Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Justin Reich, Professor of Digital Media, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

American technologists have been telling educators to rapidly adopt their new inventions for over a century. In 1922, Thomas Edison declared that in the near future, all school textbooks would be replaced by film strips, because text was 2% efficient, but film was 100% efficient. Those bogus statistics are a good reminder that people can be brilliant technologists, while also being inept education reformers.

I think of Edison whenever I hear technologists insisting that educators have to adopt artificial intelligence as rapidly as possible to get ahead of the transformation that’s about to wash over schools and society.

At MIT, I study the history and future of education technology, and I have never encountered an example of a school system – a country, state or municipality – that rapidly adopted a new digital technology and saw durable benefits for their students. The first districts to encourage students to bring mobile phones to class did not better prepare youth for the future than schools that took a more cautious approach. There is no evidence that the first countries to connect their classrooms to the internet stand apart in economic growth, educational attainment or citizen well-being.

New education technologies are only as powerful as the communities that guide their use. Opening a new browser tab is easy; creating the conditions for good learning is hard.

It takes years for educators to develop new practices and norms, for students to adopt new routines, and for families to identify new support mechanisms in order for a novel invention to reliably improve learning. But as AI spreads through schools, both historical analysis and new research conducted with K-12 teachers and students offer some guidance on navigating uncertainties and minimizing harm.

We’ve been wrong and overconfident before

I started teaching high school history students to search the web in 2003. At the time, experts in library and information science developed a pedagogy for web evaluation that encouraged students to closely read websites looking for markers of credibility: citations, proper formatting, and an “about” page. We gave students checklists like the CRAAP test – currency, reliability, authority, accuracy and purpose – to guide their evaluation. We taught students to avoid Wikipedia and to trust websites with .org or .edu domains over .com domains. It all seemed reasonable and evidence-informed at the time.

The first peer-reviewed article demonstrating effective methods for teaching students how to search the web was published in 2019. It showed that novices who used these commonly taught techniques performed miserably in tests evaluating their ability to sort truth from fiction on the web. It also showed that experts in online information evaluation used a completely different approach: quickly leaving a page to see how other sources characterize it. That method, now called lateral reading, resulted in faster, more accurate searching. The work was a gut punch for an old teacher like me. We’d spent nearly two decades teaching millions of students demonstrably ineffective ways of searching.

Today, there is a cottage industry of consultants, keynoters and “thought leaders” traveling the country purporting to train educators on how to use AI in schools. National and international organizations publish AI literacy frameworks claiming to know what skills students need for their future. Technologists invent apps that encourage teachers and students to use generative AI as tutors, as lesson planners, as writing editors, or as conversation partners. These approaches have about as much evidential support today as the CRAAP test did when it was invented.

There is a better approach than making overconfident guesses: rigorously testing new practices and strategies and only widely advocating for the ones that have robust evidence of effectiveness. As with web literacy, that evidence will take a decade or more to emerge.

But there’s a difference this time. AI is what I have called an “arrival technology.” AI is not invited into schools through a process of adoption, like buying a desktop computer or smartboard – it crashes the party and then starts rearranging the furniture. That means schools have to do something. Teachers feel this urgently. Yet they also need support: Over the past two years, my team has interviewed nearly 100 educators from across the U.S., and one widespread refrain is “don’t make us go it alone.”

3 strategies for prudent path forward

While waiting for better answers from the education science community, which will take years, teachers will have to be scientists themselves. I recommend three guideposts for moving forward with AI under conditions of uncertainty: humility, experimentation and assessment.

First, regularly remind students and teachers that anything schools try – literacy frameworks, teaching practices, new assessments – is a best guess. In four years, students might hear that what they were first taught about using AI has since proved to be quite wrong. We all need to be ready to revise our thinking.

Second, schools need to examine their students and curriculum, and decide what kinds of experiments they’d like to conduct with AI. Some parts of your curriculum might invite playfulness and bold new efforts, while others deserve more caution.

In our podcast “The Homework Machine,” we interviewed Eric Timmons, a teacher in Santa Ana, California, who teaches elective filmmaking courses. His students’ final assessments are complex movies that require multiple technical and artistic skills to produce. An AI enthusiast, Timmons uses AI to develop his curriculum, and he encourages students to use AI tools to solve filmmaking problems, from scripting to technical design. He’s not worried about AI doing everything for students: As he says, “My students love to make movies. … So why would they replace that with AI?”

It’s among the best, most thoughtful examples of an “all in” approach that I’ve encountered. I also can’t imagine recommending a similar approach for a course like ninth grade English, where the pivotal introduction to secondary school writing probably should be treated with more cautious approaches.

Third, when teachers do launch new experiments, they should recognize that local assessment will happen much faster than rigorous science. Every time schools launch a new AI policy or teaching practice, educators should collect a pile of related student work that was developed before AI was used during teaching. If you let students use AI tools for formative feedback on science labs, grab a pile of circa-2022 lab reports. Then, collect the new lab reports. Review whether the post-AI lab reports show an improvement on the outcomes you care about, and revise practices accordingly.

Between local educators and the international community of education scientists, people will learn a lot by 2035 about AI in schools. We might find that AI is like the web, a place with some risks but ultimately so full of important, useful resources that we continue to invite it into schools. Or we might find that AI is like cellphones, and the negative effects on well-being and learning ultimately outweigh the potential gains, and thus are best treated with more aggressive restrictions.

Everyone in education feels an urgency to resolve the uncertainty around generative AI. But we don’t need a race to generate answers first – we need a race to be right.

Justin Reich has received funding from Google, Microsoft, Apple, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chan/Zuckerberg Initiative, the Hewlett Foundation, education publishers, and other organizations that are involved in technology and schools.

– ref. What past education technology failures can teach us about the future of AI in schools – https://theconversation.com/what-past-education-technology-failures-can-teach-us-about-the-future-of-ai-in-schools-265172

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Tami S. Rowen, Associate Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Gynecologic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco

When President Donald Trump adamantly proclaimed in a press conference on Sept. 22, 2025, that pregnant women should not take Tylenol, I immediately thought about my own experiences during my second labor. While pushing for nearly three hours, I developed an infection in my uterus called chorioamnionitis, which occurs when bacteria infect the uterus, placenta and sometimes the baby’s bloodstream. I had a fever, and my baby’s heart rate was significantly elevated.

I remember feeling delirious; my colleague and friend, while delivering my baby, said she had never seen me in such a state. I couldn’t focus on pushing. I felt faint, and I worried about my baby.

And I remember the incredible relief that acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, brought me when it lowered my fever and decreased my and my baby’s heart rate. After taking it, I was able to push with confidence and welcome my healthy daughter, who is now 7 and thriving.

As a practicing obstetrician and medical researcher with nearly two decades of experience taking care of pregnant patients, I have to make a dozen decisions about acetaminophen use on any given day when I am working in the hospital. I have examined the data as a researcher, clinician and educator. Central to our jobs is balancing the risks and benefits of any treatments.

The president’s words will not change how I practice, but I worry they will sow confusion in my patients and create fear of potential lawsuits for all practicing health care providers.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the leading organization that guides medical decisions on pregnancy and childbirth, has reiterated the safety and efficacy of acetaminophen use during pregnancy in light of the confusion surrounding Trump’s claims.

Mixed messages

I first looked into the data on the possible links between acetaminophen and developmental disorders a few years ago when I received a call from a woman who had recently learned she was pregnant and had caught the flu from her toddler child. She was concerned that Tylenol was dangerous for her developing baby.

Some studies do suggest links between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. But they lack a crucial distinction.

For one, they cannot pin down whether acetaminophen use during pregnancy itself was associated with the neurodevelopmental conditions in the child, or whether the fevers and other symptoms that led people to use the painkiller were playing a role in the outcome. Secondly, because those studies are based on statistical associations rather than controlled experiments, they cannot show cause and effect.

Since it is both unethical and nonfeasible to perform a controlled study evaluating the actual risks of acetaminophen use, the best proxy to control for environmental or genetic factors is to look at maternal exposure to acetaminophen and outcomes of more than one child in individual families.

That’s exactly what was done in a 2024 Swedish study that analyzed nearly 2.5 million children born from 1995 to 2019 in Sweden to mothers who had documented use of any medication during pregnancy. When looking at individual children, the researchers found up to a 5% increase in autism for those exposed to acetaminophen during pregnancy. However, when siblings were included in the analysis – controlling for environmental, medical and genetic factors that could have contributed – the small, elevated risk disappeared.

Fever during pregnancy is dangerous for mother and baby

There are many important reasons why doctors like me may recommend acetaminophen to a pregnant patient. One pregnant patient I treated who had the flu was so sick that she was septic, meaning an infection had spread throughout her body. Her 103-degree fever and dangerously low blood pressure threatened her and her fetus’s life.

My colleagues and I did not hesitate to treat her with acetaminophen. Our goal was to bring down not only her body temperature but also the fetus’s heart rate, since a high heart rate can place dangerous stress on the fetus. I shudder at the thought of what would have happened to her and her baby had she been denied this medication, or had she been afraid to use it as a result of hearing a statement from Trump and his health officials.

Fevers are very common during pregnancy, with about 20% of patients reporting they experienced one.

In fact, the evidence for a connection between fevers during pregnancy and autism is actually far stronger than any study connecting acetaminophen and autism. Recurrent fevers during pregnancy can increase the risk of autism by up to 300%, particularly in pregnant patients with severe or prolonged infections. This is especially true if a patient is hospitalized, as are most of my patients whose cases are serious enough to require hospitalization.

Pain during pregnancy

Beyond fevers, which can occur throughout pregnancy as well as during delivery, as I experienced myself, pregnant patients may seek to manage pain, which can occur for any number of reasons over the course of nine months. Pregnant people suffer from kidney stones, appendicitis or dental cavities that require root canal, just like people who are not pregnant. Up to 70% of pregnant people experience back pain, which can leave them unable to perform normal daily activities and care for their children. Should they be denied pain relief and told to tough it out?

The safest and most strongly recommended pain reliever for them is acetaminophen.

Other pain-relieving options such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, are generally off-limits during pregnancy because they can lead to closure of an important heart valve in the fetus as well as low amniotic fluid and other complications. Opioids carry the risk of the fetus developing an addiction and withdrawal, not to mention the risk of addiction in the mother.

The ability to guide people in pregnancy, childbirth and beyond is, for me, the most intimate and fulfilling part of medicine. The anxiety and fear that people bring to my office and to the delivery room about the many uncertainties associated with pregnancy and childbirth is palpable and legitimate.

That’s why it is critical that all recommendations are sound and evidence-based, with a clear understanding of the nuances and limitations of research studies. I know every time I look at my children I think of everything I can do to keep them safe, and I wonder what I could have done in the past to prevent any problems we currently face. We owe it to parents like me and all future parents to give them the most honest and scientific information possible.

Tami S. Rowen is an advisor for Roon, a health education company, and a health consultant for MCG, a health guidelines company.

– ref. As an OB-GYN, I see firsthand how misleading statements on acetaminophen leave expectant parents confused, fearful and lacking in options – https://theconversation.com/as-an-ob-gyn-i-see-firsthand-how-misleading-statements-on-acetaminophen-leave-expectant-parents-confused-fearful-and-lacking-in-options-265947

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John W. Diamond, Director of the Center for Public Finance at the Baker Institute, Rice University

The economic consequences of the current federal government shutdown hinge critically on how long it lasts. If it is resolved quickly, the costs will be small, but if it drags on, it could send the U.S. economy into a tailspin.

That’s because the economy is already in a precarious state, with the labor market struggling, consumers losing confidence and uncertainty mounting.

As an economist who studies public finance, I closely follow how government policies affect the economy. Let me explain how a prolonged shutdown could affect the economy – and why it could be a tipping point to recession.

Direct impacts from a government shutdown

The partial government shutdown began on Oct. 1, 2025, as Democrats and Republicans failed to reach a deal on funding some portion of the federal government. A partial shutdown means that some funding bills have been approved, entitlement spending continues since it does not rely on annual appropriations, and some workers are deemed necessary and stay on the job unpaid.

While most of the 20 shutdowns that occurred from 1976 through 2024 lasted only a few days to a week, there are signs the current one may not be resolved so quickly. The economy would definitely take a direct hit to gross domestic product from a lengthy shutdown, but it’s the indirect impacts that could be more harmful.

The most recent shutdown, which extended over the 2018-2019 winter holidays and lasted 35 days, was the longest in U.S. history. After it ended, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the partial shutdown delayed approximately US$18 billion in federal discretionary spending, which translated into an $11 billion reduction in real GDP.

Most of that lost output was made up later once the shutdown ended, the CBO noted. It estimated that the permanent losses were about $3 billion – a drop in the bucket for the $30 trillion U.S. economy.

The indirect and more lasting impacts

The full impact may depend to a large extent on the psychology of the average consumer.

Recent data suggests that consumer confidence is falling as the stagnation in the labor market becomes more clear. Business confidence has been mixed as the manufacturing index continues to indicate the sector is in contraction, while other business confidence measures indicate mixed expectations about the future.

If the shutdown drags on, the psychological effects may lead to a larger loss of confidence among consumers and businesses. Given that consumer spending accounts for 70% of economic activity, a fall in consumer confidence could signal a turning point in the economy.

These indirect effects are in addition to the direct impact of lost income for federal workers and those that operate on federal contracts, which leads to reductions in consumption and production.

The risk of significant government layoffs, beyond the usual furloughs, could deepen the economic damage. Extensive layoffs would shift the losses from a temporary delay to a more permanent loss of income and human capital, reducing aggregate demand and potentially increasing unemployment spillovers into the private sector.

In short, while shutdowns that end quickly tend to inflict modest, mostly recoverable losses, a protracted shutdown – especially one involving layoffs of a significant number of government workers – could inflict larger, lasting impacts on the economy.

US economy is already in distress

This is all occurring as the U.S. labor market is flashing warnings.

Payrolls grew by only 22,000 in August, with July and June estimates revised down by 21,000. This follows payroll growth of only 73,000 in July, with May and June estimates revised down by 258,000.
In addition, preliminary annual revisions to the employment data show the economy gained 911,000 fewer jobs in the previous year than had been reported.

Long-term unemployment is also rising, with 1.8 million people out of work for more than 27 weeks – nearly a quarter of the total number of unemployed individuals.

At the same time, AI adoption and cost-cutting could further reduce labor demand, while an aging workforce and lower immigration shrink labor supply. Fed Chair Jerome Powell refers to this as a “curious kind of balance” in the labor market.

In other words, the job market appears to have come to a screeching halt, making it difficult for recent graduates to find work. Recent graduate unemployment – that is, those who are 22 to 27 years old – is now 5.3% relative to the total unemployment rate of 4.3%.

The latest data from the ADP employment report, which measures only private company data, shows that the economy lost 32,000 jobs in September. That’s the biggest decline in 2½ years. While that’s worrying, economists like me usually wait for the official Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers to come out to confirm the accuracy of the payroll processing firm’s report.

The government data that was supposed to come out on Oct. 3 might have offered a possible counterpoint to the bad ADP news, but due to the shutdown BLS will not be releasing the report.

Problems Fed rate cuts can’t fix

This will only increase the uncertainty surrounding the health of the U.S. economy. And it adds to the uncertainty created by on-again, off-again tariffs as well as the newly imposed tariffs on lumber, furniture and other goods.

Against this backdrop, the Fed is expected to lower interest rates at least two more times this year to stimulate consumer and business spending following its September quarter-point cut. This raises the risk of reigniting inflation, but the cooling labor market is a more immediate concern for the Fed.

While lower short-term rates may help at the margin, I believe they cannot resolve the deeper challenges, such as massive government deficits and debt, tight household budgets, a housing affordability crisis and a shrinking labor force.

The question now is not will the Fed cut rates, because it likely will, but whether that cut will help, particularly if the shutdown lasts weeks or more. Monetary policy alone cannot overcome the uncertainty created by tariffs, the lack of fiscal restraint, companies focused on cutting costs by replacing people with technology, the impact of the shutdown and the fears of consumers about the future.

Lower interest rates may buy time, but they won’t solve these structural problems facing the U.S. economy.

John W. Diamond 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. US economy is already on the edge – a prolonged government shutdown could send it tumbling over – https://theconversation.com/us-economy-is-already-on-the-edge-a-prolonged-government-shutdown-could-send-it-tumbling-over-266327

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Morgan Marietta, Professor of American Civics, University of Tennessee

The most influential cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, which begins on Oct. 6, 2025, reflect the cultural and partisan clashes of American politics.

The major cases in October and November address the role of race in elections, conversion therapy and the Trump tariffs. Later cases include campaign finance and transgender sports.

This year’s controversies focus on three dominant themes. One is the continuing constitutional revolution in how the justices read our basic law. The court has shifted from a living reading of the Constitution, which says the Constitution should adapt to the American people’s evolving values and the needs of contemporary society, to an original reading, which aims to enforce the constitutional principles understood by the Americans who ratified them.

Another clear theme is the deep cultural division among Americans. The core disputes at the court this year reflect controversial factual questions about gender and race: How pervasive and influential is racism in the current day? Are gender transitions a recognized fact, which means that they must be accepted in sports competitions, or can a state assert that trans athletes are not women?

A final theme is the struggle for partisan advantage embedded in several cases.

Constitutional revolution

Until just a few years ago, the majority of justices would have agreed that the proper way to read the Constitution was as an evolving document, an approach usually described as living constitutionalism.

The new majority reads the Constitution as an expression of enduring principles, which maintain their historical meaning unless the American people collectively decide to amend the document, an approach known as originalism.

Since 2022, this revolutionary shift has led to dramatic changes in the law on abortion, religion, guns, affirmative action and the power of federal agencies to regulate in areas such as the environment, public health or student debt.

This year, the constitutional revolution – “a historic constitutional course correction.” as legal scholars Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn and Yaniv Roznai put it – turns to transgender politics.

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. ask whether a state can ban transgender athletes from participating in girls or women’s sports. The plaintiffs are middle school and university students who were banned by state laws from participating as a female competitor. They are asking the court to rule that transgender identity is a protected category similar to race and gender under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Originalists argue that the meaning of the 14th Amendment is clear and fixed. It establishes the equal status of racial minorities as holders of rights. But originalists do not believe the equal protection clause was meant to apply to sexual identities unless that is explicitly approved through a constitutional amendment by the American public.

Originalists also emphasize the role of federalism as a core constitutional principle. Federalism allocates a great deal of authority to state legislatures to make decisions when a question of rights is uncertain.

For these reasons the court majority is likely to see the regulation of who gets to participate in women’s sports as a state-by-state decision.

Cultural divisions, disputed perceptions

The status of transgender identity also reflects the disputed perceptions of reality that have come to dominate American politics. In essence, the Iowa and West Virginia sports cases ask the court to rule whether a transgender girl – a person assigned male at birth who has transitioned to align with their identity as a girl or woman, as the AP Stylebook phrases it – is a girl or a boy.

The court is likely to leave such questions about what is factually true for state legislatures to determine.

The same need for the court to determine who can decide what is or is not a legitimate fact also applies to this year’s controversy over conversion therapy. Colorado bans the practice – condemned by many professional medical associations – in which counselors attempt to alter sexual orientation or gender identity.

Chiles v. Salazar challenges the Colorado law as a violation of the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and religious liberty.

An original reading of the First Amendment provides strong support for open expression on controversial topics, even by medical professionals. But on the factual question of whether homosexuality or gender identity in young people is indisputably innate or immutable, the court may defer to state legislatures to decide whether licensed professionals must assert only a specific set of accepted facts.

Partisan advantage

Many observers perceive a partisan as well as principled divide on the current court. Decisions in several cases this year potentially give a distinct advantage in future elections to Democrats or Republicans.

The most clear case may be about the regulation of campaign finance. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC – a lawsuit begun in 2022 by then-U.S. Sen. JD Vance – asks the court to overturn a restriction that bars political parties from coordinating unlimited spending on campaign advertising with the official campaign.

Many Democrats believe Republicans will be the larger beneficiaries in the coming years if the court rules that the current limits violate the First Amendment.

Then there’s the challenge to the constitutionality of the Trump tariffs.

Learning Resources v. Trump will determine whether the recent tariffs are authorized by Congress under the International Emergency Powers Act of 1977. The answer hinges on the application of what’s known as the “major questions doctrine,” which limits presidential authority over issues of great economic or policy importance in the absence of direct endorsement from Congress.

The major questions doctrine is an originalist concept, but in the court’s view it may not apply to actions in the foreign policy realm – including tariffs – where the president has greater discretion.

Race and elections

The case that represents all three trends at the court is Louisiana v. Callais on the creation of majority-Black congressional districts.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlaws racial discrimination in voting. This landmark legislation from the civil rights era helped raise the rate of Black voter registration and turnout in Southern states from less than half the white rate to exceeding it over the past 60 years.

The question in front of the court is whether the law requires a state to make sure that some congressional districts have a majority of Black voters.

The argument opposing the intentional creation of racial districts is that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment demands the same treatment of all citizens regardless of race, banning any distinction even when designed to benefit minorities.

Underlying the differences of opinion are competing perceptions of the prevalence and influence of racism in the current day. This dispute was clear in the court’s 2013 Shelby County decision, which struck down the part of the Voting Rights Act that limited Southern states from passing new elections laws without “pre-clearance” from the Department of Justice. That requirement aimed to ensure that new laws would not discriminate against Black voters, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

In striking down that requirement, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that “no one can fairly say” that the South “shows anything approaching the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously responded that removing the Voting Rights Act’s protections was “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

The ultimate number of majority-Black districts in Louisiana is not only a question of constitutional principles applied to prevailing facts. It is also about partisan advantage. Partisans on both sides are well aware that a majority-Black district is also a Democratic district.

So whether the state ends up with two or just one – or potentially even none – of its six congressional districts shaped by race could shift the future partisan balance in a closely divided Congress.

With partisan advantage, clashing perceptions of reality and revolutionary readings of the Constitution all in play, the rulings of the Supreme Court this year will reach far into American politics and culture.

Morgan Marietta 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. Supreme Court opens with cases on voting rights, tariffs, gender identity and campaign finance to test the limits of a constitutional revolution – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-opens-with-cases-on-voting-rights-tariffs-gender-identity-and-campaign-finance-to-test-the-limits-of-a-constitutional-revolution-265720

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Timothy R. Holbrook, Professor of Law, University of Denver

The constitutionality of a Colorado law that bans so-called “conversion therapy” is scheduled to go before the Supreme Court on Oct. 7, 2025. The question at the center of the case, Chiles v. Salazar, is whether a therapist who uses talk therapy to try to convince minors to change their sexual orientation or gender identity is protected by a First Amendment right to free speech.

Twenty-three other states and the District of Columbia also ban conversion therapy.

I am a legal scholar who has explored aspects of the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, and this case is an important test of the status of the community’s rights and protections at the Supreme Court.

Why it matters

The case has similarities to the court’s 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti that upheld state laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors, such as the use of puberty-blocking hormones. LGBTQ+ persons viewed those bans as hurting the community, whereas bans like Colorado’s on conversion therapy are viewed as protecting the community.

Technically, the legal issue in Skrmetti was different: The court addressed whether the ban violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from discriminating against particular protected classes, such as race or gender, absent a particularly strong state interest. In the Skrmetti decision, the court held there was no discrimination on the basis of sex, which meant the law received no heightened scrutiny.

Instead, the court assessed whether there was a “rational basis” for the law and held that Tennessee had “plausible reasons” for the ban: protecting minors from harms such as sterility and treatments whose long-term effects are unclear. The court upheld the law banning gender-affirming care even though major U.S. medical professional associations oppose such bans and support such care.

The facts of Chiles

In Chiles, the issue is freedom of speech, not equal protection. But this time the Colordo ban on conversion therapy aligns with leading medical associations.

Kaley Chiles is a licensed professional counselor who uses talk therapy in her counseling practice. Chiles identifies as Christian and often works with Christian clients. Chiles “does not try to help minors change their attractions, behavior, or identity, when her minor clients tell her they are not seeking such change.” She would like to use talk therapy with clients “who have same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion and who also prioritize their faith above their feelings” and who “are seeking to live a life consistent with their faith,” according to court filings.

Chiles sued Colorado to invalidate the statute as unconstitutional for violating her freedom of speech and religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Both the federal district court in Colorado and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denied her request for a preliminary injunction, rejecting both arguments.

The Supreme Court agreed only to hear her free speech claim, leaving the 10th Circuit’s rejection of her religious liberty claim in place.

Is ‘talk therapy’ speech or conduct?

The Supreme Court first will need to address whether talk therapy is protected speech under the First Amendment. This decision likely will determine the case’s outcome.

Chiles contends that talk therapy is protected speech and that Colorado is impermissibly regulating the content of her potential speech. The law permits her to help minor clients embrace their sexual orientation or gender identity through talk therapy but not to change it. If this therapy is speech, it would be regulating the content of her speech because the law determines what can and cannot be said. Affirming talk therapy is allowed, but conversion therapy is prohibited.

Colorado, however, insists that the statute regulates medical conduct, which is not protected by the First Amendment, even if there is an incidental burden on speech.

A state undisputably can regulate medical activity, such as the prescription of a medicine. If the therapy involved the use of medicines, there would be no dispute because no speech would be involved. The Colorado conversion therapy ban is part of a broader statute, the Mental Health Practice Act, which prohibits acts that could harm patients. Thus, talk therapy, according to Colorado, is treatment – like providing medicine – that the state is free to regulate.

Conversion therapy is also deemed ineffective and harmful to children by leading medical associations, such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association. The 10th Circuit noted that the Colorado ban regulates treatment, not expression, because Chiles is free to share her views on conversion therapy, even with minors. She simply cannot engage in actual therapy under the law.

The Supreme Court will need to decide whether talk therapy is speech or conduct. The court often takes a broad view of what constitutes speech, particularly in the area of LGBTQ+ rights. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, another case out of Colorado, the court held that creating a wedding webpage was deemed protected speech. This 2023 decision permitted the webpage designer to deny services to same-sex couples requesting webpages for their weddings, in violation of Colorado’s law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination.

If the court concludes that conversion therapy is conduct, then the Colorado law is subject to the same standard used in Skrmetti – rational basis – and likely will survive. In light of 303 Creative, however, the court may deem it speech.

If talk therapy is speech, can Colorado ban it?

Simply because an act constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment does not mean the state cannot regulate it. For example, the state can rightly regulate defamatory statements or obscene material.

Courts, however, apply an exacting standard of review, known as strict scrutiny, and rarely does a law survive such analysis. Colorado must show that its ban on conversion therapy is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Colorado contends that ensuring minors receive safe and effective mental health care is a compelling interest, and the law is narrowly tailored because “(i)t prohibits only specific harmful treatment while leaving therapists free to engage in any other appropriate therapy.”

Chiles’ strongest argument is that the law is not narrowly tailored for a number of reasons. Chiles contends the law is too broad because it bans more speech than necessary to protect against any harms to LGBTQ+ minors, including any therapy to change behavior, expression, identity or feeling.

For example, she argues she could not counsel a gay client toward celibacy. It is also not properly tailored, Chiles argues, because it exposes minors to the harms of conversion therapy by its omissions: It applies only to licensed mental health professionals and not others, such as life coaches, and it applies only to minors. If conversion therapy is as harmful as Colorado alleges, these gaps show the lack of proper tailoring, says Chiles.

The court has frequently struck down laws that regulate the content of speech. If the court concludes that talk therapy is protected speech, it is likely the court will find the Colorado ban on conversion therapy unconstitutional.

Such a decision would contrast sharply with Skrmetti. If the court strikes down the Colorado law, then a law meant to protect LGBTQ+ minors will be invalidated while one deemed harmful to trans minors will stand.

The court again will have gone against the predominant view of medical experts in a way detrimental to the LGBTQ+ community, potentially adding to criticism of the Supreme Court as being too political.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Timothy R. Holbrook 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. Supreme Court to decide if Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy violates free speech – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-to-decide-if-colorados-law-banning-conversion-therapy-violates-free-speech-265529

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Artemis Spyrou, Professor of Nuclear Physics, Michigan State University

The adage goes “like mother like daughter,” and in the case of Irene Joliot-Curie, truer words were never spoken. She was the daughter of two Nobel Prize laureates, Marie Curie and Pierre Curie, and was herself awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1935 together with her husband, Frederic Joliot.

While her parents received the prize for the discovery of natural radioactivity, Irene’s prize was for the synthesis of artificial radioactivity. This discovery changed many fields of science and many aspects of our everyday lives. Artificial radioactivity is used today in medicine, agriculture, energy production, food sterilization, industrial quality control and more.

We are two nuclear physicists who perform experiments at different accelerator facilities around the world. Irene’s discovery laid the foundation for our experimental studies, which use artificial radioactivity to understand questions related to astrophysics, energy, medicine and more.

Early years and battlefield training

Irene Curie was born in Paris, France, in 1897. In an unusual schooling setup, Irene was one of a group of children taught by their academic parents, including her own by then famous mother, Marie Curie.

World War I started in 1914, when Irene was only 17, and she interrupted her studies to help her mother find fragments of bombs in wounded soldiers using portable X-ray machines. She soon became an expert in these wartime radiology techniques, and on top of performing the measurements herself, she also spent time training nurses to use the X-ray machines.

After the war, Irene went back to her studies in her mother’s lab at the Radium Institute. This is where she met fellow researcher Frederic Joliot, whom she later married. The two worked together on many projects, which led them to their major breakthrough in 1934.

A radioactive discovery

Isotopes are variations of a particular element that have the same number of protons – positively charged particles – and different numbers of neutrons, which are particles with no charge. While some isotopes are stable, the majority are radioactive and called radioisotopes. These radioisotopes spontaneously transform into different elements and release radiation – energetic particles or light – in a process called radioactive decay.

At the time of Irene and Frederic’s discovery, the only known radioactive isotopes came from natural ores, through a costly and extremely time-consuming process. Marie and Pierre Curie had spent years studying the natural radioactivity in tons of uranium ores.

In Irene and Frederic’s experiments, they bombarded aluminum samples with alpha particles, which consist of two protons and two neutrons bound together – they are atomic nuclei of the isotope helium-4.

In previous studies, they had observed the different types of radiation their samples emitted while being bombarded. The radiation would cease when they took away the source of alpha particles. In the aluminum experiment, however, they noticed that even after they removed the alpha source, they could still detect radiation.

The amount of radiation decreased by half every three minutes, and they concluded that the radiation came from the decay of a radioisotope of the element phosphorus. Phosphorus has two additional protons compared to aluminum and was formed when the alpha particles fused with the aluminum nuclei. This was the first identification of an artificially made radioisotope, phosphorus-30. Because phosphorus-30 was created after bombarding aluminum with alpha particles – rather than occurring in its natural state – Irene and Frederic induced the radioactivity. So, it is called artificial radioactivity.

After her major discovery, Irene stayed active not only in research but in activism and politics as well. In 1936, almost a decade before women gained the right to vote in France, she was appointed under secretary of state for scientific research. In this position, she laid the foundations for what would become the National Centre for Scientific Research, which is the French equivalent of the U.S. National Science Foundation or National Institutes of Health.

She co-created the French Atomic Energy Commission in 1945 and held a six-year term, promoting nuclear research and development of the first French nuclear reactor. She later became director of the Curie Laboratory at the Radium Institute and a professor at the Faculty of Science in Paris.

Medical uses of artificial radioactivity

The Joliot-Curie discovery opened the road to the extensive use of radioisotopes in medical applications. Today, radioactive iodine is used regularly to treat thyroid diseases. Radioisotopes that emit positrons – the positive equivalent of the electron – are used in medical PET scans to image and diagnose cancer, and others are used for cancer therapy.

To diagnose cancer, practitioners can inject a small amount of the radioisotope into the body, where it accumulates at specific organs. Specialized devices such as a PET scanner can then detect the radioactivity from the outside. This way, doctors can visualize how these organs are working without the need for surgery.

To then treat cancer, practitioners use large amounts of radiation to kill the cancer cells. They try to localize the application of the radioisotope to just where the cancer is so that they’re only minimally affecting healthy tissue.

An enduring legacy

In the 90 years since the Joliot-Curie discovery of the first artificial radioisotope, the field of nuclear science has expanded its reach to roughly 3,000 artificial radioisotopes, from hydrogen to the heaviest known element, oganesson. However, nuclear theories predict that up to 7,000 artificial radioisotopes are possible.

As physicists, we work with data from a new facility at Michigan State University, the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, which is expected to discover up to 1,000 new radioisotopes.

While the Joliot-Curies were bombarding their samples with alpha particles at relatively low speeds, the Michigan State facility can accelerate stable isotopes up to half the speed of light and smash them on a target to produce new radioisotopes. Scientists using the facility have already discovered five new radioisotopes since it began operating in 2022, and the search continues.

Each of the thousands of available radioisotopes has a different set of properties. They live for different amounts of time and emit different types of radiation and amounts of energy. This variability allows scientists to choose the right isotope for the right application.

Iodine, for example, has more than 40 known radioisotopes. A main characteristic of radioisotopes is their half-life, meaning the amount of time it takes for half of the isotopes in the sample to transform into a new element. Iodine radioisotopes have half-lives that span from a tenth of a second to 16 million years. But not all of them are useful, practical or safe for thyroid treatment.

Radioisotopes that live for a few seconds don’t exist long enough to perform medical procedures, and radioisotopes that live for years would harm the patient and their family. Because it lives for a few days, iodine-131 is the preferred medical radioisotope.

Artificial radioactivity can also help scientists study the universe’s mysteries. For example, stars are fueled by nuclear reactions and radioactive decay in their cores. In violent stellar events, such as when a star explodes at the end of its life, they produce thousands of different radioisotopes that can drive the explosion. For this reason, scientists, including the two of us. produce and study in the lab the radioisotopes found in stars.

With the advent of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and other accelerator facilities, the search for new radioisotopes will continue opening doors to a world of possibilities.

Artemis Spyrou receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

Andrea Richard receives funding from the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration.

– ref. Meet Irene Curie, the Nobel-winning atomic physicist who changed the course of modern cancer treatment – https://theconversation.com/meet-irene-curie-the-nobel-winning-atomic-physicist-who-changed-the-course-of-modern-cancer-treatment-264840

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ekaterina Muravevskaia, Assistant Professor of Human-Centered Computing, Indiana University

Empathy is not just a “nice-to-have” soft skill – it is a foundation of how children and adults regulate emotions, build friendships and learn from one another.

Between the ages of 6 and 9, children begin shifting from being self-centered to noticing the emotions and perspectives of others. This makes early childhood one of the most important periods for developing empathy and other social-emotional skills.

Traditionally, pretend play has been a natural way to practice empathy. Many adults can remember acting out scenes as doctor and patient, or using sticks and leaves as imaginary currency. Those playful moments were not just entertainment – they were early lessons in empathy and taking someone else’s perspective.

But as children spend more time with technology and less in pretend play, these opportunities are shrinking. Some educators worry that technology is hindering social-emotional learning. Yet research in affective computing – digital systems that recognize emotions, simulate them or both – suggests that technology can also become part of the solution.

Virtual reality, in particular, can create immersive environments where children interact with characters who display emotions as vividly as real humans. I’m a human-computer interaction scientist who studies social-emotional learning in the context of how people use technology. Used thoughtfully, the combination of VR and artificial intelligence could help reshape social-emotional learning practices and serve as a new kind of “empathy classroom” or “emotional regulation simulator.”

Game of emotions

As a part of my doctoral studies at the University of Florida, in 2017 I began developing a VR Empathy Game framework that combines insights from developmental psychology, affective computing and participatory design with children. At the Human-Computer Interaction Lab at the University of Maryland, I worked with their KidsTeam program, where children of 7-11 served as design partners, helping us to imagine what an empathy-focused VR game should feel like.

In 2018, 15 master’s students at the Florida Interactive Entertainment Academy at the University of Central Florida and I created the first game prototype, Why Did Baba Yaga Take My Brother? This game is based on a Russian folktale and introduces four characters, each representing a core emotion: Baba Yaga embodies anger, Goose represents fear, the Older Sister shows happiness and the Younger Sister expresses sadness.

Unlike most games, it does not reward players with points or badges. Instead, children can progress in the game only by getting to know the characters, listening to their stories and practicing empathic actions. For example, they can look at the game’s world through a character’s glasses, revisit their memories or even hug Baba Yaga to comfort her. This design choice reflects a core idea of social-emotional learning: Empathy is not about external rewards but about pausing, reflecting and responding to the needs of others.

My colleagues and I have been refining the game since then and using it to study children and empathy.

Different paths to empathy

We tested the game with elementary school children individually. After asking general questions and giving an empathy survey, we invited children to play the game. We observed their behavior while they were playing and discussed their experience afterward.

Our most important discovery was that children interacted with the VR characters following the main empathic patterns humans usually follow while interacting with each other. Some children displayed cognitive empathy, meaning they had an understanding of the characters’ emotional states. They listened thoughtfully to characters, tapped their shoulders to get their attention, and attempted to help them. At the same time, they were not completely absorbed in the VR characters’ feelings.

Others expressed emotional contagion, directly mirroring characters’ emotions, sometimes becoming so distressed by fear or sadness that it made them stop the game. In addition, a few other children did not connect with the characters at all, focusing mainly on exploring the virtual environment. All three behaviors can happen in real life as well when children interact with their peers.

These findings highlight both the promise and the challenge. VR can indeed evoke powerful empathic responses, but it also raises questions about how to design experiences that support children with different temperaments – some need more stimulation, and others need gentler pacing.

AI eye on emotions

The current big question for us is how to effectively incorporate this type of empathy game into everyday life. In classrooms, VR will not replace real conversations or traditional role-play, but it can enrich them. A teacher might use a short VR scenario to spark discussion, encouraging students to reflect on what they felt and how it connects to their real friendships. In this way, VR becomes a springboard for dialogue, not a stand-alone tool.

We are also exploring adaptive VR systems that respond to a child’s emotional state in real time. A headset might detect if a child is anxious or scared – through facial expressions, heart rate or gaze – and adjust the experience by scaling down the characters’ expressiveness or offering supportive prompts. Such a responsive “empathy classroom” could give children safe opportunities to gradually strengthen their emotional regulation skills.

This is where AI becomes essential. AI systems can make sense of the data collected by VR headsets such as eye gaze, facial expressions, heart rate or body movement and use it to adjust the experience in real time. For example, if a child looks anxious or avoids eye contact with a sad character, the AI could gently slow down the story, provide encouraging prompts or reduce the emotional intensity of the scene. On the other hand, if the child appears calm and engaged, the AI might introduce a more complex scenario to deepen their learning.

In our current research, we are investigating how AI can measure empathy itself – tracking moment-to-moment emotional responses during gameplay to provide educators with better insight into how empathy develops.

Future work and collaboration

As promising as I believe this work is, it raises big questions. Should VR characters express emotions at full intensity, or should we tone them down for sensitive children? If children treat VR characters as real, how do we make sure those lessons carry to the playground or dinner table? And with headsets still costly, how do we ensure empathy technology doesn’t widen digital divides?

These are not just research puzzles but ethical responsibilities. This vision requires collaboration among educators, researchers, designers, parents and children themselves. Computer scientists design the technology, psychologists ensure the experiences are emotionally healthy, teachers adapt them for curriculum, and children co-create the games to make them engaging and meaningful.

Together, we can shape technologies that not only entertain but also nurture empathy, emotional regulation and deeper connection in the next generation.

Ekaterina Muravevskaia 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 VR and AI could help the next generation grow kinder and more connected – https://theconversation.com/how-vr-and-ai-could-help-the-next-generation-grow-kinder-and-more-connected-263181

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ron Barrett, Professor of Anthropology, Macalester College

The day before Charlie Kirk was assassinated, I was teaching a college class on science, religion and magic. Our class was comparing the Salem witch trials of the 1690s with the McCarthy hearings of the early 1950s, when U.S. democratic processes were eclipsed by the Red Scare of purported communist infiltration.

The aim of the class was to better understand the concept of moral panics, which are societal epidemics of disproportionate fear of real or perceived threats. Such outsized fear can often lead to violence or repression against certain socially marginalized groups. Moral panics are recurring themes in my research on the anthropology of fear and discrimination.

Our next class meeting would apply the moral panic concept to a recent example of political violence. Tragically, there were many of these examples to choose from.

Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated on June 14, 2025, which happened to be the eighth anniversary of the congressional baseball shootings in which U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three other Republicans were wounded. These shootings were among at least 15 high-profile instances of political violence since Rep. Gabby Gifford was severely wounded in a 2011 shooting that killed five and wounded another 13 people.

Seven of these violent incidents occurred within the past 12 months. Kirk’s killing became the eighth.

In most of these cases, we may never fully know the perpetrator’s motives. But the larger pattern of political violence tracks with the increasing polarization of American society. While researching this polarization, I have found recurring themes of segregation and both the dehumanization and disproportionate fear of people with opposing views among liberals and conservatives alike.

Segregation and self-censorship

The first ingredient of a moral panic is the segregation of a society into at least two groups with limited contact between them and an unwillingness to learn from one another.

In 17th century Salem, Massachusetts, the social divisions were long-standing. They were largely based on land disputes between family factions and economic tensions between agriculturally-based village communities and commercially-based town communities.

Within these larger groups, a growing number of widowed women had become socially marginalized for becoming economically independent after their husbands died in colonial wars between New England and New France. And rumors of continuing violence led residents in towns and villages to avoid Native Americans and new settlers in surrounding frontier areas. Salem was divided in many ways.

Fast forward to the end of World War II. That’s when returning American veterans used their benefits to settle into suburban neighborhoods that would soon be separated by race and class through zoning policies and discriminatory lending practices. This set the stage for what has come to be called The Big Sort, the self-segregation of people into neighborhoods where residents shared the same political and religious ideologies.

It was during the early stages of these sorting processes that the Red Scare and McCarthy hearings emerged.

The Big Sort turned digital in the early 2000s with the rise of online information and social media platforms with algorithms that conform to the particular desires and biases of their user communities.

Consequently, it is now easier than ever for conservatives and liberals to live in separate worlds of their own choosing. Under these conditions, Democrats and Republicans tend to exaggerate the characteristics of the other party based on common stereotypes.

Dehumanization and discrimination

Dehumanization is perhaps the most crucial ingredient of a social panic. This involves labeling people according to categories that deprive them of positive human qualities. This labeling process is often conducted by “moral entrepreneurs” – people invested by their societies with the authority to make such claims in an official, unquestionable and seemingly objective way.

In 1690s Massachusetts, the moral entrepreneurs were religious authorities who labeled people as satanic witches and killed many of them. In 1950s Washington, the moral entrepreneurs were members of Congress and expert witnesses who labeled people Soviet collaborators and ruined many of their lives.

In the 21st century, the moral entrepreneurs include media personalities and social influencers as well as the nonhuman bots and algorithms whose authority is derived by constructing the illusion of broad consensus.

Under these conditions, many U.S. liberals and conservatives regard their counterparts as savage, immature, corrupt or malicious. Not surprisingly, surveys reveal that animosity between conservatives and liberals has been at its highest over the past five years than any other time since the measurements first began in 1978.

Adding to the animosity, dehumanization can also justify discrimination against a rival group. This is shown in social psychology experiments in which conservatives and liberals discriminate against one another to a greater degree than by race when deciding on scholarships and job opportunities. Such discrimination lends credence to further animosity.

Exaggerating fear

There is a fine line between animosity and disproportional fear. The latter can lead to extreme policies and violent actions during a moral panic.

Such fear often takes the form of perceived threats. Rachel Kleinfeld, a scholar who studies polarization and political violence, says that one of the best ways to rally a political base is to make them think they are under attack by the other side. She says that “is why ‘They are out to take your x’ is such a time-honored fundraising and get-out-the-vote message.”

In the past few years, the “x” that could be taken has escalated to core freedoms and personal safety, threats which could easily trigger widespread fear on both sides of the political divide.

But the question remains whether exaggerated fears are sufficient to trigger political violence. Are assassins like Kirk’s killer simply pathological outliers among agitated but otherwise self-restrained populations? Or are they sensitive indicators of a looming social catastrophe?

Countering the panic

We do not have the answers to that question yet. But in the interim, there are efforts in higher education to reduce animosity and encourage constructive interactions and discussion between people with different perspectives.

A nonpartisan coalition of faculty, students and staff – known as the Heterodox Academy – is promoting viewpoint diversity and constructive debates on over 1,800 campuses. The college where I teach has participated in the Congress to Campus program, promoting bipartisan dialogue by having former legislators from different parties engage in constructive debates with one another about timely political issues. These debates serve as models for constructive dialogue.

It was in the spirit of constructive dialogue that my class debated whether the Kirk assassination could be explained as the product of a moral panic. Many agreed that it could, and most agreed it was probably an assault on free speech despite having strong objections to Kirk’s views. The debate was passionate, but everyone was respectful and listened to one another. No witches were to be found in the class that day.

Ron Barrett 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. Moral panics intensify social divisions and can lead to political violence – https://theconversation.com/moral-panics-intensify-social-divisions-and-can-lead-to-political-violence-265238

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Garret Martin, Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer, Co-Director Transatlantic Policy Center, American University School of International Service

When it comes to shutdowns, the U.S. is very much an exception rather than the rule.

On Oct. 1, 2025, hundreds of thousands of federal employees were furloughed as the business of government ground to a halt. With negotiations in Congress seemingly deadlocked over a funding deal, many political watchers are predicting a lengthy period of government closure.

According to the nonpartisan nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the latest shutdown represents the 20th such funding gap since 1976.

But it doesn’t have to be like this – and in most countries, it isn’t. Other Western democracies experience polarization and political turmoil, too, yet do not experience this problem. Take for example the U.K., traditionally one of Washington’s closest allies and home to the “mother of parliaments.”

In the British system, government shutdowns just don’t happen – in fact, there has never been one and likely never will be.

So why do they occur in Washington but not London? Essentially, it comes down to four factors: the relative power of the legislature; how easy it is to pass a budget; the political stakes at play; and distinctive appropriation rules.

1. Legislative power

There are significant differences in how the legislatures of the U.K. and U.S. shape the budgetary process.

In the U.K., only the executive branch – the party or coalition in power – has the authority to propose spending plans. Parliament, which consists of members from all political parties, maintains an oversight and approval role, but it has very limited power over the budgetary timeline or to amend spending plans. This is a stark contrast with the U.S., where Congress – which may be split or controlled by a party different to the executive – plays a far more consequential role.

The U.S. president starts the budget process by laying out the administration’s funding priorities. Yet, the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse – that is, the power to tax and spend.

Moreover, past legislation has bolstered congressional control. The 1974 Congressional Budget Act helped curtail presidential involvement in the budgeting process, giving Congress more authority over the timeline. That gave Congress more power but also offered it more opportunities to bicker and derail the budgetary process.

2. Thresholds to pass a budget

Congress and the U.K. Parliament also differ when it comes to their voting rules. Passing the U.S. budget is inherently more complicated, as it requires the support of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In Parliament, however, the two houses – the elected House of Commons and unelected House of Lords – are not equally involved. The two Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 limited the power of the House of Lords, preventing it from amending or blocking laws relating to budgeting.

Additionally, approving the budget in Westminster requires only an absolute majority of votes in the House of Commons. That tends to be quite a straightforward hurdle to overcome in the U.K. The party in power will typically also command a majority of votes in the chamber or be able to muster one up with the support of smaller parties. It is not, however, so easy in Congress. While a simple majority suffices in the House of Representatives, the Senate still has a 60-vote requirement to close debates before proceeding with a majority vote to pass a bill.

3. Political stakes

U.S. and U.K. politicians do not face the same high stakes over budget approval. Members of Congress may eventually pay a political price for how they vote on the budget, but there is no immediate threat to their jobs. That is not so in the U.K.

Indeed, the party or coalition in power in the U.K. must maintain the “confidence” of the House of Commons to stay in office. In other words, they need to command the support of the majority for key votes. U.K. governments can actually fall – be forced to resign or call for new elections – if they lose formal votes of confidence. Since confidence is also implied in other major votes, such as over the annual budget proposals, this raises the stakes for members of Parliament. They have tended to think twice before voting against a budget, for fear of triggering a dissolution of Parliament and new elections.

4. Distinctive appropriation rules

Finally, rules about appropriation also set the U.S. apart. For many decades, federal agencies could still operate despite funding bills not being passed. That, however, changed with a ruling by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti in 1980. He determined that it would be illegal for governments to spend money without congressional approval.

That decision has had the effect of making shutdowns more severe. But it is not a problem that the U.K. experiences because of its distinct rules on appropriation. So-called “votes on account” allow the U.K. government “to obtain an advance on the money they need for the next financial year.”

This is an updated version of an article that was first published by The Conversation U.S. on Sept. 28, 2023.

Garret Martin receives funding from the European Union for the Transatlantic Policy Center, which he co-directs.

– ref. Shutdowns are as American as apple pie − in the UK and elsewhere, they just aren’t baked into the process – https://theconversation.com/shutdowns-are-as-american-as-apple-pie-in-the-uk-and-elsewhere-they-just-arent-baked-into-the-process-266553

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Maurizio Valsania, Professor of American History, Università di Torino

As he paced across a stage at a military base in Quantico, Virginia, on Sept. 30, 2025, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the hundreds of U.S. generals and admirals he had summoned from around the world that he aimed to reshape the military’s culture.

Ten new directives, he said, would strip away what he called “woke garbage” and restore what he termed a “warrior ethos.”

The phrase “warrior ethos” – a mix of combativeness, toughness and dominance – has become central to Hegseth’s political identity. In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors,” he insisted that the inclusion of women in combat roles had drained that ethos, leaving the U.S. military less lethal.

In his address, Hegseth outlined what he sees as the qualities and virtues the American soldier – and especially senior officers – should embody.

On physical fitness and appearance, he was blunt: “It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world.”

He then turned from body shape to grooming: “No more beardos,” Hegseth declared. “The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done.”

As a historian of George Washington, I can say that the commander in chief of the Continental Army, the nation’s first military leader, would have agreed with some of Secretary Hegseth’s directives – but only some.

Washington’s overall vision of a military leader could not be further from Hegseth’s vision of the tough warrior.

280 pounds – and trusted

For starters, Washington would have found the concern with “fat generals” irrelevant. Some of the most capable officers in the Continental Army were famously overweight.

His trusted chief of artillery, Gen. Henry Knox, weighed around 280 pounds. The French officer Marquis de Chastellux described Knox as “a man of thirty-five, very fat, but very active, and of a gay and amiable character.”

Others were not far behind. Chastellux also described Gen. William Heath as having “a noble and open countenance.” His bald head and “corpulence,” he added, gave him “a striking resemblance to Lord Granby,” the celebrated British hero of the Seven Years’ War. Granby was admired for his courage, generosity and devotion to his men.

Washington never saw girth as disqualifying. He repeatedly entrusted Knox with the most demanding assignments: designing fortifications, commanding artillery and orchestrating the legendary “noble train of artillery” that brought cannon from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston.

When he became president, after the Revolution, Washington appointed Knox the first secretary of war – a sign of enduring confidence in his judgment and integrity.

Beards: Outward appearance reflects inner discipline

As for beards, Washington would have shared Hegseth’s concern – though for very different reasons.

He disliked facial hair on himself and on others, including his soldiers. To Washington, a beard made a man look unkempt and slovenly, masking the higher emotions that civility required.

Beards were not signs of virility but of disorder. In his words, they made a man “unsoldierlike.” Every soldier, he insisted, must appear in public “as decent as his circumstances will permit.” Each was required to have “his beard shaved – hair combed – face washed – and cloaths put on in the best manner in his power.”

For Washington, this was no trivial matter. Outward appearance reflected inner discipline. He believed that a well-ordered body produced a well-ordered mind.

To him, neatness was the visible expression of self-command, the foundation of every other virtue a soldier and leader should possess.

That is why he equated beards and other forms of unkemptness with “indecency.” His lifelong battle was against indecency in all its forms. “Indecency,” he once wrote, was “utterly inconsistent with that delicacy of character, which an officer ought under every circumstance to preserve.”

More statesman than warrior

By “delicacy,” Washington meant modesty, tact and self-awareness – the poise that set genuine leaders apart from individuals governed by passions.

For him, a soldier’s first victory was always over himself.

“A man attentive to his duty,” he wrote, “feels something within him that tells him the first measure is dictated by that prudence which ought to govern all men who commits a trust to another.”

In other words, Washington became a soldier not because he was hotheaded or drawn to the thrill of combat, but because he saw soldiering as the highest exercise of discipline, patience and composure. His “warrior ethos” was moral before it was martial.

Washington’s ideal military leader was more statesman than warrior. He believed that military power must be exercised under moral constraint, within the bounds of public accountability, and always with an eye to preserving liberty rather than winning personal glory.

In his mind, the army was not a caste apart but an instrument of the republic – an arena in which self-command and civic virtue were tested. Later generations would call him the model of the “republican general”: a commander whose authority rested not on bluster or bravado but on composure, prudence and restraint.

That vision was the opposite of the one Pete Hegseth performed at Quantico.

Discipline and steadiness, not fury and bravado

The “warrior ethos” Hegseth celebrates – loud, performative – was precisely what Washington believed a soldier must overcome.

In March 1778, after Marquis de Lafayette abandoned an impossible winter expedition to Canada, Washington praised caution over juvenile bravado.

“Every one will applaud your prudence in renouncing a project in which you would vainly have attempted physical impossibilities,” he wrote from the snows of Valley Forge.

For Washington, valor was never the same as recklessness. Success, he believed, depended on foresight, not fury, and certainly not bravado.

The first commander in chief cared little for waistlines or whiskers, in the end; what concerned him was discipline of the mind. What counted was not the cut of a man’s figure but the steadiness of his judgment.

Washington’s own “warrior ethos” was grounded in decency, temperance and the capacity to act with courage without surrendering to rage. That ideal built an army – and in time, a republic.

Maurizio Valsania 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. Where George Washington would disagree with Pete Hegseth about fitness for command and what makes a warrior – https://theconversation.com/where-george-washington-would-disagree-with-pete-hegseth-about-fitness-for-command-and-what-makes-a-warrior-266530