 2017, resigned in September 2025 in protest of Trump policies. Once again, there are assertions of a purge.

Will Patel be held accountable?

Patel’s actions as director so far illustrate that he is willing to use his position to implement the president’s political designs. When Gray tried to do this in the 1970s, accountability still held force, and Gray left office in disgrace. Gray participated in a cover-up of illegal behavior that became the subject of an impeachment proceeding. What Patel has done to date, at least what we know about, is not the equivalent – so far.

Today, Patel’s tenure rests solely upon pleasing the president. If formal accountability – a key element of a democracy – is to survive, it will have to come from Congress, whose Republican majority has so far not exercised its power to hold Trump or his administration accountable. Short of that, perhaps internal resistance within the administration or pressure from the public and the media might serve the oversight function that Congress, over the past eight months, has abrogated.

Douglas M. Charles 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. History is repeating itself at the FBI as agents resist a director’s political agenda – https://theconversation.com/history-is-repeating-itself-at-the-fbi-as-agents-resist-a-directors-political-agenda-265637

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Christopher F. Meindl, Associate Professor of Geography, University of South Florida

“Behold … a vast circular expanse before you, the waters of which are so extremely clear as to be absolutely diaphanous or transparent as the ether.”

Naturalist William Bartram wrote these words in the 18th century as he gazed in wonder at Salt Springs, located in Ocala National Forest in what is now Marion County, Florida.

Springs are points where groundwater emerges at the earth’s surface, and Florida boasts more than 1,100 of them. North and central Florida comprise one of the largest concentrations of freshwater springs in the world.

Many of these springs provide a home to a variety of wild animals and plants. But they are also canaries in the coal mine for Florida’s groundwater system, because they draw upon the same groundwater that many Floridians depend on for drinking water, farm irrigation and industrial use.

Right now, many Florida springs suffer from reduced flow and habitat loss, as well as excessive algae and heavy pressure from human use. Because most of the state’s springs are not monitored by any research institution or government agency, the full scope of the problem remains unclear.

The state Legislature has designated 30 Outstanding Florida Springs whose health must be protected under the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act of 2016. But 24 of the 30 were impaired by pollution – primarily nitrogen – at the time of this designation, and today, their condition has not improved.

In 2025, 26 of the 30 – the same 24 springs, plus two more – have been found to be impaired.

According to multiple reports and my own observation, many other popular springs are impaired by pollution as well. Since 2011, the state of Florida has spent roughly US$357 million on springs restoration.

As a geography professor, I study springs in the context of people and their use of water. My research has taught me that Florida’s springs vary based on location and local circumstances. Because of this, I believe reviving their health will require several multidimensional solutions.

Recalling healthy springs

What should a healthy spring look like? The answer to this can be harder to articulate than you might think. Many springs feature a visible boil at the water surface above the spring vent, crystal clear water, submerged grasses waving in the current, and a range of fish, turtles, snails and other aquatic animals hiding in the grasses.

Yet because many springs are changing slowly, changes in flow and water clarity can go unnoticed. Some scientists call this the shifting baseline syndrome: Each generation perceives springs in a slightly more degraded state, but absent prior observations, we assume that what we see is “normal.”

Fortunately, in the case of Florida springs, historical observations from naturalists and area residents give scientists clues going back centuries.

When Bartram visited Manatee Springs near Chiefland and the Suwannee River in the Big Bend in 1774, he wrote that the spring’s flow was “astonishing” and that “it is impossible to keep the boat or any other floating vessel over the fountain.”

Similarly, senior citizens who grew up in north central Florida in the early 20th century told writer P.C. Zick that spring flow at Ichetucknee Springs was once so strong that they could hear the spring boil before getting close enough to see it.

Both springs’ boils are noticeable today, but they are clearly not what they used to be.

When naturalist John James Audubon visited Volusia County’s De Leon Springs in 1832, he found that “The water was quite transparent, although of dark color.” And Bartram wrote of Salt Springs that the water was so clear, he thought he could reach out and touch fish that were 20 to 30 feet below the surface.

Water clarity in thriving springs fosters plenty of submerged grasses soaking up sunshine, along with a wide variety and large number of fish and other aquatic animals that depend on this vegetation. Bartram wrote that he spotted gar, trout, bream, “the barbed catfish, dreaded sting-ray, skate and flounder, spotted bass, sheeps head and ominous drum” at Salt Springs.

A multifaceted problem

Many Florida springs and their runs now suffer reduced flow, wear and tear from hundreds of thousands of well-meaning visitors, and excess algae.

And while some Florida springs, such as Polk County’s Kissingen Springs, have completely dried up, many more produce less flow than they used to.

It is easy to assume that bottled water companies are the reason for seriously reduced spring flows, and in at least one case, bottling spring water has raised concerns of overuse.

Yet a state report published in 2021 that examined water-bottling operations associated with springs found that bottlers were permitted to extract just over 5 million gallons per day from Florida’s springs – a tiny fraction of the 2.3 billion gallons of groundwater pumped each day from the Floridan Aquifer, which provides drinking water for more than 10 million people in the southeastern United States.

The most problematic reductions in spring flow are from significant groundwater pumping for agricultural irrigation, heavy urban, mining or industrial water use, or in some cases a long-term rainfall deficit. Various springs suffer from one or more of these problems.

In addition, as Florida’s population and tourism have grown, so have the number of visitors to the state’s most popular springs. In 2019, Florida springs attracted more than 4 million visitors. During the summer, especially on weekends, some springs are so crowded that staff members have to turn away visitors. And in winter, springs that attract manatees can be equally crowded.

In shallow portions of springs and spring runs, this means thousands of happy feet trample and destroy vegetation. And when submerged grasses disappear, so do the aquatic animals that rely on them for food.

Unwanted algae

Finally, there is the mystery of excess algae. Algae naturally occurs in most springs, but today, many springs have so much that it clouds the water, or they have stringy filamentous algae that blankets the soil and rocks around a spring and along its run. Still others have algae that sticks to submerged aquatic plants, blocking vital sunlight.

The predominant narrative among many springs scientists, advocates and government officials is that rising nitrate levels in springs over the past few decades fuels the growth of excess algae. Nitrate, a form of nitrogen, is a plant nutrient.

Yet other scientists have suggested that reduced spring discharge creates slower-moving water, which loses its ability to push excess algae away.

Another hypothesis is that if dissolved oxygen levels temporarily fall below a certain threshold, it can kill off the snails and other animals that graze on the algae and keep it in check.

A balanced restoration plan

More than two-thirds of state-funded springs restoration projects over the past decade have been for some form of enhanced sewage treatment. This is because excess nitrogen is assumed to be the cause of excess algae in Florida springs, and Florida farmers are presumed to be in compliance with water quality regulations if they implement best management practices.

Enhanced sewage treatment is a good thing, especially in cases where human waste is clearly a pressing problem. In some cases, investing in advanced sewage treatment, shifting landowners from septic systems to sewage treatment plants or even enhanced treatment of storm water before it sinks into the ground clearly benefits springs.

However, shifting people from septic tanks to central sewage treatment is expensive. Based on the evidence and my own observations of various springs within Florida’s landscape, I believe that many springs need more than this single solution.

Some need shoreline stabilization to prevent erosion or rules that reduce human pressure on spring vegetation. Others need algae or sediment removed and native vegetation reintroduced.

In still other cases, it would help to purchase property to prevent harmful development or to retire farmland. And in nearly every case, the springs would benefit from Florida residents and businesses reducing water and fertilizer use.

And, restoring and maintaining the health of Florida’s 1,100 springs will require further study to tailor appropriate interventions to each one.

Christopher F. Meindl 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. Florida’s 1,100 natural springs are under threat – a geographer explains how to restore them – https://theconversation.com/floridas-1-100-natural-springs-are-under-threat-a-geographer-explains-how-to-restore-them-263704