Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Eric Horstick, Associate Professor of Biology, West Virginia University

Being right- or left-handed is a familiar fact about yourself you likely don’t think about much on a day-to-day basis. However, your handedness affects how you interact with the world.

For many people, it determines how they brush their teeth, use tools, play sports, write, eat and much more. Simply try to enjoy a bowl of soup or sign your name with your nondominant hand to appreciate the impact a hand preference can have on your daily life.

Interestingly, this behavioral asymmetry is not unique to humans. Preferences for using the right or left hand, paw or eye exist in most species. For example, many primate species have individual left- or right-hand preferences for manual tasks. Similarly, different bird species have varying eye preferences for distinct visual tasks. Even the largest animal alive, the blue whale, shows a preference for the direction of its rolls during feeding. This inherent and often-overlooked feature of behavioral asymmetry is a widespread phenomenon in the animal kingdom.

The universality of behavioral asymmetry suggests that having an assigned hand, eye or other preference is beneficial. But depending on one hand for so many important tasks means that a single injury could be devastating. This paradox poses an important question: Why would having handedness be better for survival than not?

Insights from fish ‘handedness’

To address this question, scientists have tried to understand the genetics of handedness. While large-scale genetic studies in humans have identified dozens of genes associated with handedness, researchers also found that genetics alone only partially accounts for whether someone is left- or right-handed. This means behavioral asymmetry like handedness is likely the product of complex interactions between genetics, development and the environment.

For the past six years, my research lab has been interested in understanding behavioral asymmetry and how such behaviors get encoded in the brain. We primarily use larval zebrafish to explore the neural basis of behavioral asymmetry. These animals have transparent bodies and rapidly develop into adults in just a few days, making them ideal models to study. Additionally, the genetics and brain structure of zebrafish are highly similar to those of humans.

Fish have a form of handedness called motor asymmetry, which involves sustained periods of turning in the same direction. I had previously found that when light was cut off, larval zebrafish start circling in a leftward or rightward direction, sometimes for up to a minute or more. The fish would continue to preferentially turn in that same direction over the course of hours, days and even weeks, looking for a light source. This meant that vision drove their motor asymmetry.

Students in my lab recorded the zebrafish’s neural activity in response to loss of environment light – the trigger for motor asymmetry. They found a subset of approximately 60 neurons in the thalamus – a region of the brain that is evolutionarily conserved among vertebrates and involved in relaying sensory information – was functionally linked to motor asymmetry. Removing these neurons eliminated this motor asymmetry, suggesting a potential neural basis for where behavioral asymmetry is established in the fish brain.

When my lab repeated our experiments on five additional species of larval fish from around the world, we found similar motor asymmetry in response to light. Much like handedness in primates, it appears that handedness in fish is likely more of a rule than an exception.

However, we did find one exemption: the Mexican tetra, also known as cavefish. These animals are found in perpetually dark cave environments and are naturally blind. In collaboration with our colleagues at the Duboué Lab at Florida Atlantic University, we found that these animals showed no motor asymmetry.

These findings suggest that the universal nature of behavioral asymmetries are likely crucial responses to common challenges that different organisms encounter.

Behavioral asymmetry may solve challenges

Hurting your dominant hand does more than just ruin your softball or ultimate frisbee game. Handedness is associated with broad neural asymmetries in the brain that are linked to performance in language comprehension and working memory tasks. In addition, having atypical handedness – such as preferring different hands for different activities – is associated with a range of neurological conditions, including autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Understanding why animals have behavioral asymmetries offers clues about how the environment influences broader cognitive function. If environmental challenges indeed drive handed behaviors, what problems does motor asymmetry solve for fish?

In nature, animals often circle when searching for something, such as a food source. For larval zebrafish, light is an important resource for their ability to see and capture prey. When we placed a light source at varying locations around them, the larval zebrafish start circling to quickly navigate into illuminated environments conducive to hunting. Based on our work, we hypothesize that the asymmetries in fish that allow them to search more efficiently work in parallel ways to those of other animals, like eye movement in birds or language comprehension in people.

Prior research has suggested that brain asymmetries improve cognitive performance by reducing competition between the two sides of the brain. Our work supports these hypotheses by showing how, for zebrafish, motor asymmetry provides a default response to find light and efficiently catch a needed snack.

With a helping hand from fish handedness, researchers are getting a clearer idea of the universality of behavioral asymmetry and how the environment may be shaping the brain so that one hand, or fin, provides an advantage in daily life.

Eric Horstick receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation.

– ref. I study why zebrafish larva prefer to circle left or right, to understand how and why human brains encode right- and left-handedness – https://theconversation.com/i-study-why-zebrafish-larva-prefer-to-circle-left-or-right-to-understand-how-and-why-human-brains-encode-right-and-left-handedness-274578

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Deyanira Nevárez Martínez, Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, Michigan State University

A bureaucratic shift in Washington is threatening to undo years of progress in Detroit’s fight against homelessness, potentially forcing thousands of the city’s most fragile residents back onto the streets.

In November 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development revised how it would allocate funding through its flagship homelessness program, the Continuum of Care.

The change reduced the share of funding available for permanent subsidized housing and increased funding for transitional short-term housing.

HUD officials described the shift as a move away from a “housing first” model toward a “treatment first” approach that emphasizes participation in services, such as drug addiction disorder treatment, before or alongside housing placement.

The administration has argued that this promotes self-sufficiency. Critics contend that stable housing is the foundation that makes treatment and recovery possible.

The policy revision has been challenged in court by 20 states, including Michigan, as well as city and county governments and advocacy organizations. They argue it could destabilize individuals and families across the country, state and here in Detroit.

I am an urban and regional planning scholar who studies housing policy, and I serve on the research council of the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

In December 2025, I joined 77 other homelessness researchers who sent a letter to Congress analyzing the likely impacts of HUD’s revised funding approach. That analysis draws on decades of peer-reviewed research evaluating which housing interventions reduce homelessness and which do not.

That same month, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily pauses HUD’s efforts to shift funding away from permanent supportive housing.

HUD officials stated that the agency intends to apply the changes in future funding rounds, once the order is no longer in effect.

Homelessness in Detroit

Detroit’s homelessness crisis is both long-standing and worsening.

The number of people who experience homelessness in Detroit, Hamtramck and Highland Park increased by about 16% from 2023 to 2024, with roughly 1,725 people experiencing homelessness on a single January night, including hundreds of families. Children in particular have been hit hard by this crisis. One data snapshot shows 2,579 children reported being doubled up, staying in a shelter, staying in a hotel or motel or being unsheltered. This was a record number for the Detroit Public Schools Community District.

While permanent supportive housing has strong outcomes for those who receive it, overall homelessness has continued to increase due to rising rents, economic instability and the limited housing supply, which has historically outpaced the number of available supportive units.

Detroit’s homelessness response system is coordinated through the federally funded local Continuum of Care led by the Homeless Action Network of Detroit.

In recent years, Detroit has taken steps to strengthen coordination, expand shelter capacity and increase housing placements. But the system heavily depends on federal funding to provide permanent supportive housing.

What could change in federal homelessness funding

The Continuum of Care program began in 1994 and was later codified in 2009 by the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act. It is the largest federal funding stream dedicated to addressing homelessness in the United States.

Last year alone, Detroit received US$40 million from the HUD program.

Those funds pay for emergency shelters, transitional housing and rapid rehousing programs – which provide temporary rental assistance and the assistance of a social worker, without preconditions – and permanent supportive housing.

Like other cities nationwide, Detroit has built its homelessness response system around HUD’s funding priorities.

For more than a decade, HUD has emphasized permanent housing. A strong body of evidence shows that stable housing leads to better long-term outcomes than temporary programs.

Prior Continuum of Care funding cycles allocated roughly 85% to 90% of funds to permanent housing, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

The revised funding priorities announced in late 2025 would substantially reduce that share and redirect funding toward transitional housing and short-term interventions.

According to the Homeless Action Network of Detroit, this means that Detroit area providers could go from about $34 million per year allocated for permanent supportive housing under the current allocation to no more than about $11 million under the new priorities.

Local advocates warn that capping permanent housing at roughly 30% of Continuum of Care dollars would drastically reduce the number of supportive units available and place hundreds of households at risk of returning to homelessness.

Why permanent supportive housing matters

Permanent supportive housing is one of the most rigorously studied homelessness interventions in the United States.

It is an evidence-based intervention that provides long-term rental assistance paired with voluntary supportive services for people who have experienced chronic, or repeated, homelessness, particularly those with disabilities or chronic health conditions.

Under the current Continuum of Care framework, households typically pay no more than 30% of their income toward rent, with the subsidy covering the remainder. Assistance can continue as long as eligibility criteria are met.

Programs also offer staff to help with coordination of health care and behavioral health services and assistance identifying and applying for relevant benefits to promote long-term housing stability. Tenants hold standard leases and have the same legal protections as other renters.

Research shows that permanent supportive housing using a housing-first approach consistently reduces homelessness and improves health outcomes for people with disabilities.

Greater investment in permanent supportive housing is also linked to reductions in chronic homelessness, meaning individuals or families who have been homeless for long periods or repeatedly over time.

A long-term study published in Social Service Review in 2014 found that communities that increased permanent supportive housing capacity experienced measurable declines in chronic homelessness over time.

Local data from the Detroit Continuum of Care indicate that at least 160 new permanent supportive housing units have been made available in the past year, and another 235 units are projected for 2026. These units help people exit homelessness and maintain stable homes amid rising rents and affordability challenges.

How transitional housing compares

Transitional housing typically requires residents to participate in supportive services or programming as a condition of stay. This can include regular meetings with a social worker, employment readiness classes, substance use treatment or financial literacy workshops, for example.

The model is often used for survivors of domestic violence or young adults aging out of foster care. While transitional housing can provide short-term stability and support during these transitions, it differs from permanent supportive housing in that it is time-limited and may require program compliance as a condition of continued residency. Transitional housing placements typically last from about six months up to two years.

However, research consistently finds that transitional housing is less likely than permanent housing to produce long-term housing stability. This is particularly the case for families and people with disabilities.

HUD’s Family Options Study in 2016 found that families offered permanent housing experienced significantly better long-term housing stability than those offered transitional housing, despite transitional housing costing more per household.

Follow-up research conducted by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies economic policy, similarly found that many families who leave transitional housing once their time limit expires struggle to maintain stable housing. These findings are especially relevant for individuals with disabilities, chronic illnesses or mental health conditions, all groups that are typically prioritized for permanent supportive housing.

Why Detroit is especially vulnerable

Research shows that housing instability increases reliance on emergency services such as shelters, hospitals and public safety systems. This drives up taxpayer costs and additionally strains already overextended local services.

Detroit area homelessness service providers are pushing back against the potential federal changes, which they identify as “radical.”

In response, many organizations are turning to state and philanthropic partners for support while continuing to develop housing locally to help offset possible reductions in federal funding.

Deyanira Nevárez Martínez has received funding from the State of Michigan, the Latino Policy and Politics Institue at UCLA, the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Freedom Together Foundation (formerly the JPB Foundation). She is an Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at Michigan State University and is an elected member of the Lansing City Council representing ward 2.

– ref. Housing First helps people find permanent homes in Detroit − but HUD plans to divert funds to short-term solutions – https://theconversation.com/housing-first-helps-people-find-permanent-homes-in-detroit-but-hud-plans-to-divert-funds-to-short-term-solutions-274272

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology; Institute for Humane Studies

Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president. But most modern presidents and their legal counsel have asserted that Article 2 of the Constitution allows the president to use the military in certain situations without prior congressional approval – and have acted on that, sending troops into conflicts from Panama to Libya, with no regard for Congress’ will.

Congress has for the most part registered only feeble and ineffective opposition to such executive action. The current move in Congress to deny President Donald Trump the ability to continue the war with Iran – led by Democrats, but with some Republican support – will likely fail, as have previous efforts during other conflicts.

But there was a time when Americans saw Congress stand up to a president who unilaterally took the country to war.

It was at the tail end of the Vietnam War, when Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, asserting that it was legislators – not the president – who had the power to declare war.

Once it passed both houses, President Richard Nixon vetoed it, claiming it was unconstitutional.

In response, the legislative branch overturned the veto with the two-thirds majority vote needed to prevail.

Compared to Congress’ limp response to Trump’s actions in Iran, and its similar failure to assert itself during Trump’s military action in Venezuela, it was a breathtaking act of legislative assertion.

Congress asserts itself

When they debated the War Powers Resolution, members of Congress were seeing the erosion of their control over the decision to engage in military operations large and small. With a strong bipartisan consensus, they determined they had to collectively use their powers, including the power of the purse, to thwart executive overreach.

Congress’ actions came in response to the growing protests against the Vietnam War in general and Nixon’s decision to expand the war by sending U.S. troops to invade the neutral country of Cambodia to disrupt the supply lines of the Viet Cong, the communist guerrilla force that accounted for a large number of the 58,000 Americans killed in the war.

Nixon had begun covert carpet bombing of Cambodia in 1969, and then announced in 1970 that he would send ground troops into the country the next year.

Congress – and the country– reacted extremely negatively. Members of Congress collaborated across party lines to draft legislation in an attempt to assert their power. It was a slow process, however, involving long periods of deliberation.

They used many different methods to attempt to constrain the president. Within months of the introduction of troops to Cambodia, Congress attempted to pass amendments that would restrict his ability to invade neighboring countries. Prompted by protesting and the illegal actions in Cambodia, Congress began crafting legislation that would draw down troops in Vietnam.

With these moves, lawmakers placed immense pressure on the president. This eventually led to the drafting and eventual signing of the peace agreement ending the Vietnam war in 1973.

This was not enough for Congress, however.

Rules – and flexibility

Congress wanted to create a document ensuring presidents could not unilaterally make war. They wanted legislative consultation.

They intended the War Powers Resolution to act as a permanent constraint. So, in the resolution they spelled out the specific actions in which presidents can start a conflict:

• First, if there is an invasion of the United States, the president can respond. In this instance, the president can act prior to congressional authorization.

• Second, if Congress provides an “Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” the president can assume he has authorization – but only as long as it is in effect.

• Finally, if Congress declares war, the president can act.

Lawmakers did, however, provide some flexibility. In the War Powers Resolution, they said a president can initiate and carry out hostilities for 60 days and has a further 30 days to draw down the troops. Once the executive has initiated hostilities, Congress must receive information about that action within 48 hours.

This opens the door for presidents to engage in smaller-scale or short operations without stepping outside the lines set in the law.

Presidents from both parties have availed themselves of this flexibility. As far back as 1975, when President Gerald Ford rescued the SS Mayaguez, the merchant ship captured by Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge, presidents have acknowledged the law and dutifully reported their military actions to Congress.

Like his predecessors, Trump sent a letter to Congress after his June 2025 missile attacks against Iran, as well as at the start of the currently open-ended conflict.

Presidents since the passage of the War Powers Resolution have not, however, acknowledged that they have to get congressional approval of their actions, with few exceptions. Predominantly, without congressional approval, they limit their actions to the 60-to-90-day window.

President Barack Obama, however, attempted to circumvent the window when his bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 dragged on, as well as when he bombed the Islamic State group in 2014. In the first instance, he claimed the War Powers Resolution did not apply. In the second, he claimed each bombing campaign was discrete, rather than part of a larger campaign.

Exploiting authorizations

The balance of power between the legislative and executive branches changed considerably with the passage of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force that gave legislative permission for President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.

Because Congress did not put sunset dates into these authorizations, subsequent presidents Obama, Trump and Joe Biden used those same authorizations for a host of later military actions in the Middle East and elsewhere.

And legislators are deeply divided in the current discussions about demanding the cessation of hostilities against Iran.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson says that limiting the president at this time is “dangerous.” Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – who has fallen out of favor with Trump’s MAGA base and the president himself – took the opposing view, posted on social media, “Now, America is going to be force fed and gas lighted all the ‘noble’ reasons the American ‘Peace’ President and Pro-Peace administration had to go to war once again this year, after being in power for only a year.”

Has the U.S. entered a moment when members of Congress reassert themselves the way they did at the tail end of the Vietnam war?

It is possible that they will follow James Madison’s advice about the power relationship between Congress and the president. Writing in the Federalist Papers, Madison said that “ambition” has “to counter ambition.” He continued, “The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

As I explain in my book about congressional war powers, the constitutional system creates an invitation to struggle. Now, as the U.S. wages war on Iran, Congress must decide whether it wants to struggle, as it did during the Vietnam War, or remain compliant and in the president’s shadow.

Sarah Burns has received funding from the Institute for Humane Studies.

– ref. Congress once fought to limit a president’s war powers − more than 50 years later, its successors are less willing to assert their authority – https://theconversation.com/congress-once-fought-to-limit-a-presidents-war-powers-more-than-50-years-later-its-successors-are-less-willing-to-assert-their-authority-277435

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Dylan Spencer, Assistant Professor of Criminology, Georgia Southern University

In late February 2026, the Panamanian government took control of two ports in the Panama Canal that had been operated by a Hong Kong conglomerate for two decades. The move is the latest in a long-simmering legal battle after Panama’s high court voided the company’s contracts.

Far from just a local dispute, however, the episode has drawn in the United States and China, whose competition over global ports and trade routes has intensified in recent years, including in the crucial Panama Canal Zone, where China’s presence has repeatedly drawn the ire of the Trump administration.

Chinese firms now own or operate terminals at more than 90 ports worldwide, including many of the busiest. The network spans Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, with growing activity in South America.

The scale of China’s involvement in overseas ports has fueled debate over whether these investments are purely commercial or serve broader strategic goals.

Much of that debate has relied on case studies and politicized headlines, including in the case of the Panama Canal. But understanding where these ports are located, and whether there are consistent patterns in the countries that host them, is important given that disruptions to global shipping lanes can reverberate across the world economy.

In a recent study, we – researchers in maritime security, global infrastructure and trade – built the first global database of Chinese-affiliated ports and analyzed 133 coastal countries to understand why some host Chinese port investments while others do not.

We found that China’s overseas port expansion is not random. Far from being driven primarily by general business climate measures, the investments cluster near maritime chokepoints and piracy-prone shipping corridors, with more modest evidence that resource-rich countries are also more likely to host these ports.

The importance of chokepoints

Some sea routes are more important than others. The Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca are examples of chokepoints – narrow routes through which large volumes of global trade and energy shipments must pass.

In our findings, countries near primary or secondary chokepoints, such as Panama or countries bordering the Dover Strait, such as France, were substantially more likely to host a Chinese-affiliated port. Put simply, proximity to critical trade bottlenecks strongly predicts Chinese investments.

This makes economic sense. China depends heavily on maritime trade to sustain economic growth. And ports near chokepoints sit along the world’s most sensitive shipping corridors and offer long-term commercial access in strategic locations.

Despite concerns in the West that Beijing is developing ports for military reasons, not every port is a naval base in disguise.

Most Chinese-affiliated facilities are commercial terminals. However, commercial infrastructure can still have strategic value. China’s first overseas military logistics base in Djibouti sits alongside the Chinese-operated Doraleh port complex. A report from the Congressional Research Service notes that the facility supports naval operations and regional access in the western Indian Ocean.

That does not make other Chinese-owned or operated ports military installations. But control over terminals, logistics platforms, and supply chain data can shape economic and security relationships over time.

The role of piracy and resources

The same corridors in which Beijing is concentrating port investment are also hot spots for maritime crime. In separate research, we found that seaports can facilitate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing when oversight is weak. Our latest findings show that Chinese-affiliated ports are more common in countries already experiencing piracy and maritime insecurity.

That overlap does not mean ports cause illicit activity, but it shows these investments often occur in higher-risk maritime environments.

One of the most surprising findings from our study was the relationship between piracy and port investment.

Between 1991 and 2018, thousands of piracy incidents were recorded worldwide. But rather than avoiding risky waters, Chinese-affiliated ports are more common in countries experiencing higher levels of piracy.

Why invest in unstable corridors? One explanation is that piracy signals where trade routes are both vulnerable and valuable. Investing in ports in areas such as the Gulf of Guinea or parts of Southeast Asia may help Beijing protect its shipping interests. In this sense, piracy may signal not just risk but opportunity.

We also examined natural resource wealth of port host nations using a broad measure that includes extractive mineral and agricultural resources. We found modest evidence that countries with higher resource levels were more likely to host at least one Chinese-affiliated port, though this relationship was not consistent across all models.

Some commonly cited explanations as to where and why China invests in ports did not hold up in our analysis.

Broad measures of business climate and governance, such as ease of doing business or institutional stability, were not consistent predictors of Chinese-affiliated port presence.

This suggests that geography and maritime risk factors may matter more than general economic or governance indicators.

Broader implications

Whatever the motivations behind Chinese investments, their implications extend beyond local trade and logistics.

Ports are no longer just local infrastructure projects. They are nodes in global supply chains and increasingly in geopolitical competition.

And while not every investment signals a covert military ambition, it would be naive to treat all port projects as politically neutral.

---

Read more:
China is losing ground in Latin America

---

Recent U.S. policy responses reflect these growing concerns. In early 2026, the White House outlined a plan to strengthen the U.S. shipping industry and reduce reliance on foreign-controlled maritime infrastructure. The administration has also taken a closer look at foreign involvement in key facilities in the Western Hemisphere, including ports linked to the Panama Canal.

Such moves suggest that control over maritime infrastructure is no longer viewed in Washington as just a commercial issue but increasingly as a matter of economic and national security.

And as the map of countries with Chinese-affiliated ports suggests, Beijing’s investments are following the world’s most consequential trade routes not by accident, but by design.

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

– ref. Far from random, China’s global port network is clustering near the world’s riskiest trade routes – https://theconversation.com/far-from-random-chinas-global-port-network-is-clustering-near-the-worlds-riskiest-trade-routes-274934

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Leila Gautham, Lecturer in Economics, University of Leeds

When economists track inequality, they typically focus on income and spending.

But a significant share of the services that families actually consume – meals cooked at home, child care, housecleaning and lawn mowing – is produced by unpaid labor that never appears in these conventional measures.

As economists who study caregiving and inequality, we wanted to know whether accounting for unpaid work at home might change our understanding of inequality in American living standards – the gap between what richer and poorer Americans can actually afford to consume.

To find out, we conducted a study, published in the March 2026 issue of the Journal of Public Economics, in which we estimated the dollar value of unpaid housework and child care and added it to standard measures of income and spending for U.S. households from 1965 to 2018. Economists call these broader measures “extended income” and “extended consumption.”

We found that unpaid work used to significantly cushion inequality through the provision of many services. But we also determined that this cushion has been thinning for 50 years. Our findings indicate that the inequality in living standards has grown more than standard data suggest.

Counting unpaid work reduces inequality

To visualize these findings, consider the financial situation faced by two families.

While both have two adults and two children, their income from their salaries and other cash flows – including everything from stock dividends to Social Security benefits – is different. One has two earners bringing in a total of US$150,000. The other has a single breadwinner making $110,000 and a stay-at-home spouse. The lower-income family gets 45 more hours per week of unpaid chores done.

If every hour of those chores were worth $17, the typical wage for a housekeeper, that unpaid work would be worth roughly $39,780 a year. Factor it in, and the gap between the two families shrinks from $40,000 to just $220.

Extended income, the economic term that includes not just what’s in your paycheck but the value of doing the laundry, home repairs and other unpaid work yourself for your own benefit, tends to be more equally distributed than earned income.

The reason for this consistency is straightforward: Rich and poor families generally devote about the same amount of time to housework and child care.

A shrinking buffer

Because we valued everyone’s unpaid hours at the same wage in our study, adding unpaid work to income narrowed the gap between the top and the bottom somewhat.

But we also found evidence that this equalizing effect is eroding.

Between 1965 and 2018, the average amount of time that Americans devoted to unpaid chores at home fell, driven by changes in what women did. Their average number of hours fell from 37 to 24 per week. Meanwhile, men increased the time they spent on unpaid chores a little: Their number of weekly unpaid hours of work rose from 12 in 1968 to 15 in 2018.

To be clear, we did not try to figure out why these hours of unpaid work fell. Among the many reasons for the change could be the large increase in women’s employment and the growth of time-saving technology, such as dishwashers.

Lowest-income families hit hardest

We studied these shifts by combining three national datasets: time diary surveys from the American Heritage Time Use Study, income data from the Current Population Survey and expenditure data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey.

To put a dollar figure on unpaid work, we valued each hour at what U.S. housekeepers typically earn in a particular year.

The decline in unpaid work hit low-income households hardest – not because they cut more hours, but because unpaid work made up a much larger share of their total income.

We found that the income gap between households near the top and those near the bottom between 1965 and 2018 grew around 40% using conventional measures. Once we added unpaid work, this gap grew by 66%. For household spending, the contrast is similar: conventional inequality barely budged – up 4%. When we incorporated the value of unpaid work at home, inequality grew by 18%.

Overall, we determined that a typical U.S. family’s extended income grew 40% from 1965 to 2018. That was a much slower pace than the 69% growth in the income they earned from their paid work and other cash flows over the same period.

Who lost the most

Conventional data suggest that the gap between middle-income and poor households was generally stable during this period. Once we accounted for unpaid work, however, that is no longer true: This gap grew substantially.

Single-parent families – mostly headed by single mothers – were hit especially hard. Their income from paid employment rose sharply, but this came with large declines in the value of their unpaid work at home.

While they could afford to spend more on purchased goods and services, once unpaid work is factored in, single parents saw no net improvement relative to married parents.

What it means

The roughly 20-percentage-point increase in the share of women working outside the home over the past six decades was driven by expanded opportunity and economic necessity.

It has brought enormous economic benefits to those women and their families. But it has also meant that families – especially those with the least income – lost a cushion of services that women used to do in their own homes.

Our findings suggest that looking only at changes in income and spending can exaggerate improvements in living standards for the lowest-income Americans over the past five decades.

When you do fewer hours of chores that need to be done, you wind up paying other people to do them for you, and that costs money.

Otherwise, you have to make do with fewer services than you had before.

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

– ref. When unpaid cooking, cleaning and child care get a dollar value, income inequality in the US shrinks – but the gap has grown since 1965 – https://theconversation.com/when-unpaid-cooking-cleaning-and-child-care-get-a-dollar-value-income-inequality-in-the-us-shrinks-but-the-gap-has-grown-since-1965-275499

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Matt Wilkinson, Associate Professor of Sociology, Coastal Carolina University

A #MeToo-style reckoning appears to be unfolding within Brazilian jiu-jitsu.

In February 2026, Brazilian jiu-jitsu legend Andre Galvao was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, including a teenager who had trained at Atos Jiu Jitsu, the school Galvao co-founded in San Diego in 2008 that now boasts academies around the world.

The backlash was swift: Multiple gyms and high-profile athletes affiliated with Atos severed ties with the school.

Galvao dismissed the accusations as “false rumors” and stated he is “taking the proper legal steps to protect the integrity” of Atos.

On Feb. 6, 2026, however, Atos Jiu Jitsu announced it had removed Galvao from his leadership posts. Many other gyms and athletes without a direct connection to Galvao or Atos nonetheless took the news as an opportunity to post messages about their commitment to safety for their gym members.

In a sport that has long struggled with addressing sexual harassment and misconduct, we see the widespread condemnation of Galvao as a watershed moment. And it comes on the heels of research we conducted to better understand the unique challenges that female martial artists face.

A sport built on trust

For those unfamiliar with the sport, Brazilian jiu-jitsu is a martial art focused on grappling and ground fighting – think wrestling, but with submission techniques like arm bars, shoulder locks and chokeholds. It’s essentially the grappling on the ground part of UFC, minus the punches and knee strikes.

Although almost all Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitions are split by gender, sparring and drilling routinely happen between men and women. It typically involves physical contact, usually between two people with different levels of strength and experience.

For these reasons, trust, restraint and respect are essential.

When your opponent successfully applies a technique that limits your movement and from which you cannot escape, you “tap out” to signal that you have accepted defeat. When you submit, your opponent is obligated to let go immediately to avoid causing injury or unconsciousness.

Much of the attention on sexual harassment in the sport has historically focused on incidents of assault. And a review of news coverage between 1989 and 2018 identified 177 incidents of martial arts coaches being convicted of sexual offenses.

But the kind of harassment that may not rise to the level of a crime in most countries – more pervasive and more subtle, but nonetheless insidious – has largely remained unacknowledged in Brazilian jiu-jitsu.

Blissful ignorance or something more insidious?

Whether it’s through inappropriate or sexualized comments both on and off the mat – or through unsolicited remarks about their bodies or appearance – women encounter a far different training environment than their male counterparts.

This is what we wanted to explore in our own research.

In 2021, we conducted a survey on martial arts participation that generated responses from 289 martial artists – 209 men, 77 women and 2 nonbinary people – in the U.S. and around the world. Most of them listed Brazilian jiu-jitsu as their primary art.

In the analysis, 43% of our survey respondents – 51% of women and 40% of men – indicated that they were aware of harassment in their martial arts community, which ranged from bullying to sexual harassment, to sexual assault.

But harassment was just one issue raised. The survey revealed a wider problem of “gender blindness” in martial arts, which involves simply ignoring or overlooking the impact that gender can have on participation, practice and performance.

When asked, “What does it mean to be a woman in martial arts?” 62% of men responded with statements that actively downplayed or ignored the ways gender shapes the sport. For example, one man noted that “the beauty of martial arts” is that “anyone can do it,” regardless of age, ability, “gender, shape or size.”

By contrast, nearly two-thirds of women in our survey indicated that being a woman in martial arts does, in fact, matter. They said they had fewer training opportunities, revealed that they felt they needed to work twice as hard to prove themselves, and highlighted safety concerns.

It isn’t clear whether the gender blindness among male martial artists reflected optimism, ignorance or something else. But the impact is the same: Women see gender as central to their experience. Men generally perceive gender to be irrelevant to the sport, and they don’t realize what women deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Unfortunately, gender blindness isn’t just relegated to Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Long studied by sociologists and gender scholars, it’s a pattern that lays the groundwork for abuse across all types of sports. And where gender blindness exists in combination with rigid hierarchies, it enables abuses of power and a culture of silence.

When people refuse or fail to recognize how gender shapes the experiences of women in sports, it becomes much harder to address conditions that allow for harassment and assault to occur. For example, when inappropriate contact or groping during training is dismissed as merely “accidental” or minimized as someone being “handsy,” it signals that this behavior is trivial rather than harmful. And it creates an environment where women – and men – may feel uncomfortable coming forward or speaking out.

Some prominent figures in the Brazilian jiu-jistu community are making this connection.

In a recent postmatch victory speech, Brazilian jiu-jitsu champion and coach Adele Fornarino issued a call to action. Criticizing the hierarchical structure of the sport, she emphasized that people in positions of power are taking advantage of the vulnerable and called for “no more blissful ignorance.”

What comes next?

In jiu-jitsu, men have traditionally held positions of power. By and large, they’ve been the owners of gyms, the instructors leading classes, the holders of black belts.

But this has been changing: The adult black belt women’s division at the 2025 International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation World Championships saw a 40% increase in participants over the previous year. By contrast, participation in the men’s division decreased by 18%.

More women are standing side by side with men at the front of the class as leaders and experts. As a result, it’s possible that many male martial artists are more likely to respect, trust and see their female peers as equals.

When they live up to what they can be, the martial arts are a place where men and women struggle together and protect each other. They can develop unique friendships, cultivate empathy and practice mutual support.

Men and women having the opportunity to train together in the same gym can lead to what German sociologist Max Weber called “verstehen”: the kind of understanding that comes from working closely enough with someone to grasp the fears, aspirations and experiences that drive them. Spaces that allow for that depth of connection are all too rare.

We see the swift denunciation of Galvao, a legend in the sport, as a sign that Brazilian jiu-jitsu may be progressing toward a culture centered on care, concern and restraint instead of dominance and power.

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

– ref. Brazilian jiu-jitsu is having its #MeToo moment – https://theconversation.com/brazilian-jiu-jitsu-is-having-its-metoo-moment-275916

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Neringa Klumbytė, Professor of Anthropology, Miami University; Lithuanian Institute of History

In 1991, a simple line appeared in Broom, a Lithuanian satire and humor journal. “A shortest joke: Communism,” it said. A one-liner to celebrate the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion, a shortest joke could be told about Russia’s war in Ukraine: “Liberation.”

Since the Russian Federation began its “special military operation” to “liberate” Ukrainians on Feb. 24, 2022, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions have fled their homes, cities have been destroyed, and water and land have been contaminated. But people in Ukraine still laugh. Laugh to overcome pain, express solidarity and resilience, and hope for the victory.

In the first two months of 2026, there have been over 200 attacks on energy infrastructure across Ukraine, damaging thermal and hydroelectric plants and causing prolonged electricity outages. Millions were left without power or with just a few hours of electricity. I asked my friend in Kyiv how she is holding up. She responded, “Organic matter survives better in cold.”

I have studied humor in authoritarian and democratic states for many years. I have been fascinated by humor’s power to overcome pain and liberate from absurdity and oppression. In Ukraine, war humor has mobilized people, expressed their resistance and helped them overcome daily hardships.

Dangerous jokes

Throughout history, satirists and cartoonists have faced punishment, prison and even executions. Lenin and Stalin, like Mao and Hitler, allowed no laughter at the expense of themselves or their regimes. The power of humor lies in its capacity to mobilize people for a common cause. It is a weapon of the powerful as well as the powerless.

In authoritarian states, official humor reinforces the state’s political ideology and is a propaganda tool. Soviet satire and humor journals, for example, ridiculed Western imperialism. They satirized various ills of Western societies – high crime rates, unemployment, homelessness, corruption and poverty – while presenting the Soviet Union as more advanced.

Since 2022, many comedians have left Russia, some under threat. Like in Soviet times, anti-regime jokes can be told in kitchens and among friends but cannot freely circulate. In state media comedy shows, jokes about Putin are told from time to time, but they are used to bolster his image as a powerful, cunning leader, and hold up Russia as a great country.

War humor

In democratic societies, people are generally free to laugh at what they want. Ukrainian humor circulates from grassroots social media to government offices, to business sites. Since 2022, Ukrainian social media has been flooded by jokes – producing the biggest virtual humor archive in the history of wars.

But war humor is different from humor in times of peace. It can be hateful, obscene, grotesque, vulgar and dark. It fulfills many functions, from defense mechanism and survival strategy to a form of escape.

When lights went off in the winter of 2026, Ukrainians joked that even without light, they can see that “Putin is a ‘khuylo’” – an obscene punch line. Some jokes noted that Ukrainians do not have electricity but have power; or that there is no electricity in Ukraine, but there is light – and there is no light in Russia.

War humor has also been a form of resistance and perseverance. After Putin’s nuclear threats in 2022, memes about an orgy on Kyiv’s Mount Shchekavitsa in the event of an “end of the world” began to spread online. People were invited to join in case they had unfulfilled sexual fantasies. Memes multiplied of a couple passionately kissing in the background of a nuclear mushroom cloud.

One young man, presumably one of 15,000 who signed up for the orgy on Telegram, told Radio Free Europe, “It’s an attempt to show that the more they try to scare us, the more we will transform it into something else.”

Similar groups popped up, including a group promoting an orgy on Odesa’s Derybasivska Street. The orgy idea led to other forms of civic activism, such as the Soloma Cats charity foundation organizing first-aid training on Mount Shchekavitsa.

Laughing toward victory

Humor also is a form of news and commentary. Some people learn about international events, policy decisions and even battle victories from jokes rather than the mainstream media.

At the beginning of the war, internet memes laughed at European leaders’ reluctance to supply arms to Ukraine. Billionaire Elon Musk was mocked in October 2022 after suggesting a plan for peace that would repeat elections in annexed regions, recognize Crimea as Russian territory and make Ukraine a neutral country. Even Pope Francis was laughed at for his March 2024 suggestion that Ukraine should wave “the white flag and negotiate” to save lives, which for Ukrainians meant surrendering their sovereignty.

During the Ukrainian army’s counteroffensive in 2022, humor spread news of victories in Kherson, Bakhmut and other cities, laughing at Russian forces. Memes commonly portrayed Russian soldiers as incompetent, indoctrinated, or as zombies. Comparisons to Orcs in “The Lord of the Rings” were prominent, with one meme suggesting, “Stop calling Orcs Russians, it’s offensive toward Orcs.”

In response to reports of Russian soldiers stealing loot to sell in Belarussian open markets, Ukrainians created a meme of reselling captured Russian tanks at a “farmer’s market.” Another joke about Russian looting: “Did you take Kharkiv?” “No.” “Kyiv?” “No.” “What did you take?” “A washing machine, a mixer, and shoes …”

Some of the jokes provide commentary on global geopolitics, including Russia’s propaganda that it had been threatened by NATO. “Did you hear? It turns out Russia is at war with NATO,” one man asks. “How is it going for them?” asks another. “They already lost tens of thousands of soldiers and a ton of military equipment.” “And NATO?” “Oh, they have not arrived yet.”

In some ways, such jokes are a counteroffensive against Russian disinformation. In fact-checking, journalists fight propaganda with logical arguments, but propaganda targets emotions, identity and fears. Humor does not argue; it changes the context itself, subverting the message. And whereas fact-checking treats an opponent seriously, humor makes them ridiculous.

Ultimately, Ukrainians’ laughter communicates resistance, solidarity and dedication to victory. In one joke, a husband asks his wife why she bought seven bottles of wine. What about water and preserves, in case the war drags on? The woman responds: “I am getting ready to celebrate the victory!”

Neringa Klumbytė 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. Front lines of humor: Dark humor voices Ukrainians’ hopes for victory – https://theconversation.com/front-lines-of-humor-dark-humor-voices-ukrainians-hopes-for-victory-265948

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gregory F. Treverton, Professor of Practice in International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

When the bombing of Iran began on Feb. 28, 2026, the Trump administration had not informed the American people exactly what it was prepared to achieve.

Was the attack intended to degrade Iran’s nuclear program? Trump had declared that “obliterated” after last June’s bombing.

Was it to slow Iran’s ballistic missile program? U.S. intelligence assesses that Iran is years away from any ballistic missile that could strike the United States.

Was it to show support for Iran’s opposition, as Trump’s earlier “HELP IS ON ITS WAY” posts on Truth Social suggested? A bombing campaign that was bound to kill innocent Iranians, including 175 people at a girls elementary school near a military base, seemed an odd form of support.

I am a scholar and former practitioner of intelligence and national security policy in the White House. I believe there are lessons in effecting political change in Iran that can be taken, ironically, from the very U.S.- and British-led clandestine campaign in the mid-20th century that set Iran on the road to the intense anti-Western and anti-American sentiment that has characterized its government policy for decades.

How does this end?

President Trump has said he wants regime change in Iran but has articulated no strategy for achieving that end.

Strategy is the connection between means and ends. For waging a war, it means asking whether the military means available match the desired military outcome. In trying to effect political change, it means asking whether the instruments employed will produce the desired change.

As journalist Fareed Zakaria put it, “‘Bomb and hope’ is not a strategy.”

Looking at the last U.S. effort at regime change in Iran – the CIA’s 1953 covert program to oust Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and strengthen Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s rule – offers insight into what might have been … and what still might be this time around in Iran.

Mossadegh had moved to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company – effectively, British oil interests. Britain responded with an an oil embargo and a severe economic squeeze on Iran.

Western powers feared that prolonged Iranian instability could open the door to Soviet influence in the oil-rich country – a central Cold War concern.

By early 1953 the U.S. government, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, authorized the CIA to prepare a covert plan to remove Mossadegh and restore effective power to the shah, who at the time held a more ceremonial role. British intelligence had been pushing a similar agenda, and the two services collaborated on both the strategy and its implementation.

The operational details, especially those declassified in recent decades, paint a striking picture of a carefully planned clandestine political intervention that was successful, rather than a simple military invasion.

A far cry from ‘bomb and hope’

The British-American budget for the joint plan was modest by military standards. It was aimed at propaganda and influence operations, and it sought to shape public perception and political support.

It was composed of three elements. First it funded newspapers and printed propaganda designed to discredit Mossadegh, portraying him as corrupt or sympathetic to communism. The propaganda also promoted fears of instability and communist infiltration.

Second, according to declassified histories, agents staged “false flag” incidents – attacks attributed to communists, for example – to stoke fear and backlash against Mossadegh among religious and conservative groups.

Third, the coup planners attempted to engage influential clerical leaders and organizations to amplify anti-Mossadegh sentiment.

Shaping the crowds on Tehran’s streets proved critical to the operation. The CIA organized demonstrators to pose as pro-shah protesters, including paying individuals to chant slogans and confront Mossadegh supporters.

These orchestrated demonstrations climaxed on Aug. 19, 1953, when pro-shah forces and sympathetic leaders in the Iranian military – with CIA financial and logistical backing – seized key points of the country, confronted Mossadegh loyalists and helped topple his government. Estimates suggest around 200 to 300 people were killed in the chaotic fighting in Tehran.

What might have been, and what might be

The Mossadegh coup occurred in a less transparent world. However – and regardless of how you feel about it – the coup suggests the value of having a strategy to accomplish political change and, beyond Israel, bringing allies along if possible.

So far, Trump has called for the Iranian military and the Revolutionary Guard to lay down their arms. But the Trump administration has provided no guidance on how to do so, or to whom to do so.

Surely, the administration should be able to devise a plan for potential political change in Iran. It has insight from the years it has spent negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran. Recent events suggest the extent of Israeli, if not American, penetration of Iran.

In 2018, for instance, Israel’s Mossad national intelligence agency broke into an Iranian facility and stole archives on Iran’s nuclear activities, 55,000 pages and another 55,000 files stored on CDs.

In June 2025, Israel conducted covert drone operations deep inside Iran, in concert with airstrikes on Iranian missile and military infrastructure. Mossad reportedly established an undercover drone network and launched explosive drones to neutralize air defenses and missile launchers before the main attack.

The successful targeting of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his close associates in the latest round of airstrikes suggests the extent of likely Israeli monitoring of Iranian communications by Mossad and the CIA.

Crises tend to put pressure on governments to open communications channels, and the take from any successful eavesdropping might be passed to opposition groups to help them organize and avoid capture.

If Israel can smuggle explosive drones into Iran, it should be able to make the satellite internet provider Starlink and its kin available to enable the opposition to better – and more safely – organize.

It is late in the day to emulate the Mossadegh coup with information operations, and it is probably more difficult in an era of ubiquitous social media, not newspapers. But it’s not too late to try.

I believe those brave opposition elements in Iran, who have been killed by their government and bombed by the United States and Israel, deserve no less.

Gregory F. Treverton 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. CIA agents successfully executed a plan for regime change in Iran in 1953 – but Trump hasn’t revealed any signs of a plan – https://theconversation.com/cia-agents-successfully-executed-a-plan-for-regime-change-in-iran-in-1953-but-trump-hasnt-revealed-any-signs-of-a-plan-277202

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Svetla Ben-Itzhak, Assistant Professor of Space and International Relations, Johns Hopkins University

Private companies are no longer peripheral participants in U.S. space activities. They provide key services, including launching and deploying satellites, transporting cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station, and even sending landers to the Moon.

Commercial integration is now embedded in U.S. space policy and shapes national space strategy. As someone who studies space and international security, I have watched the extraordinary rise of commercial space with awe – and with growing concerns about the structural vulnerabilities it creates.

Access to space, particularly for crewed missions, remains heavily concentrated in one company, SpaceX. While the United States has begun developing alternatives, in operational reality that concentration gives the company disproportionate leverage. If private power and public strategy were to diverge, would Washington have a credible Plan B?

Commercial integration is now official policy

On Feb. 4, the House Science Committee approved the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2026, directing the agency to partner with American commercial providers for operations in low-Earth orbit, lunar landings and the transition beyond the International Space Station. In critical areas such as lunar landers, the bill requires NASA to work with at least two commercial providers – a deliberate effort to avoid dependence on a single company.

President Donald Trump’s December 2025 executive order expressed similar preference for prioritizing commercial solutions in federal space activities and set a goal of attracting at least US$50 billion in additional private investment in space by 2028. The U.S. Space Force’s 2024 Commercial Space Strategy also emphasizes speed and innovation through private partnerships.

Congress, the White House and the military are aligned: The government sets objectives, then private industry builds – and increasingly operates – the space systems. This shift has been bipartisan and explicit, and it has delivered results.

From cost savings to structural dominance

Its origins trace back to a moment of vulnerability.

After the retirement of the space shuttle in 2011, the United States temporarily lost independent human spaceflight capability. For nearly a decade, NASA relied on Russian Soyuz spacecraft, paying up to $80 million per astronaut seat, roughly $4 billion in total.

NASA responded by turning deliberately to commercial providers through the commercial crew and commercial resupply programs. The goal was pragmatic: to reduce costs, restore domestic launch capability and accelerate innovation. Under these programs, NASA provided funding and oversight while companies built and operated their own systems.

It worked.

Launch costs fell by almost 70% in some cases. The pace of launches increased.

SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk, became central to this new architecture. Its Falcon 9 rocket now carries the majority – five of every six – of U.S. launches to orbit. Since 2020, its Crew Dragon spacecraft has also routinely transported NASA astronauts, restoring the U.S.’s ability to launch people to orbit after a 10-year gap.

In high-risk and capital-intensive space sectors such as launch and crewed transport, the development costs are enormous. Few companies can afford to compete. The company that makes reliable rockets first, and at a large scale, like SpaceX, wins contracts and consolidates its market share.

Efficiency and consolidation have given SpaceX dominance. This dominance, in turn, creates leverage – not because the company acts in bad faith but because alternatives are limited.

Market concentration is not inherently problematic. But strategic infrastructure – such as the access to space that underpins military operations, communications and critical national systems – is not a normal consumer market. When a single company controls most launches or operates the only crewed spacecraft, its financial troubles, technical setbacks or leadership disputes can disrupt the entire country’s strategic capabilities.

The Musk episode as a warning

In 2025, during a public dispute over government contracts and regulatory matters, Elon Musk briefly threatened to decommission the Dragon spacecraft – the vehicle NASA relies on to transport astronauts to orbit.

Musk quickly backed off his threat, and missions continued. No astronauts were stranded, but the moment was revealing.

At the time, Boeing’s Starliner capsule still faced technical delays. There was no fully operational alternative ready to assume the mission immediately. Even a short-lived threat exposed how tightly U.S. access to space had become linked to the stability of a single firm – and arguably a single individual.

So, is there a Plan B?

A credible Plan B for space does not mean abandoning commercial partnerships. It means ensuring that alternatives exist.

Historically, assured access to space has meant having more than one way to reach orbit. Today, that principle extends to crew transport, lunar logistics, satellite services and data infrastructure.

Congress appears aware of this. The current NASA reauthorization bill requires the agency to diversify providers in key programs, particularly lunar landers. The intent is to build redundancy deliberately into the system, making it more resilient to potential shocks.

But redundancy is expensive. Maintaining parallel systems, supporting multiple providers and preserving internal government expertise require long-term funding and political commitment. Markets alone likely will not guarantee diversification in these expensive sectors.

In February 2026, Congress moved to legislate greater diversification into U.S. space strategy. The intent is clear, but the timeline is not. It remains uncertain when, or if, the bill will become law.

For now, U.S. access to space, particularly for crewed missions, remains heavily reliant on SpaceX. Plan B exists on paper, but in reality it is still under construction.

Strategic permanence in space requires options

The stakes will only grow.

As the United States expands into cislunar space – the region between Earth and the Moon – and looks to establish a sustained presence on the Moon, its reliance on commercial providers will deepen.

Commercial dynamism has revitalized American leadership in space, but it has also revealed structural vulnerabilities. Durable systems rarely depend on a single center of power. In Federalist No. 51, James Madison, the fourth U.S. President, argued that stable political orders require competing forces so that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” His insight was political, but the logic can apply. Economic resilience emerges from balance, not concentration.

The United States has chosen a commercial path in space, and that choice has delivered extraordinary gains. But permanence beyond Earth will require a deliberate balance: multiple providers for critical services, overlapping capabilities, and alternatives robust enough to absorb shocks.

Commercial space can underpin American leadership in the new space age, but only if access to orbit, and beyond, never rests on a single, indispensable company.

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

– ref. A Plan B for space? On the risks of concentrating national space power in private hands – https://theconversation.com/a-plan-b-for-space-on-the-risks-of-concentrating-national-space-power-in-private-hands-275618

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Catherine A. Sanderson, Poler Family Professor of Psychology, Amherst College

Three young Americans – Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone – successfully tackled a gunman on a train in France, saving passengers.

The journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna reported on Ukrainian citizens held unlawfully by Russia; she was captured and died in detention in Russia.

Welles Crowther, often known as the “man in the red bandana,” was a 24-year-old equities trader who guided numerous people in the South Tower on 9/11 to safety before ultimately dying when the tower collapsed.

All of these people are clearly heroes. They engaged in courageous behavior – and risked physical peril – to benefit others or in service of a broader moral cause.

Psychologists like me describe heroes as people who take some type of intentional action to help other people, even when they may experience a personal cost for doing so. As Stanford psychology professor Phil Zimbardo put it, heroism involves taking a personal risk for the common good.

In some cases, people who take these risks experience potentially negative social consequences such as disapproval, ostracism and career setbacks. I describe people who show moral courage, meaning they are willing to speak up even when they may incur such costs, as moral rebels. Moral rebels are willing to take actions like tell a bully to cut it out, call out a friend who uses a racist slur, or report a colleague who engages in corporate fraud.

But when people think about heroism, they often focus on physical courage, such as jumping into a frozen pond to rescue a drowning child, leaping onto subway tracks to help someone who has fallen, or grabbing a gun from a shooter. What enables someone to engage in this type of physically risky – even life-threatening – behavior?

The characteristics of a hero

People tend to think of heroes as having particular traits: fearlessness, bravery, strength and altruism, along with selflessness, wisdom and resilience. Does the empirical research match up with that common conception?

Researchers in one study compared personality traits among three different groups of non-Jewish adults who lived during the time of the Holocaust: those who had rescued at least one Jewish person, those who had provided no help, and those who left Europe before the start of World War II. Their findings provide clear evidence that heroes stand out in important ways.

People who risked their own lives to help Jewish people scored higher on risk-taking, meaning they felt more comfortable with danger. They also scored higher on independence and perceived control; they felt comfortable making a decision and then taking action. They also rated higher in traits expressing concern about others, including altruism, empathy and social responsibility.

Although the Holocaust is obviously a unique situation, other research on heroic behavior reveals a similar constellation of traits. For example, one study compared the traits of people who had received the Canadian Medal of Bravery – a national award given to people who have risked their own lives to save another person – to a control group of people who were similar in demographic characteristics. The researchers found that people who engaged in heroism shared particular traits, including greater confidence in their ability to act, a stronger ability to put themselves in someone else’s shoes, and more positive feelings toward other people.

These findings reveal that heroism is at least in part determined by who you are, and that it’s not just a single trait that matters. People who engage in various types of bravery tend to show a particular combination of traits. They feel comfortable taking action even when it involves danger and they feel compassion for other people.

The power of modeling

Although some people may have a greater predisposition to heroism based on their personality, situational factors also play a key role in inspiring heroic behavior.

One study by sociologists examined what motivated members of the majority Hutu population to risk their own lives to help members of the Tutsi population during the 1984 genocide in Rwanda. This analysis of in-depth interviews with people who reported saving at least one person from this violence – often by hiding someone in their own home – identified several key factors predicting their behavior.

First, one of the strongest predictors of whether people helped refugees was having parents or grandparents who had done so during previous episodes of violence in their country. As one man noted, he chose to act because of “what my parents had done in previous years.” People who have seen physical courage modeled by others are more likely to act in heroic ways.

This is strikingly similar to what motivated heroism in Nazi Germany. Historian Mark Klempner’s study of Dutch people who rescued Jewish children revealed that nearly all reported having a parent or relative who had consistently gone out of their way to help other people in different contexts.

Perhaps not surprisingly, religious beliefs also played a role in motivating heroic behavior during the Rwandan genocide. More than half of those in the study who rescued people mentioned the role that their faith played in this decision.

The third factor motivating this type of heroic behavior was social ties. People were far more likely to help friends or neighbors. These personal connections likely fostered greater empathy for people in need, which in turn motivated action, even when doing so created considerable risk.

The role of training

Although people with particular personality traits may have an easier time being brave, as do those whose relatives who modeled such behavior, heroism can also be acquired through training, which is good news for us all. People who take CPR classes, for example, know they have the skills necessary to step up during health emergencies and are therefore more likely to do so.

Two of those three American men who stopped a man with an assault rifle on a train had some type of military training; one served in the Air Force, and another served in the National Guard. Military training is designed precisely to help people become brave – so they can take action, even at great personal risk.

Realizing that heroes can be built through training led psychology researcher Phil Zimbardo to create the Heroic Imagination Project, which focuses on helping people develop the skills needed to step up and act heroically – whether defending what’s right in a work meeting or intervening with a bully at school. For example, children who participate in heroism training become more courageous, suggesting that anyone can learn to be braver.

Most importantly, this approach is based in the belief that heroism does not require a unique set of personality traits; instead, heroism occurs when ordinary people choose to step up in dangerous situations, even when doing so involves considerable risk.

As Matt Langdon, the executive director of the Heroic Imagination Project, notes, “the opposite of a hero is not a villain, but a bystander.”

Catherine A. Sanderson 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. Are heroes born or made? Role models and training can prepare ordinary people to take heroic action – https://theconversation.com/are-heroes-born-or-made-role-models-and-training-can-prepare-ordinary-people-to-take-heroic-action-274505